File #173: "Enslaving VA.pdf"

To the Reader
The Enslaving Virginia story line team developed this Resource Book to support your
interpretations of slavery in the colonial Chesapeake that will be the focus of the
Becoming Americans theme in 1999.
This Resource Book documents Virginia‘s particular story of slavery within the context
of the Atlantic world from the early seventeenth century to the American Revolution and
beyond to the adoption of the fifteenth amendment in 1870. The primary and secondary
sources selected both reveal the harsh realities of Virginia‘s racially based slave system
and provide insights into the lives, fortunes, and values of all Virginians, enslaved and
free, trapped in its practice. Some of these documents are also testimonies to the
triumphant human spirit of those who suffered most from the brutality of slavery and of
those who courageously opposed the system.
The Resource Book has been organized into the following sections:
Interpretive Key Points and the Enslaving Virginia Essay
Prologue: Slavery in Human History
American Odyssey: Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery
American Diversity: Crucible of Cultures
Aspects of Slave Life in Eighteenth- and Early-Nineteenth Century Virginia
The Material World
American Diversity: Williamsburg
American Paradox: Freedom and Slavery
Epilogue: Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Evocations of Slavery
Appendices: Williamsburg Directory, 1775; Demographic Information,
Chronology, Biographies, and Bibliography
The Enslaving Virginia story line team would like to express their gratitude to
Julie Richter for her great contribution to our efforts as both researcher and editor of the
Resource Book. Julie Richter and Lorena Walsh‘s critical insights into the nature of
slavery in the colonial Chesapeake and their knowledge of the lives of slaves and owners
in the Williamsburg will greatly enhance our interpretations. We wish to thank Lou
Powers for the biographies she developed. Many others gave generously to the effort of
researching and writing portions of the book: Lynn Nelson, Antoinette van Zelm,
Barbara Lovelace, Heather Wainwright, Carrie Krop, Terry Dunn, Karen Sutton, and
Gayle Henion. We are indebted to their work. We also wish to thank the members of the
interpretive staff and Historical Research Department for their creative suggestions and
generous support.
We especially wish to express our thanks to the Richard Gwathmey and Caroline T.
Gwathmey Memorial Trust for their generous gift in support of the Resource Book.
Grants from the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public Policy and the
Huntington Library supported research on the Williamsburg slave community
Anne Willis and Story Line Members

2

ENSLAVING VIRGINIA
The ―Enslaving Virginia‖ story line will examine the institution of racial slavery
in the colonial Chesapeake, exploring its pervasive influence on the lives, fortunes, and
values of all Virginians and its impact on the development of the new nation.

KEY POINTS

I.

AMERICAN ODYSSEY: INDENTURED SERVITUDE TO RACIAL
SLAVERY
The demands of the world economy shaped the emerging plantation cultures,
leading to a shift from indentured servitude to racial slavery in America.

II.

AMERICAN DIVERSITY: CRUCIBLE OF CULTURES
The reality of colonial life forced the interaction of diverse peoples and cultures
despite the laws and traditions of eighteenth-century Virginia. These interactions
had a profound impact on the development of American society.

III.

AMERICAN PARADOX: FREEDOM AND SLAVERY
The enlightened ideas of freedom and equality in conflict with the historical
practice of slavery and racism shaped the thoughts and lives all Virginians as they
moved toward revolution and republican government.

3

ENSLAVING VIRGINIA
BACKGROUND AND THESIS

A system of hereditary bondage for blacks developed gradually in the decades following
the arrival of the first Africans at Jamestown by 1619. Slavery became entrenched in
Virginia over the next 150 years. A series of restrictive laws reinforced by community
and family mores legitimized its hold on blacks and whites alike.
Slavery – defined as the ownership and forced exploitation of one person by another –
was the foundation of the agricultural system in Virginia and the cornerstone of the
colony‘s economy. At first, planters bought slaves primarily to raise tobacco for export.
By the last quarter of the eighteenth century, slave-owning farmers were using bound
labor throughout the diversified agricultural economy of the region. Enslaved AfricanAmericans also worked as skilled tradesmen in the countryside as well as in the capital
city of Williamsburg. Some served as domestics in the households of wealthy white
Virginians.
The frequent interaction between black slaves and white masters, and, for that matter,
between blacks and whites in general, created a complex interdependence that eventually
produced a distinctive hybrid culture. Relations between the races were as destructive as
they were unequal. The horrors of slavery, both physical and psychological, were
numerous. The system conferred a presumption of superiority on whites whether or not
they were slaveholders. Economic reliance on slave labor, fears about the consequences
of emancipation, and unyielding racial prejudice and cultural bias all contributed to the
maintenance of slavery at the same time that whites severed the colony‘s bonds to Great
Britain. The ―Enslaving Virginia‖ story explains the effects of slavery and the influence
of Africans on every aspect of Virginia society.
The term African-Virginian is used to reflect more accurately the distinct differences
between the slave experience in Virginia and, to a larger extent, in the Chesapeake from
that in the Carolinas or the northern colonies.
SLAVERY TAKES ROOT AND GROWS

The notion that slavery was inconsistent with the Englishman‘s love of liberty has long
been an argument advanced by die-hard apologists. It is untenable. English settlers
seldom doubted the superiority of their own customs and culture. They were quick to
adopt the same exploitative policies used effectively by other European colonizers in
dealing with the peoples they encountered and conquered in the New World. Their
contemporaneous experience subduing the native peoples of Ireland gave them practice
and precedent for the conquest of Virginia. Few Englishmen in the seventeenth century
doubted that they were God‘s chosen instruments to bring the blessings of civilization
and true religion to alien peoples who lacked both.

4

From the beginning, English settlers in Virginia pursued two goals primarily: to make the
colony a financial success and to convert Indians to Christianity. The English regarded
their possession of North America to be justified and righteous, however much it appears
arrogant and immoral today. They believed they could make better use of the land and its
resources than did the Indians they dispossessed. They saw it as their duty as Christians
to spread the gospel ―throughout the world.‖ They were prepared to employ if possible,
and to subdue if necessary, any peoples living within reach of their New World trading
empire.
Other Europeans besides the English had similar economic ambitions and held similar
convictions about their own cultural and religious superiority. The Portuguese and
Spanish had already colonized parts of Central and South America a century before the
English gained a toehold in Virginia. Seeking easy profits, Europeans grew semitropical
crops – especially sugar and tobacco – for the international market. Such crops lent
themselves to plantation production and the forced labor of Native American and,
increasingly, African slaves. Between 1450 and 1600, European merchants and
colonizers collaborated with certain rulers and merchants in West Africa to establish a
regular trade in slaves. European products and New World staples changed hands for
African gold, ivory, and human captives. Whereas laws in northern Europe made no
provision for slavery, Spanish and Portuguese practice in the New World provided a
ready model that later-arriving Dutch, French, and English colonists quickly adopted.
Shortly after the establishment of Jamestown, the Virginia Company revoked its earlier
policy and advised the settlers to shun their Indian neighbors. At first, settlers had
formed a mutually beneficial alliance with the Algonquin peoples of Tidewater Virginia.
The Algonquins had provided the settlers with food, land, and protection from more
hostile Native American groups. For their part, the English became valuable trading
partners to the Algonquins. Their reciprocal alliance began to crumble by the 1620s. The
English settlers‘ insatiable desire for land that natives were unwilling to cede often led to
bloodshed. Conflicts also arose over English attempts to convert Native Americans to
Christianity and efforts to enslave the Algonquins. The Virginia government banished
Native Americans from white settlements after 1622 and sometimes even tried to
exterminate them altogether. Never-ending guerrilla warfare between Indians and
settlers, when coupled with the Virginians‘ practice of occasionally enslaving native
captives taken in war, encouraged racial hatred. The enslavement of Africans in the
following decades forced Native American groups to choose between aiding the English
by helping to enforce slave laws or assisting blacks by harboring runaways.
Slavery was not unfamiliar to most Africans. Ancient African civilizations relied heavily
on slave labor to perform a variety of tasks, as did many other societies throughout the
course of history. The Islamic world sanctioned slavery as a legitimate strategy to
convert ―pagans‖ to the true religion. From the seventeenth century on, Arab and Muslim
societies traded for slaves in northern and sub-Saharan Africa. Those from sub-Saharan
Africa were used as domestic servants or as farm hands; those from North Africa as
soldiers, administrators, and house slaves.

5

Slavery was also a fairly common practice in the kinship-based societies of West and
Central Africa. Owning people was a source and a symbol of wealth in societies where
the community, rather than individuals, held all rights to land. There, slaves were usually
war captives, criminals, debtors (or their designates), and sometimes foreigners. Some
were purchased for lifelong servitude, while others could eventually earn their freedom.
Depending on the nature of local resources, economic systems, and social and legal
structures, slaves in different parts of West and Central Africa were used as agricultural
laborers, miners, or porters. Others served as soldiers, clerks, concubines, or religious
sacrifices. Like members of the European gentry, privileged Africans gained power,
wealth, and status by controlling dependent persons – wives, children, kin, clients,
subjects, and servants and slaves. African slavery was thus a part of a continuum of
social relationships. Since slavery was already a way of life in several African societies,
Europeans at first simply had to establish trading partnerships and alliances (by force if
necessary) to tap into existing supplies of enslaved men and women. But soon
entrepreneurs organized raiding parties to kidnap captives to meet the growing demand.
The New World market gradually transformed traditional forms of African slavery into
capitalist enterprise.
The demand for ever-larger numbers of slaves to work New World staple crop
plantations and mines led to the forced transatlantic migration of roughly 11.5 million
Africans in the three centuries from 1500 to 1800. (Some estimates place the number as
high as 40,000,000 to 100,000,000 to account for smuggling, poor record keeping, and
higher mortality rates en route to the New World than conventional estimates project.)
Almost 75 percent of enslaved Africans, the largest proportion, were taken to Central and
South America by the Portuguese and Spanish. Approximately 600,000 Africans were
brought into British North America between 1619 and 1775.
Most English slave owners were interested in Africans with skills that matched their
needs. They sought out farming peoples and those with metal- and woodworking skills.
Despite the horrors of transportation and the burden of work they were expected to
perform, Africans brought to mainland North America managed to survive far better than
those who ended up in other parts of the Americas. The high rate of survival can be
attributed to the more favorable epidemiological environment in British North America
as contrasted with that of the Caribbean and Central and South America. It was also
owing to their adaptability and resistance and to tobacco cultivation, which less laborintensive than sugar production. These factors also resulted in unusually high rates of
natural increase, especially among creole slaves. By 1770, Africans and their Americanborn descendants made up 40 percent of Virginia‘s population. Many counties had
substantial black majorities.
Most bound workers in Virginia were white indentured servants, not African slaves, until
the 1680s. Thereafter, Virginia planters began purchasing significantly larger numbers of
Africans to supplement and eventually to replace dwindling supplies of English and Irish
servants willing to work in the tobacco fields. So long as blacks were a small minority of
the Chesapeake population (before 1690, Africans and their descendants made up no
more than 7 percent of the population in Virginia and Maryland), black and white

6

laborers usually worked side by side in the fields, ate and socialized together, shared
living quarters, and, in some cases, formed mixed race families.
Most blacks, but not all, were bought and sold as chattel slaves. Early on, the
circumstances in which transported Africans arrived in the Chesapeake colonies often
determined their subsequent status as bondsmen for life or occasionally as free blacks.
Between the mid-1660s and the early eighteenth century, the Virginia legislature
strengthened the laws that gave planters the right to hold Africans and their descendants
as lifelong slaves. These laws reinforced the equation between slaves‘ bondage and their
African ancestry. The legal status of a person of mixed race was determined by his or her
mother‘s race and status. These legal changes made slaves a more attractive investment
despite their higher initial sale price.
Until the last quarter of the seventeenth century, many men and women from West Africa
were transported to the Chesapeake by way of the West Indies rather than directly from
Africa. For some, the islands were a brief stopping place on the forced journey from
Africa. Others had labored on Caribbean plantations before they were resold to masters
on the mainland. Others were island born. These earliest Africans and their West Indiesborn children, especially those from societies long involved in the transatlantic slave
trade, were familiar with Europeans. They knew their languages, customs, and religions.
Some of them, former middlemen, were personally acquainted with the European slave
trade. They drew on this knowledge and on their skills at intercultural negotiation to
blunt slaves‘ abuse and debasement by their New World masters. They knowingly
cultivated patrons and embraced mediating institutions such as churches to improve their
chances and to establish a place for themselves in a still ill-defined social order.
Attempts to tame their oppressors‘ political and economic institutions proved difficult at
best and mostly ineffectual. Surer successes were those that individual slaves negotiated
directly with their owners.
A RACIALLY FRACTURED SOCIETY EMERGES

Slave traders brought approximately 54,000 blacks to Virginia and Maryland from 1700
to 1740. The majority were sold to planters in a few lower Tidewater counties, including
York and James City, adjacent to Williamsburg. Many forced migrants came from the
inland areas of Ibo-speaking West Africa. They were mostly peoples who had had little
or no contact with transatlantic trade and European cultures. Transported to the
Chesapeake, they found themselves in an alien land where languages, landscape, climate,
diseases, and other peoples were utterly unfamiliar. Olaudah Equiano, an African who
wrote a narrative of his homeland, capture, and enslavement, described his first encounter
with the European slave traders. Equiano remembered, ―I was now persuaded that I had
gotten into a world of bad spirits….When I looked round the ship too, and saw a large
furnace of copper boiling, and a multitude of black people of every description chained
together, every one of their countenances expressing dejection and sorrow, I no longer
doubted my fate…I asked them if we were not to be eaten by those white men with
horrible looks, red faces, and long hair.‖
To white Virginians, raw Africans seemed outlandish, godforsaken, and unruly. Masters

7

set about ―taming‖ them by giving them new names and enforcing their use. Writing to
his overseer in 1727, Robert ―King‖ Carter gave specific instructions for renaming newly
acquired slaves: Take ―care that the negroes both men & women I sent…always go by ye
names we gave them.‖ Slaveholders also punished slaves who tried to maintain
traditional African cultural customs or observed their native religious practices. Most
were put to work doing repetitious and backbreaking agricultural labor. Slave drivers
often used the newly arrived Africans‘ ignorance of English and their resistance to
enslavement as excuses for imposing harsher discipline and more stringent work rule.
White servants became an increasingly distinct minority among bound laborers by the
1730s. Improving economic conditions at home stemmed the flow of bound immigrants
from the British Isles. White indentured servants in the colonies distanced themselves
little by little from blacks and demanded privileges that the law denied to slaves but
granted to servants because of their European ancestry. Slaveholders and public officials
favored the claims of white people, thereby widening the gap between slave and
nonslave.
English arrogance soon found ways to rationalize the racist treatment of native
Americans and the enslavement of Africans, frequently by invoking the authority of
biblical scripture. Whites, too, were divided by wealth, social class, and ethnic heritage.
Nevertheless, they forged a common bond in their domination over blacks and Indians.
Slaveholders measured social status from the numbers of slaves they owned or hired from
other masters. Even poor whites, whether free or indentured, enjoyed the elevated status
that came with the color of their skin.
Racism created great divisions in Chesapeake society. Imposed English customs were an
affront to the belief systems of Native Americans. English attempts to force them to
adopt the Christian religion, European consumer goods, English farming practices, and
very different divisions of labor between men and women undermined traditional Indian
ways of life. Native religious beliefs were strongly based on achieving harmony and
balance between man and the natural world. Conflicts continued over land use and trade.
The growing numbers of Africans eventually threatened the status of natives in colonial
society. European notions of slavery were abhorrent to Indians. While some tribes tried
to remain neutral on the issue in an effort to achieve peace with the English, others found
subtle ways to express their displeasure with the practice.
Africans transported to Virginia and forced into an alien culture as adults had very
different life experiences than did slave children born in the colonies. The two groups
developed different strategies for survival. African-born slaves attached more
importance to maintaining their traditional religions because much of their culture was
tied to religious observance and ceremony. A Hausa proverb contains the prescription:
―It is when one is in trouble that he remembers God.‖ Although most Africans arrived in
the Americas without possessions, they were not without memory and custom, for, as a
Chagga proverb put it, ―The head of a man is a hiding place, a receptacle.‖ Creoles –
American-born slaves – often made a creative mix of African and Anglo-American
culture. Another Hausa maxim guided their strategy: ―When the drumbeat changes, the

8

dance changes.‖
Slavery also divided African-Americans into separate occupational and status groups that
included foremen, drivers, gang leaders, field hands, tradesmen, and house servants.
These were categories created by the slaveholders. Social hierarchies within a slave
community were, like as not, based on a slave‘s personality or on the significance of his
or her work to the community itself. The presence of free men and women of African
heritage further complicated the picture. So did those with biracial parents. The lines
drawn by a racially based slave system were blurry around the edges.
RACIAL SLAVERY CODIFIED

The institution of slavery was continually reshaped and redefined by government
legislation and judgments of the court. The governor, Council, and House of Burgesses
made laws setting the terms of slavery. Initially, punishments meted out to indentured
servants and apprentices and laws regulating their behavior were extended to cover
enslaved workers. Soon those laws proved to be inadequate. Workers held for life could
not be required to compensate masters for infractions against the rules by extending their
terms of service. Surprisingly quickly, from 1640 to 1662, slave owners interpreted
customary law and enacted formal legislation to make lifelong servitude the common
condition for all newly arrived Africans. Beginning in the 1600s, statutes also assigned
the legal status of children born in Virginia according to the condition of the mother.
Slave women had no legal protection against rape, and slave owners could hold in
perpetual bondage any children they or other white men fathered with slave mothers.
The law became increasingly restrictive in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries. It dictated a system of rigid social control: slaves were denied legal marriage,
freedom of movement, and even the right to defend themselves against life-threatening
physical abuse. A generation later, tutor Philip Vickers Fithian explained that ―the slaves
in this colony are never married, their lords thinking them improper subjects for so
valuable an Institution.‖ Other laws were passed in response to the growing fear of slave
uprisings. Severe sentences could be handed out to slaves who stole white people‘s
property, traveled without authorization, ran away, or resisted whipping or other
punishments.
Virginia rulers sought to curb the growth of the free black population. The presence of
free blacks challenged the legitimacy of the slave system. Legal grounds for
manumission were narrowly defined until after the Revolution. Free blacks increasingly
discovered that they were denied many of the rights accorded to free whites. They were
not allowed to own guns, to hold indentured servants, to intermarry with whites, to bear
witness against whites in court, or to hold offices of any kind. At the same time, they
were obliged to pay higher taxes than comparable white families.
Courts‘ administration of the law further defined the terms of slavery. Justices of the
peace applied a separate criminal code to cases involving blacks, used different trial
procedures, and handed down harsher punishments. Notwithstanding, government
officials and magistrates could provide redress for African-Virginians seeking mediation

9

in disputes between masters and slaves and presenting petitions on a variety of issues.
One-third of the petitions brought before the governor‘s Council between 1723 and 1775
were filed by slaves and free blacks. Matthew Ashby, a free black resident of
Williamsburg, was one of the successful petitioners. After purchasing his wife and
children from their owner, he asked the Council for permission to manumit them in
November 1769. Ashby may also have joined a group of free blacks who asked the
burgesses to repeal an unequal law requiring them to pay tithes on their wives and
daughters over the age of sixteen. The burgesses granted their request in 1769. These
petitioners cited ancient precedent for their tithe argument: Anthony Johnson, believe to
have one of the earliest Africans to arrive in the colony in 1619, had sought the same
consideration from a Virginia court in the 1640s, and he, too, had won his case.
Being enslaved meant always living in agonizing uncertainty. The only effective
restraint on owners‘ total power over their human property was self-interest. Sometimes
passion or greed overruled humanitarian instincts. Masters frequently and arbitrarily
revoked long-standing privileges and protections established by informal custom. They
could rape or maim their slaves with relative impunity. Courts seldom punished owners
who killed slaves in a fit of passion or intoxication. Masters might break up slave
families at any time through gift, sale, or hiring out, or force some to move to distant
holdings far from their kin. Whenever a slave owner died or got into financial trouble,
families were at risk of being parceled out among the owner‘s heirs and creditors with
equally tragic results. These dangers separated slaves from other bonded laborers.
CRACKS IN THE SYSTEM

Educational institutions and the established church encouraged the acceptance and spread
of slavery. Anglican ministers preached to black and white Virginians about their ―Godgiven‖ roles in civilized society and enjoined slaves to accept their fate and obey their
masters. The Bray School in Williamsburg taught young black children obedience along
with the three R‘s. At home, white children learned to become masters and mistresses by
watching their parents. Likewise, slave children learned survival strategies from their
elders. Interestingly, African-Virginians bent both church and school to serve their own
interests. Nearly one thousand slaves, children and adults, and a few free blacks were
baptized at Bruton Parish Church between 1746 and 1768. Some hoped that accepting
Christianity might lead to freedom; others may have sought special protection for their
children. Blacks who learned to write in Williamsburg sometimes forged travel passes
for other slaves, and readers discovered in the egalitarian pronouncements of white
revolutionaries a powerful critique of their masters‘ hypocrisy.
One institution, the evangelical church, preached a different message. New Light
Christians drew increasing numbers of slaves into their fold in the second half of the
century by offering hope of deliverance from persecution. Many evangelicals and their
followers openly denounced slavery. Some took their beliefs a step further by actively
seeking its abolition. About the same time, black preachers began to form their own
congregations and deliver openly antislavery messages. Biblical references to obedience
were replaced with scriptural passages about the Israelites, Daniel and the Lion, and Job,
which encouraged slaves to believe that freedom was possible in their lifetimes.

10

Against formidable odds, African-Virginians succeeded in establishing families,
extending kin connections, and making friends with slaves at other plantations. Kinship
networks and informal business relationships also included free blacks. The world blacks
made for themselves helped to ease the isolation, loneliness, and degradation of slavery.
Africans and their Virginia-born descendants developed their own system of social
relations in the quarters. They developed a semiautonomous culture that borrowed from
both African and English traditions. Observing customs that whites could not entirely
control afforded slaves some small measure of power over their lives and nurtured their
solidarity.
Little by little, and here and there, slaves‘ likes and dislikes worked significant changes in
plantation routines, work assignments, and the operation of local exchange networks. By
the early eighteenth century, for example, many slaves and masters had reached a general
understanding about the minimum amounts of food, clothing, and shelter that owners
were obliged to provide. In some cases, slaves were able to persuade owners to agree to
―reasonable‖ hours of labor and levels of output. Slaves responded to arbitrary,
unfavorable changes in plantation work rules with slowdowns and sabotage. Sometimes
they feigned sickness or ran away. Artisans insisted on customary work routines and
production requirements when masters tried to speed up work or to undercut their
autonomy. By the 1770s slaves and free blacks living in and around Williamsburg were
active and knowledgeable participants in a local cash-based trading economy however
much their actions were circumscribed. In theory, only chattels themselves, slaves
gradually earned from grudging masters the ―privilege‖ of keeping the profits from the
produce they raised in their free time. They quickly transformed those limited privileges
into more widely shared rights. By the end of the Revolutionary War, many masters had
come to accept their slaves‘ independent participation in local trading networks, however
incongruent with the idea of slavery.
Masters had a concede that there were benefits to allowing slaves to own ―property,‖ a
practice Thomas Jefferson called the ―peculium.‖ Owners recognized that the
opportunity to own property got around one of the chief problems of slave labor: the lack
of positive incentives. The practice of the peculium was widespread even if the term was
not. Slave owners‘ wills and inventories from the Williamsburg vicinity rarely list
clothing, utensils, poultry, or other livestock belonging to slaves. The omission was no
oversight, but rather an acknowledgment of the fact that such things were the slaves‘ own
possessions, not their masters‘. Archaeological evidence makes it clear that slaves
acquired a variety of goods. They purchased ―luxury‖ items with the money they earned
from their business ventures. Writing to Thomas Mann Randolph in 1798, Jefferson
advised, ―I thank you for putting an end to the cultivation of tobacco as the peculium of
the negroes…I have ever found it necessary to confine them to such articles as are not
raised on the farm. There is no other way of drawing a line between what is theirs &
mine.‖ Slaves throughout Virginia, particularly those who lived near urban areas, had
many opportunities to buy, sell, and trade products and produce they made or grew
themselves. Jefferson‘s concern about being unable to distinguish his property from that
of his slaves shows just how lucrative slave enterprises could be.

11

THE STRAINED WORK BLACKS AND WHITES MADE AND SHARED

Black and white cultures still retained distinctive traces of their English and African roots
in mid-eighteenth-century Virginia. But both were also rapidly becoming hybrid cultures
as interactions increased among Africans, Europeans, African-Virginians, and AngloVirginians. Blacks and whites were influencing each other‘s culture in their farming
practices, use of medicine, building traditions, material culture, and art and music. The
introduction of European stringed instruments expanded Africans‘ musical repertoire
while at the same time slave musicians influenced the way European music was
performed. Black musicians like Fiddler Billy of Williamsburg played at balls and other
occasions. For their part, not a few Europeans found African instruments pleasing to the
ear. European travelers frequently noted the popularity of ―Negro jigs‖ among whites at
the dances they attended in Virginia.
Musical traditions are relatively easy to identify. Africans‘ use and sometimes creative
adaptation of European manufactured goods, while harder to document, provide further
insights into the mixing of African and European cultures where they can be identified.
Archaeological excavations reveal expensive ceramics and other personal items in
storage pits at slave quarters. Slaves also made adaptive reuse of European religious
beliefs. Blacks in large numbers embraced Christianity, especially during the Great
Awakening, although they often introduced their own interpretations of scripture and
their own versions of the liturgy.
Cultural sharing was not something that blacks or white pursued deliberately. Yet the
product of their interaction is evident everywhere historians look. Many blacks retained
their West African religious belief in one supreme being. Africans and their descendants
also believed in spirit possession, in the notion that God, or any of his designates, could
physically possess the human body. Since evangelicals encouraged a more personal
relationship with God, they were sympathetic to slaves‘ ―fits of joy.‖ Over time, this
form of expression became common in both black and white evangelical denominations
such as the Baptists and Methodists.
Understanding of the slave-master relationship has changed profoundly in recent years.
Not only have scholars recognized cultural influences of blacks on whites, but closer
examination reveals that slaves, too, exerted more of their influence in day-to-day
interactions between the races than was previously supposed. In real life, the relationship
between masters and slaves often contradicted law, custom, and prescribed status roles.
For example, in 1778, Anne Drummond of Williamsburg discovered that her house had
been robbed. She accused her slave Sam of the crime. As punishment, she sold him to a
plantation owner in Albemarle County. Sam was the only son of the Dummonds‘ cook
and laundress, who simply refused to work after he was sold. For the next two years, the
cook-laundress complained of a sore leg to avoid working for Mrs. Drummond while
taking on paid tasks for others in the neighborhood. Anne Drummond finally relented in
1780. Deciding she might have judged Sam wrongly, Anne attempted to reunite mother
and son.

12

Other slave families were not as fortunate. After obtaining freedom in Philadelphia in
1807, James Carter of Caroline County wrote, ―My mother has had 9 Children and altho
She and Mrs. Armistead has been brought up together from little Girls, She has sufferd
all my mothers Children to be picked from her. My mothers Family has Served the
Family of Mrs Armistead upwards of one Hundred and 30 years.‖
At times, blacks and whites often formed emotional attachments to one another. Landon
Carter‘s diary provides numerous insights into these peculiar friendships. His long and
intimate relationships with different slaves on his property illustrate how attached Carter
was to them, and how much he understood himself in terms of his relationship toward
them. Carter considered himself the father to all on his property. He saw to his slaves‘
physical and medical needs and engaged in a variety of amusements with them, yet he
could not understand why his ―kindness‖ was not reciprocated with loyalty and honesty.
His greatest companion appears to have been Nassau, who repeatedly ran away, cursed
him, drank excessively, and even pilfered things from him. Carter punished Nassau and
threatened to sell him, but invariably he ended up forgiving every transgression.
Sometimes masters actually sympathized with the plight of their slaves. In 1787, Henry
St. George Tucker took a slave boy named Bob with him to Winchester where he
intended to practice law. The uprooted Bob became despondent beyond anything young
Tucker had witnessed: ―I enclose a short note from Bob to his mother. Poor little fellow!
I was much affected at an incident last night. I was waked from a very sound sleep by a
most piteous lamentation. I found it was Bob. ‗What‘s the matter Bob?‘ ‗I was dreaming
about my mammy Sir!!!‘ cried he in melancholy distress. ‗Gracious God!‘ thought I,
how ought not I feel, who regarded this child an insensible when compared to those of
our complexion. In truth our thoughts had been straying the same way. How finely
woven, how delicately sensible must be those bonds of natural affection which equally
adorn the civilized and the savage. The American and African – nay the man and the
brute! I declare I know not a situation in which I have been lately placed that touched me
so nearly as that incident I have just related.‖ Despite his emotional bond with Bob,
Tucker continued to use terms like ―savage‖ and ―brute‖ when referring to blacks.
Perhaps the least discussed yet most enduring consequence of the interactions between
blacks and white is miscegenation. Interracial sex and procreation between Africans and
Europeans began almost from the first contact in Africa and the Americas. The 1662 law
the defined a child‘s status based on the status of the mother passed on lifelong servitude
to children born of mixed parents. Another law made it illegal for ―any Christian to
fornicate with a Negro man or woman.‖ Offenders were required to pay double the fine
assessed on unmarried couples of European origin. Mulattoes, a term applied to children
born of African and European parents, is found in practically every slave inventory,
runaway ad, law regarding slaves, and planter diary. Unlike the Spaniard or Portuguese,
the English did not differentiate between those who were one-half, one-quarter, or less
black or white. Mulatto was used for any person of mixed parentage. Black women were
not the only females who had mulatto children. Native American and white women also
have birth to children of mixed race. A law enacted four separate time – in 1691, 1705,
1753, and 1765 – stipulated that ―women servants or free Christian white women servants

13

who have a bastard child by a negro or mulatto‖ must pay a fine, serve an additional term
of service, and have the child bound out to the parish. Quite a few free blacks born of
Englishwomen gained their freedom from their mothers. Determining the numbers and
types of mulatto births in Virginia is difficult without further research. How such
children and their parents were treated by blacks and whites continues to be a topic of
speculation.
Many encounters between blacks and whites were violent. Fithian recounted an incident
near Nomini Hall involving a boastful overseer who described his remedy for slaves who
were sullen, obstinate, or idle. The tutor wrote, ―Says he, Take a Negro, strip him, tie
him fast to a post; take then a sharp Curry-Comb, & curry him severely til he is well
scraped; & call a Boy with some dry hay, and make the Boy rub him down for several
minutes, then salt him, & unlose him. He will attend to his Business.‖
Such acts of depravity against slaves were common. Occasionally, the victims retaliated.
John Greenhow placed an ad in the Virginia Gazette on January 17, 1777: ―Run away
from the subscriber, in Williamsburg, the two following men, viz. Fox, about 40 years
old, who is clad in cotton, and about ten days ago beat his overseer and went off.
Emanuel, upwards of six feet high, about 26 years old, a strong able fellow, of a daring
resolute temper, very subtle [illeg.] John Greenhow.‖
Arson and robbery appear to have been the two most common forms of retaliation by
slaves. After James Hubbard‘s house was set on fire in January 1770, two slaves were
charged with the crime. Isaac, who belonged to Katherine Hubbard, received the death
sentence. Hubbard‘s slave David was charged with ―instigating and abetting.‖ The court
found David innocent but jailed him as a ―dangerous person.‖ Courts seldom prosecuted
masters for violence against or murder of slaves, especially if the act was the result of
correction. The law required testimony from ―one lawful and credible witness.‖ Slaves,
the most likely witnesses, could not testify against their masters or, for that matter, any
other whites.

CONCLUSION

The unwillingness of whites to recognize the full and equal humanity of blacks led to
many injustices and inhumanities. By the end of the eighteenth century, slavery was no
longer just an economic and ―necessary evil.‖ It had become a way of life. Whites were
enslaved to the myth of their own superiority while blacks bore the burden of slavery‘s
terrible reality. Racism, taking root in the slave system, sowed the seeds of future
discord, injustice, injury, and emotional desolation.
Despite legislative decrees reinforcing the slave system, whites grew increasingly
fearful as the number of blacks increased. That fear fueled repression and violence.
Governments guaranteed white Virginians the right to coerce their human property, but
realities of everyday management undermined those guarantees. Many whites believed
that people held against their will, if not strictly controlled, might seek to throw off the

14

bonds of servitude by force and harm the individuals responsible for their enslavement.
The specter of insurrection excited the greatest fear of all. Jefferson wrote, ―Deep rooted
prejudices entertained by whites; ten thousand recollections by the blacks, of the injuries
they have sustained; new provocations; …will divide us into parties, and produce
convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the
other race.‖ Jefferson recognized that slavery could no longer be justified: ―Indeed I
tremble for my country, when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep
forever: …The Almighty has no attribute which can side with us in such a contest.‖ He
was unable to resolve the issue in his private or public life. He found no answers that
would at once satisfy his conscience and his finances. Like many of his contemporaries,
Jefferson chose to let the next generation discover the answers to the problem of race and
slavery in American society.

―ENSLAVING VIRGINIA‖ AND THE
―BECOMING AMERICANS‖ THEME
DIVERSE PEOPLE

By the time the English settled Virginia, the practice of enslaving Africans and
transporting them to the Americas had already been a well-established trade for almost
150 years in the Portuguese and Spanish colonies in the New World. Slavery took many
forms in Africa, all of them different from the ways it developed in the Western
Hemisphere under the influence of colonization. The institution acquired still other
characteristics and practices in British North America.
CLASHING INTERESTS

Enslaving Virginia‘s black population provided the central dynamic in the development
of a distinctive Virginia culture. Slavery gave new definition to European notions of a
structured society with the landed aristocracy on top and merchant and working classes
below. The slave system made a more basic distinction. It divided social groups into
free and unfree. Slavery reinforced Anglo-Virginians‘ Eurocentric views of racial and
ethnic superiority.
SHARED VALUES

Inherent in the term accommodation is the idea of acceptance. But, since slaves had no
access to justice or redress through the legal system, accommodation must be understood
in strictly personal terms. Any latitude given to a slave usually violated statute law. Yet
masters and slaves were often willing to live with these contradictions so long as the
concessions struck a balance between the slave‘s concern for family and a modicum of
freedom, and the master‘s concern for control and a margin of profitability.
FORMATIVE INSTITUTIONS

15

As increasing numbers of Africans were imported into Virginia, laws regarding
their status, racial distinction, and freedom of movement developed apace. With each
passing generation, social and civic institutions (churches, schools, law courts, and
governments) reinforced conditions of servitude and reshaped the role of Africans in
Virginia society. Although freeing slaves became easier during the revolutionary era,
punishments for even small infractions of the law became ever more severe and
inhumane.
PARTIAL FREEDOMS

White Virginians regarded the ownership of other humans as their prerogative and
justified it on the grounds of racial superiority. Black Virginians were left to make do.
They sought any way possible to maintain family life and whatever freedoms they could
beg, borrow, or steal from their masters. Blacks and whites learned how to ―play by the
rules‖ even if the rules were exceptions to the rule
REVOLUTIONARY PROMISE

The institution of slavery established an unresolvable, inherent contradiction in Virginia
culture that transcended even the white man‘s self-serving justification. As Virginians
imposed a slave system on an entire race of individuals, their actions inevitably defined
their relationship to Great Britain as one between masters and slaves. The failure of
southern colonists to extend their revolutionary rhetoric to slaves led to petitions and
increasing numbers of runaways. Virginians allowed economic interests to cloud their
moral judgment.

CONNECTIONS TO OTHER
―BECOMING AMERICANS‖ STORY LINES
Just as the institution of slavery cut across every aspect of society in eighteenth-century
Virginia, it runs through the interpretation of every ―Becoming Americans‖ story line at
Colonial Williamsburg.
TAKING POSSESSION

16

The success of Virginia‘s tobacco economy fueled the desire for the continued expansion
and development of Virginia‘s natural resources. African-Virginians‘ labor provided
much of the manpower for extending settlement and increasing the wealth of slave
owners. The concept of private landowning was at first incomprehensible to Africans.
They came from societies with a tradition of corporate landholding, as was also the case
among Native Americans. Soon after Africans began arriving in the Chesapeake, free
Africans and African-Virginians recognized that the private land rights English settlers
valued afforded advantages such as enhanced social status, greater family security, and a
measure of independence. But whites did not permit slaves to participate in the
settlement process except for the labor they contributed. However, beneath the ordered
landscape that freeholding Virginians created, African-Virginians imposed a far different
structure on the land. On the quarters they occupied, they reinstituted communal land use
practices such as the notion that everyone who worked the land should reap an equal
share of its fruits.
REDEFINING FAMILY

The presence of Africans profoundly affected the evolution of family life in
Virginia. White households included slaves as members of their extended families.
African-Virginians developed their own nuclear and extended families within the
confines of the slave system. Even when disrupted by sales or the practice of hiring out,
the black family maintained kinship networks essential for strong family ties.
BUYING RESPECTABILITY

In Virginia, slaves were a commodity just like other goods. The wealth and status of
white Virginians were defined in part by the number of humans they owned. Although in
theory slaves could not be property holders, they began to participate in Virginia‘s
consumer culture during the second half of the eighteenth century. Merchants willingly
accepted the cash that slaves earned from selling produce or by working in their limited
free time in exchange for goods they wanted to buy. Although social respectability
remained elusive, slaves participated in the economy because it afforded a degree of
autonomy and a few comforts.
CHOOSING REVOLUTION

Property rights lay at the heart of the choice many Virginians eventually made in favor of
independence from Great Britain. Slaves represented significant property holdings that
white Virginians fought to preserve. Ironically, revolutionary leaders used the terms
liberty and slavery to defend their property and to advance their political rights. To them,
slavery meant loss of freedom under the tyranny of British misrule. To Virginia‘s
200,000 slaves, the words defined their condition in the most personal sense. Hundreds
risked their lives by responding to Lord Dunmore‘s November 1775 proclamation
offering freedom to slaves and indentured servants who rallied to his side. Alternatively,
some free blacks chose to enlist in the American army or navy. Most of the AfricanAmericans who labored actively for the patriot cause did so involuntarily, however. The

17

Virginia government rented slaves as wagoners, miners, pilots, hospital attendants, and
common laborers. Less often, they were hired as soldiers to substitute for free men. The
government bought others outright. Although a few gained freedom as a result of their
service, most returned to slavery after the war.
FREEING RELIGION

Africans brought to Virginia a variety of religious beliefs and practices. As the slave
population increased, their native religions became creolized. By the mid-eighteenth
century, only a few elements persisted – particularly the idea of spirit possession. When
evangelical Christians began to accept blacks into their congregations, worship services
changed to reflect the inclusion of Africans. Several evangelical denominations even
began to recognize and eventually to ordain black preachers.

PROLOGUE:
SLAVERY IN HUMAN HISTORY
The institution of slavery has been a part of most of the world‘s civilizations. The
following selections provide information about the history of world slavery, life in
Africa, and the development of slavery in South America and the Caribbean.

18

Junius P. Rodriguez provides an overview of the institution of slavery in human
history. He notes that it is essential to examine slavery in order to have an
understanding of the modern world.
The institution of slavery in all of its varied forms is one of the most
idiosyncratic practices found in all of human history. Throughout time,
practically all of the world‘s civilizations and cultures have experienced some
type of slavery, and peoples both ancient and modern in societies ranging from
the simplest to the most complex have coped with the practice and with the many
manifestations of its legacy. In a seemingly dichotomous world, the presence of
slavery has occasionally served to fashion a meaning for freedom by defining
such an attribute through its negation. So manifest is slavery to the whole of
human history that it is difficult to try to understand the modern world without
considering one of the most perplexing elements of the human condition. Making
sense of slavery, and all of its associated elements and consequences,
encompasses much of human history.
Over the years, historians, sociologists, anthropologists, economists,
psychologists, and many others have all struggled to find a rational explanation of
slavery‘s origins, its purpose, and its essential place in the human experience. Variations,
both subtle and pronounced, characterize the meaning of the word ―slavery,‖ and it
evokes discordant images throughout history. Although no single explanation exists that
is suitable as a global definition of the institution, certain characteristics are commonly
found in those societies that have practiced slavery. These attributes help to structure an
institutional matrix of bondage that has existed in society from the dawn of civilization to
the modern age.
Certain characteristics are basic to an understanding of the institution of slavery.
First, most slave societies tended to dehumanize the individual by considering the slave
to be property that is owned by another. Even though each polity often legislated the
level of mobility that was afforded the slave, he or she remained bound as legal property
that could be bought, sold, or traded at the whim of another. Second, slaves were
generally objectified as lesser beings by legal codes which maintained that the
commercial rights and prerogatives of owners or masters were superior to any natural
rights that the slave might possess. In such a system, a slave‘s level of production was
deemed to be far more important than his or her actual person or identity, and
accordingly, the slave was essentially an economic creature. Third, most slave societies
tended to marginalize the slave by enslaving only people who might be considered as
separate from the community – especially criminals, foreigners, and war captives. These
individuals endured what some scholars have described as ―social death‖ as they owed
their very survival to the magnanimous mercy of their captors. Within such a society,
there was no rights or privileges that applied to the once-spared. Essentially, slavery was
perceived as a benevolent act.
One feature that seems common among most slave societies was the
understanding that enslavement was not something done to one‘s own people. Although
voluntary slavery was permissible in many societies, it was usually restricted only to

19

those situations that involved the repayment of a debt. Early slave societies did not use
race or ethnicity as a determinant in who would be enslaved, but they did recognize the
value of group identity and would not generally submit one of their own to involuntary
enslavement. For example, though they were ethnically similar as Greeks, it was
permissible for Spartans to hold the Messenians in a form of virtual slavery as Helots.
Although the Peloponnesus (peninsula in southern Greece) was a relatively small place,
group identity prevailed and helped to determine societal norms.
Most societies did not deny all rights to the slave. In most legal codes, the slave
was protected from the most extreme physical abuse that an owner or overseer might
inflict. Yet statutes alone could not protect most slaves from harm, and societies often
maintained fluid definitions of what constituted necessary and proper action when
disciplining an unruly slave. Societies also maintained differing attitudes toward the
slave‘s right to marry and live in a family setting. Although some slave societies stressed
the beneficent results that family living produced (i.e., slaves were more productive and
less likely to escape), other cultures had no respect for slave kinship and some went so far
as to control the slave‘s sexuality and reproductive abilities for the owner‘s pleasure or
economic benefit. Slaves enjoyed some rights within all slave societies, but the
distribution of justice was certainly not fair and impartial, and even in the most
enlightened settings, the liberties afforded to slaves were always more theoretical than
real as the rights of property owners superseded the rights of the property.
It is not known precisely how or when slavery began. The most ancient of
civilizations all appear to have had some form of slavery present in their earliest years.
Slave laborers worked the fertile fields along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in
Mesopotamia; they also toiled along the Nile in Egypt during the Old Kingdom period;
and slaves worked in the budding civilizations of India and China that formed in the
Indus and Yangtze (Chang) River valleys, in the forests and savannas in the earliest of
African civilizations, and even in the Americas, where pre-Columbian indigenous
peoples maintained social structures that included a class of slaves. Thus, we are
presented with a paradox. In the societies that represent the birth of civilization – the
cultural transformation from primitive to modern – we find the transfer and continuation
of an ancient practice that has had a sweeping influence on modernity. Culturally
advanced peoples have incorporated slavery into their social systems over time, and
history has had to reckon with the consequences.
In all societies where slavery has existed it has become a part of the manifest
culture of that particular setting. As a cultural phenomenon, slavery has always been
directly influenced by the various cultural attributes that exist in each society where it
appears. The interaction between slavery and the political, social, economic, religious,
intellectual, and aesthetic spheres of cultural life creates the primary attributes that
distinguish one form of slavery from another. For just as the cultural dimensions
influence slavery, so too does slavery influence each respective sphere. Thus, even in
two societies that seem culturally similar, subtle variations might still be detected in ways
that slavery operates in each.
In ancient societies, slavery was accepted as being part of the natural social order.
As an economic tool that could distribute labor and institutionalize wealth, its validity
and purpose were unquestioned. Neither governments nor organized religions made any
attempt in the earliest societies to intervene on behalf of the enslaved to mitigate the

20

circumstance of their bondage. No systematic movement toward abolition ever existed in
ancient societies because slavery was not viewed as an issue of public mortality.
Accordingly, it is difficult for the modern world to comprehend the values and the
structures that legitimized such a system.
Slavery in the Ancient World
In the earliest societies of the Near East, slavery assumed much of the
form that it would have throughout history. In the societies of Mesopotamia,
slavery generally existed in one of two basic forms. Some viewed slavery as a
type of punishment that might be imposed upon one who had transgressed the
laws or customs of the polity, or perhaps one who had taken up arms against the
community in warfare and in so doing, had become an enemy of the state. Others
throughout the institution had a more utilitarian purpose. For them, slavery was a
way of organizing laborers to perform much needed responsibilities that were
critical to the welfare of the entire community. An important characteristic
common to both views was that slavery did not utilize race or ethnicity to
distinguish between the slaveowner and the bondsman or bondswoman. Slaves
were culturally indistinguishable from free people. Although one Sumerian
pictograph represents the idea of a slave as a ―male of foreign land,‖ the conflicts
that ensued between ethnically similar neighbors produced a class of slaves who
were not dissimilar to their masters.
The Code of Hammurabi, issued in the eighteenth century BC, demonstrates that
the ancient Babylonians understood the complex nature of the institution of slavery and
passed laws to regulate the practice. Even though the code regarded the slave as
merchandise, it contained significant humanitarian terms that recognized basic rights
owing to the slave. Male slaves could marry freewomen, own property, and in some
cases purchase their own freedom, but the code continued to view them as chattel rather
than as human beings. In formulating these legal distinctions, the Code of Hammurabi
and subsequent law codes that addressed the issue fashioned a spectrum of various status
levels ranging from one of abject powerlessness to one of supreme control. Thus, the
slave occupied an indistinct status that often varied according to individual circumstance
and location. In the Hittite Code, which was in effect from the seventeenth to the
fourteenth centuries BC, the slave was recognized as a human being, but the inferior
status of the enslaved was more manifest.
Certain ancient civilizations practiced forms of slavery in which the slave‘s status
was not very different from that of the slaveowning class. In such societies an
institutional process of manumission (formal emancipation) usually existed to facilitate
the transition from slave status to freedom. Among the Hebrew people it was understood
that a slave of Hebrew origin became free after six years of servitude. By combining
notions of adoption with their practices of enslavement, many West African societies
incorporated practices that allowed slaves and their progeny an opportunity to live in
freedom after manumission. Yet, even with the existence of these customs, the condition
enjoyed by the formerly enslaved was not comparable to the modern Western notion of
personal freedom. Most scholars agree that that notion was born several centuries later in
the city-states of classical Greece.

21

Ancient Egypt was the early civilization that was generally the least dependent upon the
economic value of slave labor. In Egypt, the existence of a large regimented population
and a limited amount of agricultural land under royal ownership precluded the need for
large-scale agricultural slavery in the valley of the Nile. War captives who became
slaves tended to be employed on temple estates, in government quarries, or on certain
state construction projects. Egyptian society also included a significant number of
individuals who submitted themselves voluntarily into slavery as a result of indebtedness
until the practice was ended in the eighth century BC. One indication of the relative
social worth of the slave as compared to the slaveowner was the practice of murdering
slaves so they might accompany their decreased owners into the afterlife.
Slavery existed in some form or another in all of the earliest civilizations, but that
does not suggest that these ancient societies had a dichotomous social order that pitted the
free against the unfree. The spectrum of status that existed in the ancient world was
generally fluid as one‘s social identity and hierarchical significance depended upon the
degree of liberty that one was allowed to enjoy. Cultural variations developed, and
certain forms of intermediate status – e.g., Babylonian mushkenum, and Indian Sudras –
became a part of the social identity that existed within distinct cultures.
All early civilizations practiced slavery, but none can be accurately described as a
slave society. In none of these culture did slaves constitute a majority of the population –
in fact, in most of them, the percentage of slaves within the society was comparatively
small. Accordingly, the economic value of the labor performed by slaves in the ancient
world was generally insignificant, and thus economic determinism alone cannot be used
as a rationale to justify the perpetuation of slavery within ancient cultures. Apparently
the value of slavery as a social institution that absorbed the outsider into a culture was
justification enough to perpetuate its existence. The concept of ―social death‖ produced a
sense of societal order that in a cost-benefit analysis can be viewed as basic to the
establishment of civil societies.
Slavery in Classical Societies
It was in the civilizations that developed in Greece and Rome that the world‘s first
true slave societies came into existence. Perplexing as it may be, the same societies that
are credited with formulating some of humankind‘s most stellar accomplishments in
philosophy and the arts and sciences were also the first people to elevate slavery to an
institutional level that had not been attained in more primitive societies. In short, ―the
glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome‖ stemmed largely from slavebased economies that utilized human capital to an unprecedented extent.
The evolution of slavery in ancient Greece is particularly noteworthy because
many Western notions of freedom and liberty developed in the milieu of defining and
institutionalizing slavery. Ironically, contemporary notions equating slavery with tyranny
stem from this era in which liberty was defined by its negation and the birthright of
freedom came to be cherished by all – except slaves. Also significant in this context is
the realization that for centuries, apologists for slavery used classical Greece as a shining
example of the achievements that were attainable in a society in which slavery was a
natural part. For these reasons, a clear understanding of slavery as it existed in the
classical age is critically important if one hopes to comprehend the legacy of slavery and
its nature in the modern world.

22

The Greeks used philosophy to rationalize their acceptance of slavery. Plato did
not oppose slavery as an institution, but he did not look favorably upon the practice of
Greeks‘ enslaving fellow Greeks. Aristotle echoed this concern, but believing that
Greeks were superior to foreigners, he felt that it was quite logical and proper for
superiors to rule over inferiors. Aristotle also viewed slaves as instruments that could be
used by their betters to perform unsavory tasks in society, which would allow the
superior Greek citizens to have a greater amount of leisure in which to pursue more
sophisticated cultural attainments.
The society that formed in the autonomous Greek city-states was heavily
dependent upon slave laborers. The Homeric epics indicate that slavery existed in Greece
in the earliest years (c. twelfth century BC), but these references also indicate there was
no organized trade in slaves at that time. During the late archaic period (eighth to sixth
centuries BC), substantial numbers of Athenians held in bondage as debt-slaves worked
the agricultural holdings of their fellow citizens. So pervasive was this social practice
that by the sixth century BC, it had produced a political crisis in Athenian life, and only
substantial reform of the institution could remedy the situation.
Large numbers of poor Athenian farmers worked as sharecroppers on the lands of
aristocratic citizens, and increasingly farmers, their wives, and their children were being
enslaved as debtors because of an inability to produce the shares demanded by their
landlords. Hoping to avert a crisis, in 594 BC the Athenian lawgiver Solon freed all
Athenian slaves and outlawed the practice of enslavement for nonpayment of debts.
Thereafter, Athens was a slave-based society, but the enslaved had to be foreign-born
noncitizens – generally, captives of war. Athenian participation in the Persian Wars
provided a ready source of war captives, and as Athens entered the classical period (fifth
to third centuries BC), perhaps one-third to one-half of the population of Athens
consisted of slaves. In the second century BC, the Greek historian Polybius described
slaves as being among ―the necessities of life‖ and considered them as being comparable
to cattle.
Although transformations in slavery certainly changed Athenian society – making
Athens a more cosmopolitan city-state – the institution of slavery also had a profound
impact throughout the Greek world. In the seventh century BC, the Spartans conquered
neighboring Messenians and subjugated the population there to a state of virtual
enslavement as Helots. After several decades, the Messenians rose in revolt and tried to
end the Spartan overlordship. The 30-year rebellion was fierce, and though the Spartans
eventually were able to overcome the formidable Messenian challenge, Sparta learned the
true cost of maintaining a slave society. Vigilance was the key to self-preservation, and
Sparta developed into a garrison state based on rigid militaristic lines so it might be
constantly prepared for the potential onslaught of another slave-inspired rebellion.
Sparta, in adopting this posture of having a perpetual war economy, reflected the truism
that both master and slave are enslaved by the institution of slavery. Once again, the
meanings of freedom and liberty were defined by their negation.
Sparta eventually fought and defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian War (431-404
BC) that hastened the end of the Golden Age in Greece. Practically all the Greek citystates were left in a weakened condition by the prolonged intensity of this conflict, and
the entire peninsula was unable to avert the invasion by the Macedonians that culminated
in the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC. Philip II of Macedonia, the father of Alexander the

23

Great, freed most, but not all, of the Greek slaves. The institution of slavery continued in
a somewhat modified form in the Hellenistic world as Alexander the Great extended
Greek customs and practices throughout his far-flung empire of conquest. Reliance upon
slavery declined during the Hellenistic age, partly because of the moderating influence of
the Stoic philosophy, which condemned slavery and war, but also because the economic
prosperity of the times made it cheaper to hire free laborers and pay them wages than to
purchase and maintain slaves.
Slavery was an uncommon institution when the city of Rome was developing
along the banks of the Tiber River, but that would change as Rome emerged victorious
from several wars of conquest. Rome and the North African city of Carthage vied for
control of Sicily and the right to navigate the Mediterranean freely, and the two
eventually fought a series of three Punic Wars. Rome emerged victorious from these
conflicts and became the sole power in the Mediterranean world, but the economic and
social tensions that accompanied these victories would lead to the eventual undoing of
the Roman Republic. As a result of the wars of conquest and the many captives accrued
in the process, Rome became a slave society.
Although the Roman Republic existed initially as a community of small
independent farmers, wars of conquest gave the Romans an abundance of slaves that
eclipsed the levels of previous civilizations. The decision to employ these slaves in
agricultural pursuits had the effect of reordering or restructuring Roman society. With
slaves increasingly being used to perform agricultural labor in the countryside, many
Roman farmers found employment in the military. As the armies swelled, additional
wars of conquest produced even more captives and the expansion of slavery continued.
As the economy became increasingly based upon estate slavery, many independent
farmers lost their landholdings, moved to the urban centers, and essentially became wards
of the state. A decline in civic virtue, caused in large part by the massive development of
a slave system, was one of the factors that helped precipitate the collapse of the Roman
Republic.
The slave system that developed in the Roman Republic was unparalleled in
antiquity. Military conquests in Syria, Galatia, Gaul, and North Africa produced
numerous war captives, and thousands of slaves labored on the large estates (latifundia)
in the Roman countryside under the tacit control of a few very wealthy owners. These
owners had virtually limitless power over their vast number of slaves since the Romans
viewed absolute authority as an equalizing force that would help prevent any type of
unrest among the slave population. Yet rather than preserving public order, cruelty and
mistreatment occasionally caused significant numbers of slaves to rise in concert to
overthrow their owners‘ control. Servile rebellion was one of the few avenues available
to slaves to demonstrate their humanity. The revolt Spartacus led from 73 to 71 BC is
probably the best known of these uprisings. For Romans, the ever-present fear of slave
revolt was one of the unanticipated consequences of their military success and subsequent
rise to greatness. Even though they recognized the possibility that every slave within the
republic was a potential insurgent, the Romans were also confident that their legions
could suppress any insurrection that might arise.
Political destabilization and declining public morality were two of the major
forces that destroyed the Roman Republic, but even as the republic faded and Rome
moved toward imperial administration, the institution of slavery remained relatively

24

unscathed. Aristocratic Romans had become accustomed to a lifestyle of excessive
luxury that was made possible largely by a dependence upon slave labor, and few were
willing to alter or challenge the institution that had created the socioeconomic status they
enjoyed. As the Roman Empire extended its boundaries, slavery continued to flourish.
The Romans believed that manual labor was a sign of lowliness and should be
performed only by slaves, but as the empire expanded, the Roman attitude toward labor
became much more inclusive. In the early years of the Roman Empire, slaves occupied
many of the white-collar and blue-collar jobs in Roman society, and thus some of them
were able to attain positions of great wealth, power, and prestige. Many slaves held
significant positions in business and in government bureaus during the first century of the
Principate (27 BC - AD 180). Slaves constituted as much as 30 percent of the population
in the early years of the Principate, but the number of Roman slaves gradually declined as
many were legally converted to coloni (serfs) and it became increasingly difficult for the
Romans to find new sources of outsiders to enslave.
The advent of Christianity did not have a significant impact upon the practice of
slavery in the Roman world. Like the Jewish tradition from which it developed,
Christianity questioned neither the morality nor the legitimacy of the institution of
slavery. The teachings of Jesus included no official condemnation of slavery, and both
the Old and the New Testaments of the Bible contain passages that reflect an acceptance
of the social and political conditions of the times - including an acceptance of slavery as
it existed. Perhaps the most significant influence of Christianity upon slavery was the
message of hope that was found in the otherworldly focus of this new faith. Regardless
of how horrid the conditions of the temporal life might be, Christianity offered the
promise that great rewards awaited the true believer in an eternal life within the kingdom
of God. Although the writings of Paul and other early fathers of the church reflect a
sense of pity for the slave, their works condemn neither the institution of slavery nor the
slaveowner.
Slavery in the Medieval World
The 1,000-year period that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west
was a formative period in the historical evolution of slavery. The Byzantine Empire,
which perpetuated a sense of Roman rule in the east, maintained significant reliance upon
a slave system until the thirteenth century, while at this same time, Western Europe
developed into a feudal society that maintained an economic system based upon
manorialism and the use of serfs and slaves as agricultural laborers. The rise of Islam
and its rapid expansion during the seventh and eighth centuries generated new slavebased societies in the Near East, parts of Africa, and Europe. This era also witnessed the
extension of the institution of slavery into the Crimea and modern Russia.
Especially significant during this era was the formation of sophisticated kingdoms
in western Africa‘s Sudan region. The respective states of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai
developed into societies that practiced slavery, and each maintained commercial ties with
European and Near Eastern cultures through trans-Saharan trade routes. Items traded in
this fashion included gold, ivory, salt, and also slaves. Additional trade in Zanj slaves
from eastern Africa to the region of modern-day Iraq also occurred during this era.
Significant numbers of Zanj slaves who were assigned to clearing salt flats for use as
agricultural lands rose in revolt during the ninth century.

25

Some twentieth-century scholars have argued that the medieval era marks a
significant point in the historical evolution of labor as slavery gave way to serfdom and
serfdom, in turn, developed into wage labor. Certain Marxist scholars who share this
opinion would posit that wage labor is nothing more than a transitional phase that will
eventually give way to the revival of a primitive form of communism similar to what is
found in a state of nature. Accordingly, much of the scholarship regarding slavery in the
medieval era, particularly in Western Europe, tends to pit conflicting economic
communities - the free and the less-than-free - against one another in a classic protoMarxist struggle for social and economic viability.
It appears that the practice of slavery that survived in Western Europe after the
fall of the Roman Empire was more harsh than earlier forms of slavery. Several
barbarian law codes treat the slave on the same level as livestock, and the most basic
elements of human rights were not acknowledged by these codes. The practice of slavery
survived for several centuries during the Middle Ages, and England‘s Domesday Book
indicates that large numbers of slaves still existed when that census was taken in 1086.
Various political and economic forces within Europe combined to make slavery
practically nonexistent within Western Europe by the eleventh century, but sporadic
Viking and Magyar raids continued to enslave those who were unfortunate enough to be
taken as captives. Large numbers of Irish, in particular, were enslaved in this fashion
during the medieval period.
Perhaps the most significant development in the history of world slavery during
the medieval period was the rise of Islam. Although both Judaism and Christianity
acknowledged the institution of slavery and neither faith sought to condemn the practice,
Islam was the first of the major world faiths to take a limited type of abolitionist stance
regarding certain aspects of the institution. The Qur‘an specifically prohibits the
enslavement of Muslims by fellow Muslims, and though this prohibition was not always
enforced, its articulation was a powerful indication that slavery was a less-than-palatable
practice and one that should not be imposed upon coreligionists. In later centuries, some
people would argue that Christians also adopted this prohibition as a de facto custom,
although such a view was perhaps more an aspiration than actually practiced.
Even more spectacular than the rise of Islam was the rapidity with which the new
faith spread throughout the Near East, across North Africa, into the sub-Saharan Sudan,
and into Europe. Within less than a century after its founding, Islam had become a
dominant force in much of the Mediterranean-centered world, and the religious rivalries
that ensued often included familiar practices of warfare - the taking of captives and their
subsequent enslavement. Both Christians and Muslims developed their own notions of
the meaning of a ―just war,‖ and each faith developed its own rules of engagement that
permitted the taking of captives and the enslavement of the same under certain
conditions. In later centuries, the desire of Europeans to find Christian allies who might
join the fight against Islam encouraged the early expeditions that explored the African
coastline searching for the mythical Prester John and his legendary Christian warriors.
Many within western Africa‘s sudanic kingdoms accepted Islam when it was
introduced by trans-Saharan traders in the eighth century. Initially transmitted orally,
before the Qur‘an was standardized into a written text, Islam spread rapidly in a culture
that had a historical affinity for the oral tradition. Many of the leaders of the West
African kingdoms converted to Islam, and in so doing, large numbers of their subject

26

people were also converted. The new faith seemed especially common among the
merchants and traders who maintained a more cosmopolitan outlook through
international trade with associates in other regions. In the kingdoms of West Africa,
Islam always maintained its strongest support among the cultural elite, and the religion
was primarily urban-based. Muslim theology was compatible with many indigenous
religious practices of West African societies, and the promise of equality in the large
Muslim community was appealing to many.
Certain dynastic Muslim states such as the Ummayyad caliphate, the Abbasid
caliphate, and eventually the Ottoman Empire arose in the Near East as slave-based
societies. Household slavery tended to be a more common practice in this setting than
dependence upon agricultural slavery. Frequently, slave women were imported to served
as concubines of the wealthy, and some private harems were quite large. Emasculated
male slaves were purchased to guard these harems from intruders. Only about 10 percent
of these eunuchs survived the crude form of castration that was generally performed
before they were transported to their final destination as slaves, but among those who did
survive, many found favor at the court and attained positions of power and prestige.
Over the centuries, Christian children were enslaved and trained to served as Janissary
soldiers - an elite fighting corps that served the Ottoman rulers.
Christian Europeans maintained a strained relationship of prolonged hostility with
the Islamic states, and occasionally the feelings of ill will escalated into warfare. Both
groups viewed this type of religious conflict, or holy war, as a justification for enslaving
captives. During the Crusades, Christians enslaved large numbers of Muslims who were
captured in battle, and Muslim pirates countered by enslaving large numbers of
Christians captured in commercial raiding expeditions. Even the Byzantine city of
Constantinople, which was a major commercial center and a transshipment point for
slaves, was attacked by the European warriors during the Fourth Crusade.
On the Iberian Peninsula, where Islamic forces first entered Western Europe in
711, Christian warriors mounted a campaign of reconquest that survived intermittently
for seven centuries until Muslim forces were finally removed from Spain in 1492.
During the Reconquista, the Spanish captured and enslaved the Moors (North African
Muslims) as new territories were liberated by advancing forces. The practice that
developed during this extensive campaign against the Muslims - granting privileges
(encomienda rights) to certain Christian warriors (adelantados) who reestablished
Spanish control - was the same system that was later modified and employed to subjugate
indigenous populations in the Americas.
Africa and the Slave Trade
Until the mid-fifteenth century, slavery had been practiced extensively in various
cultures and settings, but it had never been affiliated with race or ethnicity. Enslavement
was simply the custom that befell people who had been defeated in conflict and were
captives of war. In a theoretical sense, it was a humanitarian gesture that prevented the
wholesale execution of captives, but that notion began to change as European navigators
explored the coastline of West Africa and large-scale commerce in a human commodity
began to develop.
As in other societies, slavery had existed in Africa since antiquity, but the African
variety of slavery was indeed different from that found in other settings. Generally,

27

African societies did not consider slaves to be personal property, and slavery was seldom
viewed as a permanent condition. The rights of the slave were usually protected by local
tribal law and custom, and avenues generally existed through which a slave could
purchase freedom for himself or for his family members. These practices and customs
were challenged as increasing numbers of European expeditions reached the African
coastline and a harsher system of slavery was imposed upon the peoples of western
Africa.
Seeking adventure and wealth, and emboldened by innovations in sailing
technology, Portuguese navigators began a gradual process of exploring the West African
coastline shortly after the conquest of the port of Ceuta in modern-day Morocco in 1415.
By the 1440‘s, sailors had reached Cape Verde on the coast of modern-day Senegal and
were able to exchange trade goods for several Africans who were shipped back to
Portugal and sold into slavery. What began as a trickle soon became a veritable torrent as
Europeans realized there was an almost limitless supply of Africans who lived to the
south of the Sahara. The recognition that these Africans were either pagans who
practiced indigenous religions or perhaps Muslims tended to legitimize their enslavement
in the eyes of many European Christians. Papal pronouncements soon declared that any
African who was captured for the purpose of enslavement might be properly viewed as a
foe who was taken in an act of just war. Other papal pronouncements would later expand
upon this notion and declare that the enslavement of the African was an act of Christian
benevolence aimed at the slave‘s moral uplift.
As Europeans began to appreciate the need for African slaves on a larger scale,
internal problems in West Africa destabilized the region and contributed to the intensity
of the slave trade. Civil strife between the various peoples who constituted West Africa‘s
vast Songhai Empire created an atmosphere of instability that only exacerbated
development of the transatlantic slave trade. Even worse, the introduction of trade goods
that could be employed as armaments of war perpetuated the internal strife, and a vicious
cycle of extended hostility ensued. A near-constant state of warfare produced many
captives of war, and Europeans were more than willing to exchange trade goods for these
captured Africans.
Slavery in the Caribbean
Initially, Europeans followed the advice of conquerors like Hernan Cortes who
suggested that the Americas contained a sufficient population of native peoples who
might be enslaved to do the bidding of their European masters. The Spanish sought to
plunder the riches of the Americas and believed that the indigenous peoples could be
made unwilling accomplices in this endeavor. The combined effects of intensive forced
labor and the introduction of European diseases decimated the ranks of the native people
as thousands died form the burden that was placed upon them by the Spanish. Those who
could escape did so, and the Spanish soon realized that attempting to enslave these people
was impractical.
At the same time, religious leaders like Bartolome de Las Casas began to appeal
to the Spanish authorities on behalf of the enslaved native populations, urging that the
Spanish rely instead upon African slavery as a solution to the perennial colonial labor
shortages. Las Casas, known thereafter as ―the apostle of the Indies,‖ would later recant
his suggestion of using African slavery, but the Spanish and the other European powers

28

that established colonies in the Caribbean basin continued to rely upon an extensive use
of enslaved African labor. The trade would last for four centuries and would influence
permanently the character and definition of slavery in the modern world.
The transition in the Spanish Caribbean from enslaving indigenous peoples to the
enslavement of Africans was complicated by the geopolitical realities of the early
sixteenth century. In 1493, shortly after Columbus‘s first expedition to the Americas,
Pope Alexander VI issued a papal bull that fixed a line of demarcation dividing the
Atlantic world between Spanish and Portuguese interests. The following year, this
practice was made a part of the European diplomatic arrangement through the Treaty of
Tordesillas, which drew a line 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands that divided
all eastern (Portuguese) regions from all western (Spanish) areas. If the Spanish wanted
to maintain the pretense of honoring this arrangement, and thereby assure their sole right
to claim the Caribbean basin and much of South America, they would have to devise a
system of importing slaves from Africa - a region that fell entirely within the Portuguese
sphere.
The solution that was developed was the Spanish crown‘s practice of offering an
asiento (contract) to Portugal, and later to other European powers, to transport African
captives as slaves for use in the Spanish colonial possessions. This practice maintained
the spirit of the Treaty of Tordesillas, and it afforded the Portuguese, or whichever nation
held the right, a lucrative contract that offered the possibility of substantial profits. Over
the centuries, the asiento belonged to different nations as it became a valuable prize of
war that occasionally fell into the hands of the victors during treaty negotiations. For
those nations that held the contract for significant periods - especially the Portuguese, the
Dutch, and the English - slave trading became a systematic practice in which efficiency
and profitability tended to overshadow the inhumanity of the practice.
An elaborate system to capture, trade, and transport Africans across the Atlantic
as slaves developed in the sixteenth century and continued to function until the rise of the
Atlantic abolitionist movement forced an end to the practice in the early-nineteenth
century. Estimates suggest that as many as 11 million slaves may have been transported
across the Atlantic over four centuries in what came to be called the Middle Passage.
Although Africans were certainly victimized by this system, many African kingdoms and
states trafficked in slaves and assisted the European and American slavers who plied the
West African coast searching for captured Africans to complete their cargoes. For much
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a ―triangular trade‖ existed between ports in
New England, West Africa, and the Caribbean. This commerce had the effect of
providing enslaved Africans to the labor-starved colonies of the Americas in exchange
for trade goods from the New World.
European (and later American) slave traders maintained a limited presence along
the western coastline of Africa, occupying factories, barracoons, or commercial forts
where the actual trading and exchange of slaves took place. Tropical diseases took their
toll on the unacclimated slavers who visited the region, and those Europeans and
Americans who were drawn to the area by an interest in the slave trade seldom ventured
into the African interior. Africans who were captives of war or who were victims of raids
into the interior conducted by other Africans were brought to the coastal locations where
they were exchanged for trade goods.

29

As the demand for slaves in the Americas grew and the interior raids became
increasingly frequent and more intense, captives were taken from distant inland villages
and forced to march to the coast where they were sold. Large numbers of Africans died
in the process, and the effects of depopulation upon the African continent resulting both
from death in captivity and from enslavement was enormous. Additionally, the nearly
constant practice of conducting slave raids and the wars that ensued between rival
peoples had a terribly destabilizing effect upon Africa.
Many Africans who were transported across the Atlantic Ocean as slaves would
later attest that the Middle Passage was the most horrible aspect of their enslavement.
Large numbers of Africans were tightly packed in an often less-than-seaworthy vessel
and forced to endure an ocean crossing that might range from three weeks to two months
in length depending upon the route taken and the fortune of the winds. During these
crossings, the male slaves were generally kept in chains so as to reduce the possibility of
an uprising at sea. The vessels were overcrowded, fresh water and sufficient food
supplies were seldom adequate for the voyage, disease and occasional epidemics were
rampant on the vessels, and not surprisingly, large numbers of enslaved Africans died
during the Atlantic crossing.
Those Africans who survived the voyage found themselves put in the slave
markets of the Caribbean basin where they were purchased at auction and introduced to
the intensive labor of agricultural slavery. Newly recruited Africans who were
unseasoned as slaves were not highly valued upon their introduction to the Caribbean
because the anticipated mortality rate among this group was excessively high. The
market value of those slaves who survived the rigors of disease, acclimation, and work
increased as they were recognized as being seasoned and more apt to survive an extended
period of enslavement in the Caribbean.
Large-scale importation of Africans as slaves into the Caribbean coincided with
the ―sugar revolution‖ that occurred in the seventeenth century. As sugar cultivation
spread from the Portuguese colony of Brazil to Suriname and island such as Jamaica,
Cuba, and Barbados, sugar‘s profitability and its reliance upon labor-intensive planting
and harvesting techniques created an almost insatiable demand for slave laborers in these
locations. Owners of vast sugar plantations reaped huge profits from the labor of African
slaves who worked their estates, and the potential for immense earnings fashioned a cycle
in which the destinies of sugar and slavery became inextricably intertwined.
The Enlightenment and the Atlantic Abolitionist Movement
It was not until Europeans entered the eighteenth century‘s age of the
Enlightenment that slavery came to be questioned as an institution that denied human
dignity and was, therefore, a practice that should be abolished. This view was not one
that was immediately accepted by the countries involved in the slave trade, and it would
take more than a century of agitation before the humanitarian impulse, buttressed by
legislative action, would initiate a movement that aimed at abolishing the African slave
trade and, eventually, slavery itself.
While intellectuals debated the merits of abolition, the institution of slavery
became entrenched in the Americas as sugar cultivation spread, the cultivation of
tobacco, rice, indigo, and cotton expanded, and the importation of Africans continued
unabated. By the early seventeenth century, the practice of using enslaved Africans as

30

slave laborers was common throughout the Caribbean basin, Brazil, and northern portions
of South America, and after a Dutch trading vessel introduced 20 Africans into Virginia
in August 1619, the practice of slavery developed within a generation in the English
colonies on the North American mainland. The moral imperative against the practice
notwithstanding, slavery continued to spread because it was perceived by many people to
be a profitable venture. Although the first Africans introduced into the Virginia colony
were brought there as indentured servants rather than as slaves, it seems that they and
their descendants were being held in perpetual bondage as early as the 1640s. By the late
seventeenth century, slavery was the legally sanctioned and commonly accepted status of
Africans throughout the colonies in British North America. The perception of slavery as
a matter of racial distinctiveness is one that developed more strongly in the English
colonial experience than in Iberian-influenced societies. Whereas the Spanish and the
Portuguese had experienced several centuries of Muslim domination and had developed
cultures in which domestic slavery was common, the English had no comparable
experiences upon which to draw, and thus their attitudes toward race evolved differently.
Certainly the English attitude toward race was a factor in some areas in the gradual
transformation from using large numbers of white indentured servants as laborers to a
total dependence upon using imported Africans or Caribbean-born blacks as slave labor.
In the same age in which slavery was becoming institutionalized in the Americas,
the abolitionist message began to be voiced by some people who abhorred the practice of
slavery. Antislavery ideology in early modern Europe can be traced back to the works of
the French jurist Jean Bodin (1530-1569), who criticized the practice of slavery as
immoral and viewed it as counterproductive in that it excluded individuals from complete
membership in civil society. Similar stirrings of abolitionist thought could be found in
Elizabethan England when in the Cartwright decision (1569), court justices decreed that
―England was too pure an air for slaves to breathe in.‖
Abolitionist sentiments grew throughout the eighteenth century as the writers of
the Enlightenment were almost unanimous in their condemnation of slavery, and such
ideas helped to inspire the French Revolution and the revolution in Saint Domingue
(modern Haiti) that sounded the death knell for slavery in the French Caribbean. In the
English colonies in North America, the Society of Friends (Quakers) was the first group
to advocate publicly the abolition of slavery, and support for that position would
galvanize during the generation of the American Revolution.
When Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence in 1776, few
people failed to see the troubling irony when Jefferson, a slaveowner, wrote ―that all Men
are created equal…[and] are endowed by their Creator with…Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness.‖ Even more perplexing perhaps was the practice of equating
England‘s onerous rule over North American colonies with the practice of slavery.
Jefferson and the other American Founders considered revolution to be an appropriate
response if it were to throw off the oppressive yoke of tyranny (or slavery), but only the
most extreme would have argued that slaves held in bondage had the same right to revolt
since they too were ―created equal‖ and maintained liberty as a natural right until it was
stolen from them by enslavement.
Decisions regarding the future status of slavery in the United Sates that were
made when the American Revolution ended had profound implications for the institution
and strongly influenced the direction and the practices that the antislavery movement

31

would follow in the nineteenth century. In many respects, the U.S. attempt to be half
slave and half free made eventual emancipation almost inevitable, though the timing and
the circumstances of that decision were yet to be decided.
Seven Northern states (Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
New Jersey, New York, and New Hampshire) each devised strategies to end the practice
of slavery within their borders, but for those states, emancipating their slaves was neither
an economic nor a social hardship. In Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia, the practice of slavery continued, and the U.S. Constitution,
which was written in 1787 and was ratified and took effect in 1789, gave legal standing
and judicial protection to the institution. Because of these decisions, the notion of
emancipating the slaves in the United States had the potential makings of a constitutional
crisis, and political leaders generally sought legislative consensus through compromise
solutions to postpone a crisis over the issue.
Much of the credit for the rising attitude in the Atlantic world during the late
eighteenth century was owing to the tireless efforts of abolitionists who agitated against
the African slave trade in the British Parliament. After many unsuccessful attempts,
leaders like William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson were finally able to gain
parliamentary approval in 1807 of a measure that outlawed the African slave trade within
the British colonial sphere as of January 1, 1808, the search and seizure of suspected
slaving vessels on the high seas, and provided funding for the liberation of captured
slaves. The U.S. Congress also enacted a measure in March 1807 that prohibited the
importation of slaves into the country after January 1, 1808. Supporters of both the
British and the U.S. measures believed that cutting off the supply of new slaves by
prohibiting importation and working actively to end the effective trade were important
steps that would doom the institution of slavery to certain death. When this assessment
failed to materialize, both the British and the U.S. governments pursued alternative routes
to ending the practice of slavery.
By the late eighteenth century, the English economy was being transformed by
the effects of the Industrial Revolution. English investors made huge capital investments
to construct factories, develop canal projects and create other transportation infrastructure
networks to assist the establishment of new commercial ventures. Ironically, much of the
―old money‖ that supported this new spirit of enterprise had been earned through profits
from the trade in sugar and slaves. The abolition of slavery was one part of the social
economic transformation that occurred as an older order based upon a colonial
mercantilist system gave way to a new industrialized, capitalistic society. To many
people, the transition from dependence upon slave labor to that of wage labor was
essential if the new order were to maximize workplace efficiency and generate the profits
that a manufacturing-based economy could produce. Accordingly, shortly after the
British Parliament passed the Reform Act of 1832, which restructured archaic political
structures according to a more modern model, Parliament also enacted the Emancipation
Act of 1833, which promised an end to slavery within the British Empire by 1838.
In the United States, the abolitionist campaign followed a different track than the
British model. Late eighteenth century abolitionists like the Quaker John Woolman
believed that persuasion and human reasoning were sufficient tools to inspire
slaveowners to manumit their slaves, but the effectiveness of such campaigns was
localized and limited. In the 1830s, a new and more assertive attitude became common

32

among many abolitionists after William Lloyd Garrison began publishing the Liberator
in 1831, in which he demanded an end to all attempts at compromising on the issue of
slavery. Calls for unconditional emancipation polarized attitudes between the nonslaveholding states of the North and the slaveholding South. In addition, as the United
States expanded to the west in the era of ―manifest destiny,‖ the issue of whether or not
slavery should be allowed in the newly acquired territories became the primary political
question in the United States during the antebellum period.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854), which included the political decision to allow
the question of slavery‘s expansion to be decided by popular referendum, encouraged
many abolitionists to adopt a more direct approach in the crusade against slavery. The
Republican Party, a political party founded in 1854 upon the principle that the further
expansion of slavery should be halted, represented a new tactic in the abolitionists‘
methodology as the divisive issue of slavery continued to dominate the national debate.
Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln‘s election in 1860 as president of the United
States was the signal to several slave-holding states that their ―peculiar institution‖ would
soon be in jeopardy, and the decision that those states made to secede from the Union
precipitated a constitutional crisis that threatened not only the future of slavery in the
United States but the future of the United States itself.
The U.S. Civil War (1861-1865) is an important conflict in world history in that it
was one of the first truly modern wars, but its relationship to the issue of slavery is also
noteworthy. Although the issue of slavery was certainly not the only issue responsible
for causing the Civil War, its importance as a contributing factor cannot be denied. As
the war progressed, Lincoln‘s wartime aims increasingly became connected to the issue
of emancipation. In September 1862, Lincoln issued a draft of the Emancipation
Proclamation that took effect on January 1, 1863, and freed slaves in areas that were still
in rebellion against the U.S. government as of that date. Eventually the passage of the
Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1865 legally abolished the practice of
slavery in the United States.
Though a joint effort of the governments of the United States and Great Britain to
abolish the African slave trade persisted through the nineteenth century, attempts to
monitor African coastal waters with naval patrols could not always be totally effective,
and some slaving vessels still managed to get through. The African captives aboard the
slaving vessels that were seized were generally taken to either Liberia or Sierra Leone on
the West African coast, two states that had been established as homelands for repatriated
former slaves who had served as slaves in the United States or in the British colonies.
Some vessels were able to elude capture and continued to transport slaves during the
antebellum era. In the post-war period, they transported captive Africans to Cuba and to
Brazil where the practice of slavery continued for another generation beyond the end of
the U.S. Civil War.
The abolition of slavery in the Americas did not herald the end of Africa‘s
experience with slavery. Throughout the many years of the slave trade, many African
states had come to specialize in the taking of captives and exchanging them for trade
goods. Some local leaders had become quite wealthy through this practice, and the
custom of slavery within Africa and the domestic slave trade that was required to
perpetuate it were quite common in many parts of Africa during the nineteenth century.
English abolitionists such as Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton organized groups like the

33

Society for the Extinction of the Slave Trade and for the Civilization of Africa to combat
these practices by introducing the establishment of new settlements in Africa that
encouraged agriculture so legitimate commerce might replace the necessity for trading in
slaves. Inspired by a spirit of trusteeship, much of the missionary activity in the
nineteenth-century Africa was aimed at ending slave-trading practices, and a major
component of the new imperialism that inspired the ―scramble for Africa‖ in the 1880s
was the moral imperative to end the practice of slavery on the African continent.
Slavery in the Modern World
If the institution of slavery were something that only ancient peoples had
practiced, the custom would be nothing more than a historical curiosity in the modern
world, but that is not the lesson that history teaches us. Modern postindustrial peoples
have managed to practice various forms of slavery in the twentieth century, and it is quite
probable that the practice continues even today among some of the world‘s developing
nations as certain forms of debt-peonage, pseudo-adoption, concubinage, contract labor,
child labor, servile forms of marriage, and more traditional forms of enslavement persist.
Thus, the study of slavery reveals that its practice is ubiquitous - regardless of the
progress that has been made in human history, the practice of enslaving fellow human
beings has not disappeared entirely from history.
Slavery still existed in parts of Africa and Asia at the start of the twentieth
century. In China, the imperial government officially abolished the practice of slavery in
1906. The Korean government had abolished slavery in reforms of 1894, but it was
commonly accepted that the institution of slavery survived in Korea until 1930. A
vigorous domestic trade in slaves continued in parts of Africa until the end of World War
I in 1918, and following the end of that conflict, the League of Nations took upon itself
the international obligation to bring an end to slavery in those areas where the practice
continued to exist.
During the years of World War II (1939-1945), barbarous new practices of
slavery were applied in both major theaters of the conflict. In Europe, the Nazi regime
instituted a systematic campaign in which Jews and other ―undesirables‖ were assigned to
forced-labor camps where they labored unceasingly until their death. In this genocidal
system, the slave was viewed as nothing more than a consumable resource whose labor
could be used for the benefit of the state. Millions died in the forced-laborcamps and the
extermination camps that were a part of Hitler‘s ―final solution.‖
In the Pacific theater, another form of slavery appeared during the years of World
War II. The Japanese government regularly recruited young women to serve as comfort
women, or sexual slaves, to satisfy the carnal needs of Japanese servicemen who were
stationed in Korea and China. These young women were raped repeatedly and suffered
the dual humiliation of being enslaved by the Japanese and of being shunned for bringing
shame upon their families. Even 50 years after the end of the war, the issue of the
comfort women remains a contentious diplomatic issue between the governments of both
Koreas and Japan.
In the years since World War II, the United Nations has worked to abolish the
practice of slavery in the modern world. The United Nations Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, enacted in 1948, proclaimed both the immorality and the illegality of
slavery in all its forms. Subsequent UN conventions in 1949, 1953, and 1956 reaffirmed

34

earlier protocols attesting that slavery was illegal and member states agreed to these
statements. Even at the end of the twentieth century, the UN Working Group on
Contemporary Forms of Slavery still carefully monitors reports that surface about
incidents of contemporary slavery, and investigations are ongoing. In addition, several
private organizations - like Anti-Slavery International and the American Anti-Slavery
Group - monitor reports concerning cases of contemporary slavery from around the world
and try to publicize these events to draw the world‘s attention to what remains a
perplexing issue.
Epilogue
In his work Hecuba (c. 425 BC), the Greek dramatist Euripides described slavery
as ―that thing of evil, by its nature evil, forcing submission from a man to what no man
can yield.‖ Much of both ancient and modern human history contains a record of slavery
and its legacy for civilized societies, but the lessons of the past have not prohibited the
sporadic reappearance of ―that thing of evil‖ in our world. The effects of slavery
certainly touch the human psyche, but a complete understanding of the practice still
eludes total comprehension. The practice of slavery appears to be a societal character
flaw that waxes and wanes - a recessive historical gene that can reappear almost without
warning. As a result, we must study about slavery to learn more about ourselves and our
world.
Human history marvels at the accomplishments of previous civilizations, but the
art, architecture, philosophy, law, science, and literature that have been bequeathed to the
modern world from the ancients are only a part of this brilliant cultural inheritance. How
nations have struggled through the centuries with war, slavery, and other issues of social
justice is also important as we try to comprehend an essential meaning for the human
condition. Though slavery remains an enigma and its demons burden us still, the
institution of slavery is an indelible part of our history.
Source: Junius P. Rodriguez, ed., The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, 2 vols.,
(Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 1997), I:xiii-xxiii. See also Hugh Thomas, The
Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1997).
The following selections from William D. Pierson‘s book—From Africa to America:
African American History from the Colonial Era to the Early Republic, 1526-1790—
focus on life in the forest regions of West and Central Africa; the role that Africa played
in the Atlantic economy and the slave trade; and the Middle Passage.

LIFE IN THE FOREST REGIONS OF WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA
I was born at Dukandarra in Guinea, about the year 1729. My father‘s name was Saungm
Furro, Prince of the tribe of Dukandarra. My father had three wives. Polygamy was not

35

uncommon in that country, especially among the rich . . . By his first wife he had three
children. The eldest of them was myself, named by my father, Broteer . . . I descended
from a very large, tall and stout race of beings, much larger than the generality of people
in other parts of the globe, being commonly considerable above six feet in height, and
every way well proportioned.

The New England slave Venture Smith, A Narrative of the Life
And Adventures of Venture (1798)
Most of the ancestors of contemporary African Americans did not come from the
Grasslands empires of West Africa and their hinterlands in Senegambia but from the
forest regions along the great bend of the western coast where the dense tropical forests
hindered communications and made large imperial-sized states virtually impossible. In
the wetter forest regions people customarily lived as small-scale subsistence farmers with
their political lives organized around kinspeople and fellow villagers. The small villages
and tiny states of the forests were at the farthest and poorest ends of the long-distance
trade routes that fed the imperial international trade of the African grasslands.
In the forest societies local trading was for the most part in the hands of women,
who also oversaw agricultural production. Although males worked cooperatively at the
start of the growing season to clear fields around the villages and burn brush, they soon
settled back into a life of relative ease while women took over the day-to-day tasks of
tending the crops. Since tropical soils were so quickly exhausted, new brush-covered
lands had to be cleared yearly; after several years‘ use the old plots needed time to lie
fallow and recover.
Because of the constant shifting of fields within large reserves of fallow
brushland, individual land ownership of private plots was not economical in the forested
regions of West Africa; instead land was held communally and redistributed by kin
groups of individuals on the basis of need. People settled in central villages comprising
closely clustered housing compounds rather than on isolated individual farmsteads, which
would soon have been in fields no longer cultivated. As a result, forest life was
characterized by intense social interactions, especially between kinspeople who shared a
common ancestry, whether through paternal or maternal lineage. Because people had to
live so closely together, manners and socially approved behaviors were rigorously
enforced by intense pressure from both families and wider community.
In the same way, since the economic life of the forest regions revolved around the
cultivation of family landholdings, most important economic decisions were made within
the councils of the large extended families. The older members of kin groups were
considered the wisest and most deserving of respect; their opinions carried the most
weight. People did what was required of them because it was their family responsibility.
This attitude prevailed even in religion: deceased ancestors were believed to be actively
watching over the living, helping their heirs when asked, and punishing them with

36

misfortune and illness if they strayed from the course of proper social and family
conduct.
When the needs of the community crossed family lines, new forms of social
organization took over. Secret societies that represented the power of the ancestors or
other spiritual forces brought together men and women of various lineages and clans. In
areas where political authority was weak, the social authority of the secret societies to
hold communities together and reinforce proper modes of behavior was especially strong.
Unlike life outside the societies, group members could rise to the top ranks on the basis
of their individual abilities rather than primarily by seniority or family status. The
groups‘ public presentations, which featured both fearsome and humorous maskers, were
an important part of all holiday celebrations.
Traditional forms of slavery in the region developed out of the need to incorporate
outsiders, such as prisoners of war, into the predominantly kin-based social systems. As
Ibo-born Olaudah Equiano explained:
Those prisoners which were not sold or redeemed we kept as slaves; but how
different was their condition from that of the slaves in the West Indies!
With us they do no more work than other members of the community, even
their master; their food, clothing and lodging were nearly the same as theirs
(except that they were not permitted to eat with those who were freeborn), and
there was scarce any other difference between them than a superior degree
of importance which the head of a family possesses in our state, and that authority
which, as such, he exercises over part of his household. Some of these slaves
have even slaves under them as their own property and for their own use.
Prior to the Atlantic commerce, slavery was neither particularly important nor
overly harsh in the forest regions. The institution would later be exploited, however, by
Africans and foreigners alike, and in its more virulent form African slavery became a
curse both to the continent and the people like Olaudah Equiano who were sent off into
the Atlantic diaspora.
Although by the seventeenth century royal political organizations were becoming
more common in the expanding states of the forest regions, the basic democratic
principles of local life endured. Kings were usually elected from candidates among
a large royal family (unlike their European counterparts, who were elevated on the basis
of seniority and consanguinity no matter what their competence). On the village level,
most day-to-day political decision-making required family consensus.
Because the hot, humid climate made the long-term preservation of agricultural
and other surplus extremely difficult, status in the forest societies was acquired more by
redistributing wealth than by accumulating it. Since a large family was the mark of a
great man or woman, people strove to expand their families as fast or faster than their
wealth. This practice promoted relatively egalitarian living conditions, since a richer man
had to divide his assets among more dependents. It also kept the emphasis on social
obligation rather than on self-interest.
Much like the rural peoples of colonial North America, most African families
tried to be as economically self-sufficient as possible. With the help of kinspeople, adults
built their own houses, most with thatched roofs made from palm leaves. No single style

37

of housing was common to all the forest societies. In Dahomey mud-walled houses
predominated; nearby the Yoruba built their walls with large earthen bricks; to the
southeast the Ibo used wattle-and-daub construction; even farther south the Bakongo
interlaced prefabricated palm branches and leaves to quickly form walls and roofs.
The diets of most forest farmers revolved around palm oil and highly caloric (but
not very nutritional) yams. Stews were commonly prepared from both ingredients, along
with peas, beans, melon seeds, onions, and okra, and then highly seasoned with peppers.
After a long, slow cooking, the stew was poured into a large calabash platter and served
with a loaf of a warm doughy yam paste called fufu. After washing their hands, diners
would squat around the common calabash to eat. Many people would begin the meal by
pouring out a small quantity of the food as a libation to the spirits of the ancestors, after
which they would take turns breaking off pieces of fufu to form into small balls for
soaking up the tasty stew. In most societies women and children, as well as slaves, were
expected to eat separately from the men.
Olaudah Equiano has left us a good description of day-to-day life among his Ibo
people of the early eighteenth century:
As our manners are simple, our luxuries are few. The dress of both sexes are
nearly the same. It generally consists of a long piece of (cotton cloth) wrapped
loosely round the body . . . this is usually died blue, which is our favorite colour.
It is extracted from a berry (indigo) and is brighter and richer than any I have seen
in Europe. Besides this, our women of distinction wear golden ornaments. . . . on
their arms and legs. When our women are not employed with the men in tillage,
their usual occupation is spinning and weaving cotton, which they afterwards dye,
and make into garments. They also manufacture earthen vessels (and tobacco
pipes) of many kinds.
Traditionally the troops of the forest states armed themselves with spears, bows
and arrows, daggers, and swords. The regional craftsmanship in wood and metal work
was very high quality, and most weapons were of local manufacture until European-made
guns began to be imported in considerable numbers in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. By the time large numbers of slaves were imported into English North
America, the coastal societies were extremely well armed and most local infantrymen
carried muskets.
Although the forest states were not particularly impressive by international
standards of size, wealth, or military strength, they fostered one of the world‘s great
traditions in the visual and musical arts. The religiously oriented wooden sculpture and
masks they designed to emphasize fertility and the power of the ancestors helped shape
the abstract vision that characterizes most of today‘s modern art, while the complex and
improvisational musical and dance styles that originated in the forest regions were the
progenitors of the African-American musical and dance forms that have come to
dominate much of the modern world.
In his recollections of his African childhood, Olaudah Equiano emphasized the
importance of the arts to his Ibo people and the region as a whole:
We are almost a nation of dancers, musicians, and poets. Thus every great

38

event, such as triumphant return from battle, or other cause of public rejoicing,
is celebrated in public dances, which are accompanied with songs and music
suited to the occasion. The assembly is separated into four divisions which
dance either apart or in succession, and each with a character to itself . . . .
Each (dance) represents some interesting scene of real life, such as a great
achievement, domestic employment, a pathetic story, or some rural sport; and,
as the subject is generally founded on some real event, it is therefore ever new.
This gives our dances a spirit and variety which I have scarcely seen elsewhere.
We have many musical instruments, particularly drums of different kinds, a piece
of music which resembles a guitar, and another much like a (xylophone).
The artistic heritage that Equiano described easily merged with similar ones from
other West African nations and would be familiar to any student of early African
American culture, although the drums he mentioned would have to be downplayed in
North America.
Although the people of West Africa did not carry their material wealth to the
Americas, they brought with them assets far greater in terms of cultural wealth, an
inheritance upon which much of the best of American artistic achievements still depend.
In this sense, certainly, African Americans were not stripped of their cultural heritage.
But the individual heritages that West Africans carried with them across the ocean had to
change when they intermixed with other African peoples in the Americas and interacted
with Native and European Americans as well. The result was a new cultural and artistic
style that, because of the mixing, was far more accessible to non-Africans and thus
ultimately far more influential in the world at large.

THE EAST ATLANTIC SLAVING SYSTEM
I, young in life, by seeming cruel fate
Was snatch‘d from Afric‘s fancy‘d happy seat:
What pangs excruciating must molest,
What sorrow labour in my parent‘s breast?
Steel‘d was that soul and by no misery mov‘d
That from a father seiz‘d his babe belov‘d.
Such, such my case. And can I then buy pray
Others may never feel tyrannic sway?
Phillis Wheatley, ―To the Right Honourable William, Earl of Dartmouth,
His Majesty‘s Principal Secretary of State for North America‖ (1773)
Africa entered the sixteenth century enjoying an age of relative peace and prosperity.
The recent expulsion from European Iberia of the Moors of the North African Almohad
empire did not seem particularly threatening, for no foreign power had ever successfully
invaded the interior of Africa. The majority of Africans were subsistence farmers, living
in small, relatively egalitarian societies, unaware that a great storm from the northwest
was about to disrupt their world and change their lives forever.

39

That the distant thunder from the north was still unnoticed is not so surprising, for
western Europe was just emerging from a long history of underdevelopment. Moreover,
the small and undistinguished Portuguese nation, which would first turn Europe‘s
disadvantages into opportunities, was isolated on the Atlantic coast, far from the rich
Mediterranean commerce. Yet the Portuguese put what they learned from their difficult
location on the Atlantic together with nautical insights gained on the Moorish frontier to
develop the caravel, a new form of warship sturdy enough to withstand ocean storms and
therefore strong enough to carry heavy guns and survive the terrible shocks of their
recoil.
Originally the Portuguese had only a minor interest in West Africa; their primary
intention was to turn the Moorish flank by sailing around the continent to the riches of
Asia. When Vasco da Gama rounded the horn of South Africa in 1498 and with
incredible good fortune reached Indian, he lost two-thirds of his men and half of his
ships, but by bypassing hundreds of land-based middlemen and taxing units with his
direct trade route, he was able to turn a profit 60 times the cost of his voyage and so whet
the appetite of western Europe for more oceanic trade. More and more ships began
arriving off the African coast.
Since local settlement patterns kept African traders‘ interests centered on the
rivers, it was European oceangoing vessels that quickly came to dominate the new
carrying trade of the western coasts. In the interior, African merchants continued to
control both the traditional land and river trades, for Europe was still too weak to drive
far inland into Africa, much less to conquer territory. Indeed, so stoutly was the
continent defended by both African armies and tropical diseases that it would be 450
years (1450-1900) before the Europeans penetrated most areas of Africa. The forest
regions of the coast, moreover, quickly proved a veritable ―white man‘s grave‖: some 60
percent of the European traders died during their first year in residence, principally from
tropical fevers.
Most African rulers welcomed increased international commerce, and although
local authorities occasionally had to punish dishonest European merchants by placing an
embargo on further commerce until debts or misdeeds were made good, a steady Atlantic
trade was soon in operation between the African coastal states and western European
middlemen. For most societies bordering the sea this trade spelled amazing new
opportunities for wealth. Previously the coastal peoples had been poor relations far from
the commercial activity of the continent‘s great interior empires. The new ocean trade
changed all that; the coast was now the cutting edge of commerce, and thus the new
foreign trade was avidly welcomed by local rulers.
African rulers rented coastal trading stations to Europeans, who fortified them for
protection from cutthroat European competitors. The local rulers did not fear these
trading stations because they could cut the European traders off from food, water, and
commerce whenever necessary; local middlemen were not worried because African rulers
simply refused European traders permission to enter into the interior; where they might
become competitors for Africa‘s domestic trade. Yet the nature of the trade would soon
be changed by events far across the western ocean.
Europe‘s conquest of the Americas had opened up a treasure trove of minerals
and vast, fertile agricultural lands - if only the conquerors could find skilled laborers
capable of working profitably in the new climate. Initially the white invaders tried to

40

meet their labor needs with Native Americans who had been legally, if immorally,
enslaved during the wars of conquest, but when far too many of them succumbed to
disease and cruel treatment, it became clear that their enslavement was not a viable longterm policy. White workers were sent out from Europe, but too few Europeans were
willing to emigrate as common laborers to the American wilderness, and fewer still even among those sent unwillingly as bound labor or in punishment for crimes - had the
agricultural skills and physical endurance to handle the challenge.
The solution came when the Spanish and other Atlantic European powers found
an alternative source of labor at their trading stations on the African coast, where workers
who knew both mining and tropical farming could be purchased cheaply and transported
for extremely low prices. African slaves proved a bargain in the lower Americas because
their labor in the mercantile systems of the New World was worth so much more than it
was in tropical Africa, where hoe agriculture produced little in the way of surplus wealth.
Moreover, Africans, who were carried by shorter transport routes to the Americas and
possessed superior resistance to tropical fevers, died at only one-third the rate of
Europeans brought to New World plantations.
Ironically, despite their low cost, suitable abilities, and superior health, African
laborers might not have been the only labor choice for New World plantations if
capitalism had been further developed toward wage labor or if steamships had been
sailing the high seas when the Americas were discovered. After the ending of the
Atlantic slave trade in the nineteenth century, contract labor continued to pour into the
Caribbean and other ports of the New World, but by that time, when steamships were
providing healthier and cheaper long-range oceanic transportation, people from India,
China, and nonwestern Europe were preferred for their even lower labor coasts. In the
economic era before steam, however, Africans quickly became the labor of choice for
American development.
The primary source for the millions of slave laborers who would be transported
across the Atlantic was West and West Central Africa. Most victims of the slave trade
originally lost their freedom after being taken prisoner during African wars. There were
no international rules about the treatment of prisoners of war, and enslavement seemed
less brutal than many of the alternatives. In places like western Europe at that time it was
still considered a captor‘s right to execute his prisoners if he so desired.
Many other Africans became slaves when they were kidnapped by armed thugs
(usually from neighboring territories) who roved the interior trade routes of Africa
alongside legitimate merchants. Smaller numbers of people were forced into slavery by
traditional legal actions that mandated enslavement to settle debts or as punishment for
certain crimes. For the most part, it is fair to say, Africans enslaved not countrymen but
enemies, whom they sold away to the foreign traders on the coast.
The vast majority of the new slaves were youths between 10 and 24 years old, just
entering the prime of their lives. In composition, 14 percent were children (children
made up 30 percent of the African population), 30 percent were young women (who
made up 25 percent of the African population), and 56 percent were young men (also 25
percent of the general population). Among the young adults, twice as many men were
transported across the Atlantic as women. American demand rejected older slaves as
difficult to train and unlikely to survive, and so men and women over 30 were rarely sold
and brought much lower prices. As a result, older adults were seldom kidnapped, and

41

aged captives were either retained on the coast or killed by the raiders at the place of
battle.
Far different from the European emigrants, who tended to be from the lower
classes, the African slaves exported to America, especially those taken in war, were
commonly, as an English observer of the Gambian region observed, ―people of
distinction, such as princes, priests and persons high in office…conducted by
Mandingoes in droves of twenty, thirty and forty, chained together.‖ Even African
royalty often ended up in slavery; as a result, Africa lost more leadership, and AfroAmerica gained more, than is commonly realized.
The pricing of the international slave trade was driven as much by local African
supply as by foreign demand: since the supplies of African slaves on the coast did not go
up and down in direct response to increasing and decreasing Euro-American labor
requirements, African traders clearly had agendas of their own. The much greater
demand for males in the Americas should have driven up the price for men; instead,
women cost more than men on the African coast (twice as much in Senegambia, for
example). The higher price for women reflected the decisions of African men in the
coastal societies to take advantage of the slave trade by purchasing additional wives,
thereby raising the prices.
European and American merchants purchased African slaves for what seemed to
them relatively low exchange values in textiles, guns, liquor, metals, and cowrie shell
money. But to the African suppliers, the prices appeared remarkably high. Thus, both
African and European slave traders raced to make gains in what seemed to them a
profitable situation. The potential advantage for West African dealers can be seen when
it is realized that in the 1680s a male slave could be legally traded for 17 guns on the
western coast; at that time the value of 17 trade muskets was roughly equivalent to six
times the yearly cost of living for a common man. Today, in our own wold, many a thief
will take a man‘s life for much less.
Deeper into Africa, of course, the original enslaver got less than the coastal
trading price when he sold his slaves; indeed, he usually got even less than it would have
cost to raise a child to an age equivalent to that of the young person he was selling. Why
then did merchants engage in the slave trade, since the continent was losing value with
each person sold away? Part of the answer is that the continent was not doing the trading.
For the original enslavers, who were taking human beings through war or
kidnapping, slaves seemed almost like free goods. The slave dealers profited on their
deals; it was the societies losing members that were being injured, but they had no say in
the exchange. Thus, the private wealth of certain powerful African elites increased at the
same time that the public wealth in human capital of certain African societies was
declining. It is a familiar problem, in other guises, in our own era.
One victim of the slave trade who later came to reflect on its causes blamed the
greed of whites and blacks alike. Olaudah Equiano was kidnapped as a child by African
traders before eventually being sold to Europeans on the coast.
From what I can recollect of [the battles between African states] they appear to
have been eruptions of one little state or district on the other, to obtain prisoners
or booty. Perhaps they were incited to this, by those traders who brought the
European goods…amongst us. Such a mode of obtaining slaves in Africa is

42

common; and I believe more are procured this way, and by kidnapping, than
any other. When a trader wants slaves, he applies to a chief for them, and tempts
him with his wares. It is not extraordinary if on this occasion he yields to the
temptation with as little firmness, and accepts the prices of his fellow creature‘s
liberty, with as little reluctance as the enlightened merchant. - Accordingly he
falls on his neighbors, and a desperate battle ensues. If he prevails and takes
prisoners, he gratifies his avarice by selling them.
From the perspective of those Africans who traded in slaves, the people they sold
away were not countrymen but outsiders - prisoners of war, criminals, or kidnap victims
from other societies. Thus, selling them was not considered immoral; instead it seemed
both reasonable and profitable. Moreover, bartering for the provisions white slavers
needed for the Atlantic crossing brought the coastal elite an additional 50 percent in
profits. All in all, for those on the coast, selling foreigners was a lucrative business.
For Africa as a whole, however, the economics were much different. For the
continent the profitability of the slave trade was canceled out by the high costs of
increasing warfare, the social insecurity caused by slave raiding, and the loss of so many
young productive people. Moreover, the small upper class who gained from the trade too
often frittered away much of their new wealth on imported luxury goods; there was little
domestic investment of the kind that would bring productive new growth to the continent.
Caught between economic stages of development, Africa gained little from the private
economic decisions of its coastal elite; in that sense, being on the periphery of the
expanding capitalist world proved as injurious for Africa as it did for those shipped away
from the continent to the Americas.
We must remember that most of the negative results of the slave trade either were
invisible on the coast or would not show up until later. Since the coastal lands had
traditionally been among the most poorly developed regions of sub-Saharan Africa, when
new trading opportunities arose, the local people saw the commerce as a heaven-sent
opportunity to increase their wealth and power. As a result, the era of the slave trade was
marked by great increases in the size and influence of Africa‘s western coastal states,
while at the same time greater use of new American food crops was increasing the
population growth rate and thus distinguishing the negative demographic effects of
exporting people.
Since the coastal peoples did not organize their world in racial categories, they
saw no immorality in selling foreign African slaves to white Europeans. Indeed, early on
the trade was often considered a necessity to finance defense spending, since the lucrative
international commerce with Europe led to increasing conflicts between the African
coastal states struggling to dominate the new trade. Since the winners became rich and
the losers enslaved, the battles set off a series of costly arms races: by 1730 some 180,000
muskets a year were entering West Africa from the coast, and by 1800 over 500,000
weapons were imported yearly.
Africa was not yet dependent on Europe. Indeed, things seemed to be going well:
the coastal states were growing in size and influence, their elites were becoming vastly
wealthier, and cheap foreign imports such as East Indian textiles were improving the
material standard of living of the common people. African states were trading what they
considered excess and dangerous population for foreign luxuries, cheap textiles, tools,

43

metals, bargain-priced cowrie money, and guns. Although the majority of women and
children taken in slavery were not sent abroad but were incorporated into coastal
societies, the excess men were usually sold overseas. This sexual imbalance led to
coastal societies becoming increasingly polygynous and densely populated, while the
smaller interior states were seriously weakened.
Unfortunately, as the Atlantic slave trade increased, so, too, did the numbers of
people held in indigenous forms of African servitude, which were becoming less and less
protective of human rights. Africa, like the New World, was inevitably being corrupted
by the moral cost of large-scale commerce in human beings. Indeed, by 1770 there were
probably as many slaves in West and West Central Africa as in all the countries of the
Americas - approximately 2.5 million people were in African bondage.
Most coastal kings were pleased with the commerce, which had made them richer
and more powerful than they had ever been. Unfortunately, as the Dahomean ruler Agaja
Trudo came to discover when he tried to end the corrupting slave trade in his region, the
world market, not the African merchant, was setting the basic terms of the exchange.
Thus, is Dahomey wanted foreign imports, the Dahomeans had to sell people or business
and weapons would flow in dangerously high amounts to their enemies.
In retrospect, we can see that the Atlantic slave trade was not as beneficial a
commerce as it first appeared from the African traders‘ perspective. It vastly increased
African domestic slavery but not African labor efficiency: moreover, imported luxuries
did nothing for Africa‘s productive development. In fact, cheap foreign textiles undercut
local producers. In those rare areas where Europeans were able to force an entry into
Africa - the east coast Swahili city-states and the Kongo region in Central Africa - they
proved incompetent to hold the trading networks together, and these old centers of power
fell into poverty much as did the former Inca and Aztec empires in America.
All told, Africa sent nearly 12 million of her sons and daughters westward to the
Americas in the years between 1500 and 1900. It is worth noting that this number
roughly parallels the nearly 12 million who were sent eastward and northward across the
Sahara Desert, the Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean by Arab slave traders during the longer
period of 650-1900. Some scholars have speculated that the result of these forced human
emigrations from the continent may have been a reduction in Africa‘s potential
population growth: the continent‘s estimated population of 50 million in 1850 might have
been closer to 100 million without the international slave trades.
In return for the Atlantic commerce, Africa grew materially richer, and many of
its coastal states grew far more powerful. As Africa grew wealthier, however, it lost
human capital and thus grew less self-sufficient and dangerously more dependent on
foreign trade.

THE MIDDLE PASSAGE AND BEYOND
Jesus, Estella, Esperanza, Mercy:
Sails flashing to the wind like weapons,
sharks following the moans the fever and the dying;
horror the corposant and compass rose.
Middle Passage:

44

Voyage through death
To life upon these shores
The African American poet Robert Hayden, ―Middle Passage,‖
Selected Poems (1966)
The process of enslavement, transport, and seasoning was a passage through hell
that carried a terrible price in suffering and death. The horror had begun in Africa
with wars and small-scale raiding during which nearly as many people died as
were finally enslaved. Only a minority of those taken captive or kidnapped were
destined to be sold away from the continent, but that minority was unlucky
enough to experience African slavery at its worst - which was bad enough that
very few Africans who gained their freedom in America ever tried to make their
way home. Of those new slaves shipped to the African coast, nearly one in five
died of disease or mistreatment along the way or in the barracoons awaiting
departure.
Among the 12 million Africans who survived to be placed aboard the ships of the
foreign slave traders, conditions got no better. Somewhere between one in five and one
in ten of all the people put on board would die crossing the ocean during the deadly
Middle Passage. Imagine a modern airline trip on which an average of one passenger in
every row dies before the plane lands, their bodies unceremoniously dumped out of the
rear of the plane along the way.
Even arrival on American shores did not bring a halt to the slaughter: one of every
four who had been strong enough to make it across the Atlantic would die during the first
several years of American ―seasoning,‖ as adjusting to the new environment was called.
In total, then, nearly one in every three of the original captives taken in Africa died from
the process of enslavement.
Such an immense loss of life would not have made any economic sense if the
native population of the Americas had not been expiring even more rapidly. The wars
and cultural shocks that followed the European invasion of the late fifteenth and early
sixteenth centuries, combined with the onslaught of Old World diseases for which Native
Americans had no immunities, threatened to all but destroy the original peoples. In those
early years Europeans were not willing to emigrate in numbers anywhere near sufficient
to replace the native labor force; those Europeans who did come to the Americas too
often quickly died. Indeed, Europeans, when they were put to work in tropical conditions
- in the West Indies, for example - died off at six times the rate they would have in
Europe and at three times the rate of black workers.
The imperial nations of Europe had found their answer to the labor problems of
the Americas in West Africa, where black laborers could be purchased both easily and
relatively cheaply. Although carrying Africans as slaves across the Atlantic Ocean
always remained a chancy enterprise, and earnings varied considerably from place to
place and voyage to voyage, profits usually ran somewhere between 25 to 50 percent.
The result was an important and profitable business - but a brutal and inhumane one.
It is hard to imagine how soul-testing the passage from African freedom to
American slavery must have been for those who experienced it. First there was the
trauma of capture during war or by kidnappers. Then came a trip to the coast that was

45

usually as physically exhausting as it was cruel; the traders who specialized in bringing
slaves to coastal barracoons and river stations tried to move their captives as quickly and
cheaply as possible before illness or escape could lessen their profits. Comfort and kind
treatment were not part of the equation.
Psychologically the last days in the barracoons of Africa took captives a
considerable distance along the brutal passage from freedom to chattel slavery. Days of
cramped waiting, often in the cellars of the stifling hot slaving stations (called factories in
those days), must have dragged by, sweat drop by sweat drop, in endless boredom. Even
worse, when depression lifted enough for conversations to begin, talk too often revolved
around rumors that the prisoners were to be sold to hideously repulsive foreigners who
were going to carry their victims off to the lands of cannibal death far across the western
sea. Even those new slaves long since reduced to vacant stares must have groaned in
dismay when, as in a fevered dream, the fearsome aliens materialized in large oceangoing vessels gliding silently into view, their masts towering heavenward and rigged like
monstrous cannibal fetish shrines.
Mohamommah Gardo Baquaqua described the terror of that irrevocable moment:
―I had never seen a ship before, and my idea of it was, that it was some object of worship
of the white man. I imagined that we were all to be slaughtered.‖ To Belinda, a young
slave woman, the alien appearance of white men, ―whose faces were like the moon and
whose bows and arrows were like the thunder and lightning,‖ seemed to be visual proof
of their evil magic and horrible ways.
―I was now persuaded that I had gotten into a world of bad spirits and that they
were going to kill me,‖ recalled Olaudah Equiano. Coming on deck to see desolate
blacks chained next to a great copper boiling pot convinced the young boy that he was ―to
be eaten by those white men with horrible looks, red faces, and loose hair,‖ who barked
their orders so cruelly in an alien tongue.
In the tropical heat the stench of the ship and its unwashed crew was
overpowering. Chained below in the darkness, the new slaves could feel the departing
vessel begin its slow rolling, creaking morbidly with every invisible swell. Most must
have longed to give up the ghost; those weakened by illness moaned pitifully, while
others cried out in fear or railed angrily against their fate. Often it was not long before
the seas became heavier and the wretching sounds of sea sickness would fill the dark
hold.
After that, no matter how often the necessary tubs were emptied or the hold was
washed down with seawater and vinegar, below deck it would continue to reek of sweat,
vomit, and the putrid human wastes that had sloshed back and forth when the hatches
were battened down. Certainly some voyages were better than others; if the new slaves
stayed healthy, if the seas were light and the winds brisk, and if the crew was more
humane than usual, it might have seemed tolerable. Too often, though, captives found
the conditions unbearable. Some rapidly died of illnesses that in other circumstances
they would have survived. Others tried to kill themselves by jumping overboard or
refusing to eat.
Slavers tried to reduce the likelihood of Africans making suicidal leaps into the
sea by rigging nets along the sides of the ship. If slaves still reached the water, crewmen
were sent after them so that an example could be made; such would-be suicides were,
ironically enough, executed. Afterward their bodies would be mutilated, for the slavers

46

were convinced that Africans believed mutilation would end the cycle of rebirth that
otherwise carried a suicide back home to his family.
When other slaves, out of depression, illness, or suicidal intent, chose not to eat,
the crewmen would use hot coals to sear open their lips or force funnels into their mouths
to pour food down their throats. To those who feared cannibalism, the white crewmen‘s
actions seemed strong evidence that they were fattening their captives for the kill
Despite the slavers‘ torturous attempts to keep their human cargo alive, on most
voyages there were men and women whose desire for freedom and release led them to
suicide or a willful death. Since these victims of the Middle Passage believed they would
return to their former African homelands in the next life, their deaths mark one of the
world‘s greatest, but most overlooked, religious martyrdoms.
Because the conditions of the Middle Passage were so terrible, the slavers often
faced battles to the death during uprisings by the prisoners held aboard ship. John
Newton, a reformed slave trader, explained both the extreme dangers and the measures
slavers took to reduce the likelihood of such revolts in Thoughts upon the Africa Slave
Trade, published in 1788:
Usually about two-thirds of a cargo of slaves are males. When a hundred and
fifty or two hundred stout men, torn from their native land, many of whom
never saw the sea, much less a ship, till a short space before they had embarked;
who have, probably, the same natural prejudice against a white man, as we have
against a black; and who often bring with them an apprehension they are bought
to be eaten: I say, when thus circumstanced, it is not to be expected that they will
tamely resign themselves to their situation. It is taken for granted, that they will
attempt to gain their liberty if possible. Accordingly, we dare not trust them, we
receive them on board from the first as enemies.
Thus, slaves were often put in irons until the ship was at sea. Later each man was
fettered hand and foot to a fellow victim so the movement became possible but only with
great teamwork and deliberation. When the men were brought on deck to exercise,
chains were commonly run through the irons of each pair so that escape and insurrection
became extremely difficult.
The women and children were kept separately and were often free of chains and
irons, but far too often they were at the mercy of vicious seamen who had perhaps the
worst jobs and dispositions in all Christendom. On the loading of the slaves, the sorry
and savage dregs of humanity who served as crew for the slave ships (and who often
would not survive the voyage) would stand on deck rudely calling out their foulest
thoughts as the women passed before them naked, shivering, and terrified. John Newton
recalled the scene: ―The poor [black women] cannot understand the language they hear,
but the looks and manner of the [crewmen] are sufficiently intelligible. In imagination,
the prey is divided, upon the spot, and only reserved til opportunity offers.‖
It is not surprising that the Africans looked for any opportunity to rise up and
strike back against such vile treatment. John Newton understood such insurrections for
what they were - noble struggles for liberty or death: ―An attempt to rise upon the ship‘s
company, brings on instantaneous and horrid war; for, when they are once in motion,
they are desperate….Sometimes when the slaves are ripe for an insurrection, one of them

47

will impeach the affair….The traitor to the cause of liberty is caressed, rewarded, and
deemed an honest fellow. The patriots, who formed and animated the plan, if they can be
found out, must be treated as villains, and punished, to intimidate the rest.‖
Parenthetically we should note that Newton captured one of the basic themes of
the colonial era, the struggle for freedom, but from a perspective we seldom encounter.
Historians have commonly given far to much honor to the Founding Fathers, who were in
reality traitors to the principles of freedom, and missed altogether the greater heroism of
those black men and women who were a truer vanguard of liberty.
Despite all the precautions of chains, guards, and vicious punishments, revolts
remained common on the slave ships. There was an uprising every year or so on French
slavers, about one in every 15 voyages; British ships had fewer revolts, but one every
other year was common enough. On the smaller vessels that American slavers used there
were often several years between uprisings; fewer than 2 percent of the voyages reported
revolts.
Few of the Africans successfully carried across the Atlantic were delivered to the
English colonies of North America. Brazil took eight times more slaves than did the
North American colonies, some 40 percent of the total exported from Africa; the islands
of the Caribbean and the settlements of the Guianas between them took another 50
percent. From the perspective of the Atlantic traders, the more distant North America
was almost an afterthought; Englishmen in the mainland colonies purchased only about 5
percent of the Africans who were transported from the coast.
In the Caribbean the profits made off a new slave in his first year of bondage paid
back the entire cost of the original investment. It is no wonder that conditions remained
so harsh in the islands, that six slaves died there of every slave child born: it was cheaper
to work a slave to death and purchase a replacement than it was to pay for proper human
maintenance and upkeep.
In North America, where the crops slaves produced had less value and higher
production costs, it took much longer to earn back the original purchase investment in a
slave; therefore, bondspeople were generally better treated. A healthier climate may have
been equally important in boosting the North American survival rate. Whatever the
cause, blacks died in the English colonies at no worse a rate than white.
But did physical survival come at the price of cultural death? There is no easy
answer to this vexing question. Non-English immigrants from Europe quickly assumed
British ways during the colonial era even when they were not enslaved, and
contemporary Africans have eagerly adopted American lifestyles without coercion.
Living culture is never static. The early Africans who improvised their way into African
American life should be as respected for their accomplishments, which shaped all our
lives, as pitied for how much they unwillingly lost. The new lives of these Africans
varied considerably across time and from region to region, not to mention from slave to
slave; to understand what happened we must look into the specific circumstances of a
variety of smaller communities in the different colonial regions.
Source: William D. Piersen, From Africa to America: African American History from
the Colonial Era to the Early Republic, 1526-1790, (New York, New York: Twayne
Publishers, 1996), pp. 16-33.

48

Philip D. Curtin examines various types of cultural encounters, the development of
slavery in the Americas (with a focus on Brazil and the Caribbean), the role of Spain and
Portugal in the slave trade, and the differences in the organization of plantations in the
Caribbean and the American South in the following excerpts from his book entitled The
Rise and Fall of the Plantation Complex: Essays in Atlantic History.
The plantation complex was an economic and political order centering on slave
plantations in the New World tropics. During the century centered on about 1800, these
plantations played an extremely important role in the European-dominated portion of the
world economy. Though the core of the complex were the slave plantations growing
tropical staples, the system had much broader ramifications. Political control lay in
Europe. Much of the labor force came from Africa, though some came from Amerindian societies on the South American mainland. In a final phase in the middle to late
nineteenth century, most of the labor was to come from India and China. At its peak,
many of the trade goods to buy African slaves came from mainland South America.
Northern North America and Europe were important trading partners, supplying timber
and food to the plantations and consuming the sugar, rum, indigo, coffee, and cotton they
produced.
The origins of this economic complex lay much further back in time. Its earliest
clear forerunner was the group of plantations that began growing cane sugar in the
eastern Mediterranean at the time of the European Crusades into the Levant. These
plantations, like their successors, produced mainly for a distant market in Europe, thus
becoming the center for a widespread commercial network to bring in labor and supplies
and to carry off the finished product.
With the passage of time the heart of the complex moved westward by way of the
Atlantic islands, Brazil, and the Caribbean. It ultimately stretched from Rio Grande do
Sul in southern Brazil to the Mason-Dixon line, and it had outliers, even at its eighteenthcentury prime, on the Indian Ocean islands of Reunion and Mauritius. Later on it spread
even more widely to Peru, Hawaii, Queensland, Fiji, Zanzibar, and Natal - among other
places - but this worldwide dispersion during the nineteenth century took place just as the
complex began to be dismantled - first with the ending of the slave trade from Africa,
then with the widespread emancipation of slaves throughout the tropical world under
European control. The plantation complex was therefore much more than an economic
order for the tropical Americas alone; it had an important place in world history at
large…
…

Forms of cultural encounter
The peculiarity of the plantation complex stands out clearly in contrast to other
forms of cultural encounter between Europe and non-Western societies. In these same
centuries, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth, four different balances of cultural
demography can be distinguished.

49

One was the trade diaspora of merchants scattered along trade routes to facilitate
trade between people of their own society and their hosts. It was the most ancient form,
occurring at all periods back to the Agricultural Revolution. The merchants were nearly
always a small minority in the host society, but their need to trade forced them to learn
about the local culture - to become, in effect, cross-cultural brokers. The men and
women of these trade diasporas therefore enjoyed a cross-cultural experience of unusual
intensity.
With the Maritime Revolution of the fifteenth century, Europeans gained the
capacity to make direct voyages to virtually any part of the world, and the character of
trade diasporas under European control began to change. Some voyages were peaceful
and purely commercial in intent and conduct, but by the sixteenth century, most
European trade to Asia was militarized, with armed shipping based on fortified trading
posts or trading cities like Goa, Bombay, or Batavia. These ―trading post empires‖ were
to serve in the longer run as a point of departure for the European conquest of India and
Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, they served as a link between Asia and the plantation
complex.
A second form of cultural encounter was outright military conquest and rule over
an alien society. The Christian West had expanded its control in the Mediterranean basin
during the Middle Ages, but Europeans began their imperialist phase overseas with the
conquest of highland South and Middle America in the mid-sixteenth century. As the
Spanish government took over political power from the Inca and Aztec oligarchies, it
needed Spanish cadres as soldiers and officials. A few more Spaniards drifter in as
merchants, miners, and sometimes ranchers, but without displacing the native American
community. The result was a cultural-demographic type sometimes called ―territorial
empire‖ or ―true empire.‖ Unlike the trading post empires, where Europeans settled only
in crucial strong points, with territorial empires they meant to govern the whole, though
with Indian help. The number of Europeans required to run a true empire overseas rarely
amounted to as much as 5 percent of the total population. The local communities
remained intact and kept much of their culture, even after centuries of European rule.
The earliest examples of true empire were the viceroyalties of New Spain and
Peru. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, British India and the Dutch rule over
Java had been added, and they expanded during that century to include all of South Asia
and Indonesia. After the 1880s, mainland Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa were
added. These new European empires outside the Americas, however, came into existence
as the plantation complex was being phased out. The empires important to the plantation
complex at its height were the nearby empires on the mainland of tropical America.
A third cultural-demographic type is sometimes called ―settlement empire‖ or
―true colonization.‖ As Europeans began to settle the North American mainland in the
early seventeenth century, they found the native inhabitants to be comparatively few.
Many died from their encounter with European diseases. Others were pushed aside or
herded into cultural enclaves like the later Indian reservations. This encounter with
blanket immigration is in one sense the opposite of true empire. With true empire the
natives were many and the alien rulers were few; with true colonization, the natives were
few and the alien immigrants were many. The United States is the obvious type case, but
Argentina and Uruguay, Australia and New Zealand, and much of Siberia were all added
to this category by the nineteenth century.

50

The fourth major type was the plantation complex, where Europeans conquered
and then replaced the vanishing native peoples with settlers - but not settlers from
Europe. At first, these settlers were drawn mainly from Africa, but later they came from
Asian lands as well.
Both true empire and true colony are demographic extremes, with a wide range of
possibilities in between. Where the minority - whether natives or settlers - was at least 5
percent of the total population, it could usually maintain its existence as a community and
practice its culture.
Instances where two or more cultural communities exist within a single society
are often called ―plural societies.‖ European settlers created plural societies in several
parts of Africa and Asia - in Africa, Algeria, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa; and
in Asia, Israel, and several regions within the USSR. Plural societies in the Americas had
a different origin. Until the sixteenth century, the Americas had been isolated from the
main disease environments of the Afro-Eurasian landmass. This meant that the native
Americans lacked appropriate immunities against the diseases introduced by Europeans
and Africans. A series of epidemics reduced most New World populations by as much as
90 percent during the first century and a half after contact. The number of European
settlers in South and Middle America was tiny compared to what was to follow in the
nineteenth century, but they increased through natural growth, whereas the Indian
population diminished. By the late seventeenth century, Mexico and Peru had become
plural societies, with Indian and Spanish cultural communities living side by side in the
same state. In time, these separate cultural communities influenced each other and
created a new, integrated culture as a middle ground between them. In Mexico by the
early twentieth century, cultural integration had gone so far that the majority of the
people could only be called Mexican, though separate Spanish and Indian cultural
communities still existed alongside it.
Still another mixed type came into existence on the North American mainland.
Some plantations, especially for tobacco, had begun in the seventeenth century, but the
workers were mainly from Europe. In the eighteenth century, however, the slave trade
reached North America as well. Throughout the U.S. South, a plantation society grew up
alongside the true colony to become a mixed neighbor to the mature plantation societies
of the Caribbean.
…
Africa and African history have a peculiar place in Western historical writing and
in Western consciousness. Some of it has to do with the special relationships between
Africa and Western civilization over the past 400 or 500 years, and especially with the
fact that Africans were the principal slaves in the Western-controlled world from the
sixteenth century well into the nineteenth. But that was not always so. The prototypical
slaves in the medieval world were Slavs - the people exported from the Black Sea slave
trading posts. In classical Latin, the word for ―slave‖ was manicipium, but the
predominance of Slavic people in the medieval trade added a new term, sclavus. This
word and its successors, like ―slave,‖ have been the dominant terms for people owned by
other people in most European languages ever since.

51

People of African descent were nevertheless the stereotypical slaves in Western
societies from the sixteenth century to the nineteenth, and this fact of history was one
source of Western suppositions about alleged African racial inferiority. And Africa‘s
exceptional place in Western thought continued well into the twentieth century. Africa
was the last of the inhabited continents to have its history included in the curricula of
European and American universities.
…
Brazil was peculiarly important in the history of the plantation complex. In our
ethnocentric way, many of us tend to think of the United States as the place where most
slaves were landed. In fact, it was Brazil. Brazil was also the place where the
characteristic elements of New World tropical slave plantations were first put together.
Finally, in 1888 Brazil was the last country in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery.
…
Feudalism from above was abolished, only to appear from below - largely as a political
reflection of power relationships of a rural society, where the dominant social and
economic unit was the slave plantation. With variants, these powers of feudalism from
below were to reappear in the Caribbean when the plantation complex moved on to the
northwest in the seventeenth century.
…
The economics of sugar and disease
The change from settlement to plantation took place for a number of reasons;
some were mere accidents of time and place, whereas others were more fundamental.
One of these was the economic nature of sugar as a commodity. At any date up to the
late nineteenth century, all things being equal, sugar had a high price elasticity of
demand. This means that, as the price decreased, people were willing and able to buy
more of it. Historically, this high price elasticity lasted until people could afford to buy
all they wanted, but the seventeenth-century European market for sugar was far short of
that condition. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, every stop toward greater
efficiency of production, every stop toward cheaper, more secure ocean shipping, and
every step toward cheaper labor costs lowered the price and increased the demand.
The new European maritime capability, pioneered by Dutch shippers since the last
decades of the sixteenth century, was a factor of that kind. Cargoes with high ratios of
bulk to value could now be carried economically, whereas a half-century earlier they
could not. These improvements applied to the cost of bringing slaves from Africa to the
New World as well. Cheaper freight rates also made possible a greater division of labor
in sugar production. In the sixteenth century, Brazil had been virtually self-sufficient in
food. Each plantation region produced its own food, as well as sugar for export. From
the middle of the seventeenth century, islands especially well-suited for sugar production
could concentrate on this single crop, importing most of their food for slaves and
managers from overseas.

52

A second fundamental condition emerged only gradually in European
consciousness. This was the epidemiological difference between Europeans and Africans
in the West Indies. Both the French and English colonial planners in the early
seventeenth century intended the Caribbean island to be settled by Europeans, and both
took it for granted that the vast majority of the settlers would be servants. ―Servants‖ for
this purpose would be indented or engages, using the legal form of engagement or
indenture for a predetermined number of years (most often three or seven). The
engagement contract, furthermore, could be sold to a third party without the servants‘
consent, and its terms could be enforced by penal sanctions. In theory, men and women
bound themselves to work for a specific number of years in return for a free passage to
America and a minimal standard of material support once they arrived there. In practice,
young and poverty stricken Europeans were lured into a temporary condition of
semislavery.
The possibility of using African slaves was rarely considered at first. The
ultimate goal was to tap the fabulous wealth of the Spanish territorial empire, and island
colonies like Barbados or Martinique were to provide potential garrisons at crucial points
- for trade in the short turn, for conquest in the future. For these purposes, a rural
population of African slaves would have been worse than useless, a source of weakness,
not strength.
But rumors based on the Portuguese experience in Brazil had already carried the
word that Africans could work in the tropics, whereas Europeans could not. That belief
was mistaken, but it was to have a long life and is barely dead today. It drew part of its
strength from the correct observation that, though newly arrived Europeans and Africans
both died in greater numbers than old residents did, the European death rate was much
higher than the African. The apparent difference was race, but the effective difference
was not so much heredity as immunities acquired in childhood. The West African
disease environment included the normal range of Old World diseases of the kind that
had killed off the Amerindians, but it also included a range of tropical diseases not
present in Europe. The chief of these were yellow fever and falciparum malaria.
Acquired immunity to falciparum malaria was less effective than it was to yellow
fever. Part of the reason is that falciparum malaria is actually the work of five or more
different species of a protozoa, each of which - and even different varieties within a
single species - leaves its individual trail of immunity in the victim fortunate enough to
survive. Even this is not a true immunity. The apparently immune individual shows no
dramatic clinical symptoms, but he or she remains infested with the parasite. The
immunity will usually last as long as the individual is periodically re-infected. Thus,
even apparently immune Africans who moved from one part of Africa to another were
likely to come down with malaria. Those who moved to the Americas also lost some of
their immunity, but they were far more likely to survive an attack than newly arrived
Europeans were.
The other common form of malaria in the Caribbean was Plasmodium vivax.
Even for Europeans, it was rarely fatal by itself, though it was seriously debilitating and
could contribute to death from other causes. Vivax malaria was altogether absent from
West Africa. West Africans, moreover, have inherited protection against vivax malaria,
associated with certain hemoglobin characteristics, and their ancestors carried this
protection with them to the Americas.

53

The disease and mortality data for the eastern Caribbean in the seventeenth
century are uncertain, but comparable mortality data for the end of the eighteenth century
and the beginning of the nineteenth show Europeans newly arrived as young adults dying
at about four times the rate of newly arrived Africans in the same age group. The sparser
seventeenth-century data suggests a similar difference for that period. From the point of
view of a planter, given a choice of European or African servants, the choice was clear.
The European servant cost about half as much as the African, but the contract ran for
only three to seven years; and the individual was likely to die before it had expired. For
the African, servitude was lifelong, and life was likely to be longer.
…
The plantation complex had obvious weaknesses, the most obvious of which was
the institution of slavery. After experimenting with Indian slavery, Spain had settled on
the encomienda and other forms of forced labor in Spanish America. Northern
Europeans did not practice slavery at home, even on the limited scale of Mediterranean
Europe. Even in the Mediterranean basin, slavery was rare in agriculture, especially now
that sugar planting had moved out into the Atlantic. In Brazil itself, the slave regime had
the obvious weakness that deaths exceeded births, requiring a continuous supply of new
labor. In retrospect, it is hard to see how such an obviously wasteful system could
possibly fill any but a transitional role in American development. Yet the seventeenth
century was to be a key transitional period, when the plantation complex moved on to the
Caribbean and even to the southern American mainland, laying the basis for still more
growth in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
…
The settlement colonies
Some of the more ethnocentric versions of U.S. history imply that the American
South was the heart of the plantation sector in the New World. That was not the case.
The mainland colonies bought a few slaves in the seventeenth century, who were usually
assimilated to the status of indented servants. It was only from the early eighteenth
century on that slave plantations became characteristic of the American South, after the
sugar revolution had already moved to the Greater Antilles. When plantation slavery did
come, it copied from the British West Indies, just as the Lesser Antilles had earlier copied
Brazil.
Even then, the American South was not fully part of the plantation complex. In
the typical sugar islands, 75 to 95 percent of the population were slaves, and many of the
free people were either mulatto or black. In the American South generally, most people
were not slaves at all, but colonists of European descent. Even where, as in South
Carolina, a majority of the working class were slaves, they worked alongside a EuroAmerican working class that was free.
The American South also differed from the heart of the plantation complex in
work organization and plantation size. The typical Caribbean sugar plantation had at
least 50 slaves - more often 200 or even 300. In the United States, even in the 1850s,
when slavery reached its fullest development, fewer than half of the slaves belonged to

54

planters who owned 30 or more. Gang labor, where dozens of men and women worked
side by side under constant disciplinary surveillance, was most typical of sugar
cultivation. The more diversified plantations of the American South often grew
specialized export crops like cotton and tobacco, but they also grew food for themselves
and for the rest of society. Raising pigs, cattle, and chickens, as well as field crops,
created too great a variety of tasks for continuous supervision.
The demographic history of the American South was also strikingly different
from that of the tropical plantation colonies. In the tropics, slave populations experienced
an excess of deaths over births from their earliest settlement on. European populations of
the tropical Caribbean also had more deaths than births. Both had to be renewed by
continuous immigration from Europe and Africa. In North America, on the other hand,
the slave population soon began to grow from natural increase, and the population of free
settlers from Europe grew even more rapidly. Further migration from Europe and Africa
simply increased the total. It is not yet possible to account for this striking difference.
Part of the explanation must be found in the healthier environment of a country with
winter frosts to kill off some tropical diseases, but the American South had malaria and
occasional yellow fever epidemics. Part may be the American achievement of a more
even sex ratio in the slave population at an early date, which, in turn, may reflect the
greater variety of tasks and the smaller size of the American slave plantation.
In any event, both Afro-American and Euro-American populations in the
mainland colonies grew from natural increase, and they increased more rapidly than
contemporaneous populations did in Europe. As a result, the United States is thought to
have the largest population of partial or total African descent in any country in the
Americas - about 30 percent of all Afro-Americans in the New World - even though their
African ancestors made up only about 6 percent of the total slave trade.
Though the number of African-born in each North American generation was
comparatively small, our African ancestors arrived a good deal earlier than our European
ancestors did. The median date of arrival for the ancestors of present-day AfroAmericans was about 1770 - half, that is, arrived before that date and half arrived later.
The equivalent median date for the arrival of Euro-Americans was about 1900.
This comparatively early arrival also made an enormous difference in the history
of African culture in the United States. Though many Euro-Americans have talked to a
grandfather or grandmother who was born in Europe, this is simply not possible for most
Afro-Americans, other than those descended from the new African immigrants who
began to arrive in the 1950s. It is sometimes said that the passage through slavery muted
the survival of African culture. That may be, but the passage of time muted it even more.
Marked survivals of African culture are less frequent among black Americans than they
are among Afro-Cubans, some of whom could still speak Yoruba in the 1980s. By the
same token, the remnants of African culture that did survive in the United States came to
be very widely diffused, especially in the South. Cultural traits of African origin can be
found in the white community, as well as the black, and in new forms that have continued
to evolve in the United States - forms as various as jazz, southern cooking, and expected
behavior in church.
To say this is not to play down the importance of African culture in the United
States or the importance of slave plantations in the history of the American South. They
were obviously crucial to the development of the southern economy, of southern society,

55

and of the regional differences that helped to bring on the American Civil War. But in
the broader perspective of the plantation complex, the plantation regime of the American
South was a curiously atypical and late-flowering institution that reached its peak
between the 1820s and the 1850s, when many plantation societies in the Caribbean were
already in dissolution.
…
For twentieth-century North Americans, the Atlantic slave trade is hard to put in
perspective. More Americans trace their ancestors to Africa than to any continent other
than Europe, and it was the slave trade that brought them; but that phase of our past
carries strong emotional overtones - for Afro-Americans and Euro-Americans alike.
These feelings involve guilt, shame, and the attempt to assess blame for atrocities
committed by people long since dead.
No one today defends the slave trade as a humane institution, and few indeed
defend it on any grounds. It may be well to concede that the era of the slave trade is
beyond the effective range of moral condemnation - and to try to find out what happened
and why, rather than placing blame, however well deserved. The Atlantic slave trade
grew to be the largest intercontinental migration up to its time. One way to begin is to
see the trade as an economic enterprise.
Source: Philip D. Curtin, The Rise and Fall of the Plantation Complex: Essays in
Atlantic History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. xi-xii, 13-16, 29,
46, 56, 79-81, 86, 108-110, 113.

In Sugar and Slaves Richard Dunn examines how the sugar planters in Barbados,
Jamaica, and the Leeward Islands created a system of race-based slavery.
The sugar planters of Barbados, Jamaica, and the Leeward Islands were the first
Englishmen to practice slavery on a large scale. Before the close of the seventeenth
century they brought a quarter of a million Negroes from Africa to these six islands and
branded them as perpetual bondsmen. Without English precedents to draw upon, the
colonists worked up a law code and a set of customs that divided island society starkly
into two classes: white masters and black slaves. The Negro was defined as a chattel and
treated as a piece of conveyable property, without rights and without redress. To be sure,
as in all slave systems, the Negroes in the English sugar colonies exerted certain
countervailing pressures against their masters. As David Brion Davis puts it, ―Even the
most authoritarian master, supported by the most oppressive laws, was to some extent
limited by the will of his slaves, who had the power to appeal, flatter, humiliate, disobey,
sabotage, or rebel.‖ Yet the thrust of the system was all the other way. Slavery in the
English islands was ruthlessly exploitive from the outset, a device to maximize sugar
production as cheaply as possible. And it was nakedly racial, for only Africans and
Indians were enslaved. The seventeenth-century English sugar planters created one of
the harshest systems of servitude in Western history.

56

…
The initial difference between slavery in the two sectors of English America is that the
island colonists plunged into the slaveholding business and the mainland colonists inched
into it. The first Barbados settlers brought ten Negroes with them in 1627. The English
on Tortuga and Providence acquired their first slaves in 1633, and five years later the
blacks on Providence Island staged the first slave revolt in English America. When the
Spaniards captured this island in 1641 they found four hundred Englishmen and six
hundred slaves. The colonists in the eastern Caribbees owned fewer slaves than this
during the tobacco years, but with the beginnings of sugar production, five hundred
Negroes reportedly arrived at Barbados in 1642 and a thousand in 1645. By 1660, as we
have seen, there were about twenty thousand blacks in Barbados, two thousand in the
Leewards, and five hundred in Jamaica - as against a thousand in Virginia.
…
By 1650 certainly, and probably a good bit earlier, slavery in Barbados had
become more than a lifetime condition. It extended through the slave‘s children to
posterity. Richard Ligon, who thought the Negroes were treated better than white
servants, sharply distinguished between the two categories of servitude: ―The Iland is
divided into three sorts of men, viz. Masters, Servants, and slaves. The slaves and their
posterity, being subject to their Masters for ever, are kept and preserv‘d with greater care
than the servants, who are theirs but for five years, according to the law of the Iland.‖
The blacks in these early days of sugar production probably did received better treatment
than later. But they were already clearly construed as articles of private property.
…
The slave laws enacted by the island legislatures in the seventeenth century tell us a good
deal about the treatment of Negroes and the character of slavery in the Caribbean
colonies. These laws set formal standards, to be sure, which were not necessarily
enforced. But it was the big planters on the islands who sat in the assemblies and
composed these laws, which is to say that in the statute books the chief slaveholders
articulated their views on how to handle Negroes. Unfortunately seventeenth-century
West Indian legislation on slavery is hard to piece together. The main body of surviving
island statutes for this period is still in manuscript in the Public Record Office. Only a
handful of acts passed by the island assemblies was printed contemporaneously, and the
compilations of West Indian acts of assembly published by the home government early in
the eighteenth century omit most obsolete seventeenth-century legislation. When the
scattered manuscript and printed laws of the seventeenth century are scrutinized, it turns
out that very few predate the Restoration. Thus the big problem with the island slave
laws is that the earliest ones are mostly missing. Tantalizingly the Barbados slave act of
1661 speaks of the ―many good Lawes and Ordinances‖ already issued by the Barbadians
on this subject. We do not know what these good laws said.
By 1661, at any rate, Barbados had a comprehensive slave code. The act passed
in 1661 by the Barbados Assembly ―for the better ordering and governing of Negroes‖ is

57

the most important surviving piece of legislation issued in the English islands during the
seventeenth century. It was reenacted with slight modifications by later Barbados
assemblies in 1676, 1682, and 1688, was copied by the assemblies of Jamaica, in 1664,
South Carolina, in 1696, and Antigua, in 1702. The preamble to this document implies
that Negro slaves are chattels, for it undertakes ―to protect them as wee doe men‘s other
goods and Chattles.‖ It explicitly characterizes Negroes as ―an heathenish, brutish and an
uncertaine, dangerous kinde of people,‖ unfit to be governed by English law. Yet ―the
right rule of reason and order‖ tells the Barbadians that slaves cannot be left ―to the
Arbitrary, cruell and outragious wills of every evill disposed person.‖ They require
somewhat fuller protection than other forms of property, ―as being created Men, though
without the knowledge of God in the world.‖ Thus the Barbados code aimed to protect
the masters from the brutish slaves and the slaves from their bloody-minded masters. But
in fact the masters were offered far fuller protection than the slaves.
The Barbados code of 1661 accorded masters, servants, and slaves carefully
differentiated rights and obligations. The master had almost total authority over his
slaves and markedly less power over his servants. He was obliged to give his Negroes
new clothing once a year - a pair of drawers and a cap for every male, a petticoat and cap
for every female - but no rules were laid down about slave food or slave working
conditions. The master could correct his slaves in any way he liked, and if while beating
a Negro for a misdemeanor he happened to maim or kill him (―which seldom happens‖),
he suffered no penalty. To be sure, the master could be stiffly fined (three thousand
pounds of sugar or about £ 25) for wantonly killing his slave; the fine was a good deal
stiffer for wantonly killing someone else‘s slave. But since the master could always
claim to be correcting a slave for a misdemeanor, this fine was easy to evade. By
contrast, in legislating for servants, the colony government fixed minimum food
allotments as well as clothing allotments and permitted servants to sue in court or appeal
to the magistrates if mistreated. The master could be fined for failing to take proper care
of a sick servant, and he could be charged with murder should a servant die at his hands.
Servants‘ corpses were routinely checked for signs of lash marks or starvation.
Slave crimes were judged and punished by a different standard than servant
crimes. The guilty servant was given an extended term of indenture: one year of extra
servitude for laying violent hands on his master, two years for theft, three years for
running away or getting a female servant pregnant, seven years for entertaining a fugitive
slave. A Negro found guilty of these same offenses was whipped, branded, or had his
nose slit. Though castration appears to have been a favorite slave punishment, it was not
officially incorporated into the Barbados code. Murder, rape, arson, assault, and theft of
anything beyond a shilling in value were all capital crimes for Negroes. A key difference
between servant and slave justice is that servants were entitled to jury trial, whereas
―brutish slaves deserve not for the baseness of their Conditions to bee tried to the legall
tryall of twelve Men of their appears [i.e., peers] or Neighborhood.‖ So the Negro was
tried by his master for petty offences and by two justices of the peace and three
freeholders for major crimes. The most heinous Negro crime was rebellion or conspiracy
against the white ruling order, tried by court-martial. The master of a rebel slave
received compensation from the island treasury when his Negro was executed. But
should a black man fight and hurt a fellow black, he might be merely whipped while his
master paid compensation to the owner of the injured slave.

58

The Barbados slave act of 1661 was in large part a policing measure, designed to
control the restive black population on the island. Within each plantation the overseers
were expected to keep the Negro cabins under close surveillance, searching twice a
month for stolen goods, clubs, and wooden swords. Six days a week the overseers kept
the slaves busy at their tasks, but Sundays were free and therefore worrisome days for the
whites. The Negroes tended to wander to neighboring plantations and hold markets. The
act of 1661 stipulated that a slave who left his plantation on Sunday must carry a ticket
stating the hour his master expected him back. The white man who found an unticketed
Negro wandering loose was encouraged to give him a ―moderate whipping.‖ A French
visitor to Barbados in 1654 saw slaves given fifty lashes for walking off limits on
Sunday, which shows what ―moderate‖ could mean. To punish a more serious offence,
he says, the master sometimes applied a firebrand all over the slave‘s body, ―which
makes them shriek with despair.‖ The Barbadians were particularly concerned about
stolen and fugitive slaves in 1661. They established a registry of runaway slaves and
organized a posse of twenty men to scout the island fastnesses and capture them dead or
alive. Evidently some whites in Barbados were suspected of entertaining fugitive slaves,
for the colony government promised immediate freedom to any servant who revealed that
his master was keeping a runaway and fined the guilty master £ 80. Note that the fine for
adopting a fugitive was much heavier than for murdering a slave. The Negro who caught
a fugitive slave was rewarded with a fancy new set of clothes adorned ―with a Badge of a
Red crosse on his right Arme, whereby hee may be knowne and cherished by all good
people‖ - the archetype of Uncle Tom.
The Barbados slave code was modified in one important respect in 1668, when
the Assembly decided to classify Negroes as real estate instead of chattels, so that a slave
could be legally tied to a given plantation. The purpose of this measure was to prevent
executors from dismantling plantations in probate settlements. Sometimes creditors
attached and sold all the slaves on an estate, leaving the heirs with ―bare land without
Negroes to manure the same,‖ and the Assembly wanted to keep the island plantations as
viable working units. What effect, if any, this legislation had upon the slave himself is a
moot point. Eugene Sirmans has argued that the Barbados Negro, enjoying the status of
freehold property, became a species of serf, and that his master, bereft of absolute
ownership, had a right only to his services, not to his person. In practice, however, the
Barbados slave certainly enjoyed no new freedom. If anything, the slave laws of the later
seventeenth century further restricted his opportunities.
The Barbados Assembly betrayed a growing sense of alarm as the black
population rose and the white population fell. In 1676 Barbados Negroes were prohibited
from entering such skilled crafts as cooper, smith, carpenter, tailor, or boatman, so as to
reserve these occupations for Christian artisans, which might encourage freed servants to
remain on the island. An act of 1682 berated the Negroes for driving the small white
planters away by their insolent carriage. Policing measure to deal with slaves who
prowled and stole at night were tightened up. Another measure of 1685 tried to shut
down the Sunday markets by prohibiting white persons from trading with Negroes for
pots of sugar and jars of molasses filched from their masters. The last major Barbados
slave act of the century, in 1688, mainly echoed the provisions and language of 1661,
with greater emphasis than before on the wickedness of Negro ―Disorder, Rapines and
Inhumanities to which they are naturally prone and inclined.‖ For the first time,

59

however, the Assembly admitted that some Negroes stole food because they were
starving. The master who failed to provide his slaves with enough to live on was ―in
some measure guilty of their Crimes‖ and could not expect compensation from the island
treasury when his Negroes were executed.
In Jamaica the chief Negro problem during the initial decade of settlement was
how to handle the fugitive Spanish slaves, or Maroons as they became called, who hid in
the remote northwestern mountains and raided the English colonists. The English could
neither conquer nor tame the Maroons. Some of the Spanish Negroes came to terms; in
1663 Gov. Charles Lyttelton granted them ―the same state and freedom as the English
enjoy,‖ with full power to manage their own affairs - as long as they stayed well away
from the English. But other Maroons refused to join this treaty, and they remained totally
independent, a state within a state in Jamaica. Trouble broke out sporadically whenever
the Maroons killed English hunters who penetrated into their territory, but generally these
people isolated themselves and caused little trouble after 1670. Sometimes they even
helped the English track down fugitive plantation slaves.
Meanwhile in January 1664 the Jamaica Assembly drew up its first statue for
governing plantation slaves. Finding that it was too expensive and inconvenient to try
Negro crimes by due process, the Assembly directed any master ―whose slave has
committed any offence worthy of Death‖ to bring the culprit before a justice of the peace
and two neighbors for formal sentencing. No other English statute of the century stated
quite so nakedly the white man‘s arbitrary determination of black crime. But this
legislation was quickly superseded. A new governor, Sir Thomas Modyford, arrived
from Barbados in June 1664, bringing with him a copy of the Barbados slave law of
1661. Modyford‘s first Assembly in the fall of 1664 issued a new ―Act for the better
ordering and Governing of Negro Slaves,‖ which copied the language and all major
provisions of the Barbados statute almost exactly. Thanks to Governor Modyford,
Jamaica adopted the Barbados slave code, lock, stock, and barrel.
The Jamaican legislation of 1664 was revised a number of times, but the final
statement of the century, the Jamaica slave act of 1696, remained very similar to the
Barbados slave act of 1688. In minor respects the Jamaicans did deviate from the
Barbados model. For one thing, since they were always short of slaves in the seventeenth
century, they were reluctant to execute too many troublesome Negroes. In 1683 the
Assembly decreed that whenever a black gang committed a crime short of murder, only
one member of the group should be executed as an example to the rest. Another special
Jamaica problem was that runaways could easily join the Maroons or hole up in the
unoccupied sectors of the island. If a planter had a slave who was always running away,
he fitted him with an iron yoke that had three long hooks projecting from it to hinder his
future escapes. The Assembly directed that any plantation deserted by its owner for six
months should be ―ruinated‖ lest it become ―a Receptacle for Fugitives.‖ A Jamaican
master could be fined five shillings for failing to clothe a Negro properly. More
surprisingly, Jamaican masters were urged in 1696 to instruct their bondsmen in
Christianity and ―cause to be baptized all such as they can make sensible of a Deity and
the Christian Faith.‖ This seems to have been the first official endorsement of religious
instruction for Negroes in the English sugar islands, and it suggests - what was
undoubtedly the case - that Jamaican slaves were generally better off than their brothers
in Barbados. The two colony governments, however, expressed very much the same

60

alarm about slave revolts in the closing years of the century. Echoing Barbados‘s
complaint in 1688 of Negro ―Disorder, Rapines and Inhumanities,‖ the Jamaica
Assembly in 1696 worried over their slaves‘ ―bloody and inhuman Practices‖ and their
―often Insurrections and Rebellions.‖ And indeed, as we shall see, the Jamaica slaves did
often rebel.
The Leeward colonists defined the legal status of their slaves quite loosely in the
seventeenth century. The assemblies in these four islands enacted plenty of policing
measures, but they did not adopt comprehensive slave codes - or at least I have
discovered none until the Antigua slave act of 1702. Probably the Leeward slaves
enjoyed rather more freedom than in Barbados or Jamaica. There was enough interracial
fraternization to upset the Nevis Assembly, which in 1675 forbade ―the unchristianlike
association of white people with Negroes: their drinking together in common upon
Sabbaoth dayes,‖ or other days for that matter. On Antigua and Montserrat slaves were
customarily whipped rather than killed for stealing horses and cattle. On Montserrat and
Nevis the master was expected to plant an acre of provisions for every eight slaves. If,
however, the master discovered any meat in his slave‘s cabin, he was directed to cut off
the culprit‘s ear! This is by no means the only sign of extreme brutality in the Leeward
Islands. A Nevis law of 1675 tried to make ―severall evill minded persons‖ pay
compensation for the ―many‖ Negroes they had ―frivolously‖ killed. In Montserrat
during the 1690s one black was hanged for stealing and quartered for running away, with
―his quarters put up in Publicque places as usual.‖ And when Antiqua finally passed a
comprehensive slave law in 1702, modeled on the Barbados and Jamaica codes, it was for
the better government ―of Slaves and free Negroes.‖ Antiguan blacks, once freed, could
enter craft apprenticeships, work as wage laborers, or own up to eight acres of land. But
they were subject to the same criminal code as the slaves.
When Governor Atkins sent home some Barbados laws for review, he feared that
the slave legislation ―may seem to shock.‖ He need not have worried. The legal counsel
to the Plantation Office approved of Barbados‘s severed code of justice for slaves. Since
Negroes are ―a brutish sort of People and reckoned as goods and chattels in that Island, it
is of necessity or at least convenient‖ to enact separate laws for them. The Lords of
Trade did boggle at one feature of the West Indian slave code. They thought the penalty
for wantonly killing a Negro was too light; a murderer should be more than fined. The
Jamaica Assembly added a three-month prison term, but the home authorities were still
not satisfied. So in 1696 Jamaica reluctantly stipulated that the bloody-minded Negro
killer would get benefit of clergy for his first offense, but would be charged with murder,
punishable according to English law, for a second offense. The Barbados and Leeward
governments, however, continued to fine Negro murderers.
Thus the English sugar planters rapidly evolved a legal system of chattel slavery.
By the 1660s, if not before, they erected a comprehensive slave code that became the
basic social and economic law of the islands. Not surprisingly the island colonists
worked out their slave laws more quickly than the mainland planters. Virginia, for
example, did not draw up a code comparable to the Barbados statute of 1661 until 1705.
The seventeenth-century island laws proved to be remarkably durable; they continued in
force with only minor modifications for 150 years. As in any slave-based society, the
West Indian laws disciplined and regimented the masters as well as the slaves. The chief
planters, speaking through the island assemblies, required each slave owner to act as a

61

policeman, to suppress his humanitarian instincts, and to deal with his Negroes lash in
hand. The slave laws legitimized a state of war between blacks and whites, sanctified
rigid segregation, and institutionalized an early warning system against slave revolts.
After all, the price of tyranny is eternal vigilance.
Source: Richard S. Dunn, Sugar and Slaves, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1972), pp. 224, 226, 228, 238-246.

62

AMERICAN ODYSSEY:
FROM INDENTURED SERVITUDE TO RACIAL SLAVERY

Table of Contents
Part I—Introduction
Part II—The Middle Passage
1678 to 1712—John Barbot‘s Writings on West Africa
June 10, 1679—Edwyn Stede and Stephen Gascoigne to the Royal African
Company,
Barbados
1704—William Snelgrave‘s Recollection of a Mutiny on Board a Ship Bound for
Virginia
April 30, 1723—Captain Edward Hollden to the Owners of the Grayhound,
Barbados
1789—Olaudah Equiano‘s The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah
Equiano or
Gustavus Vassa the African

Part III—Identifying Who Was a Slave in Virginia
November 30, 1624—The Testimony of John Phillip
1624/5—The Population of Virginia
1624/5—The Muster of Edward Bennett‘s Servants in Wariscoyack and Captain
William
Tucker‘s Muster in Elizabeth City
October 1629—ACT IX
September 17, 1630—Punishment of Hugh Davis
1635—Headright System Expanded to Include Africans
1640s—Economic Changes in Virginia
January 1639/40—ACT X

63

June 30, 1640—Commission to Organize a Group to Pursue Runaway Blacks
July 9, 1640—Punishment for Runaway Servants
October 17, 1640—Punishment for a White Man and a Black Woman Who
Commited
Fornication
March 31, 1641—Suit of John Graweere
March 1642/3—ACT I
April 18, 1644—Native American Attack
Fall 1644—The ―rioutous & rebellious‖ Activities of Mrs. Wormeley‘s Slaves
February 1644/5—ACT VIII
[February] 27, 1645/6—Deed from Henry Brooks Junior to Nicholas Brooks
Senior
Last day of February 1645/6—Inventory of the Estate of Lieutenant Thomas
Smallcomb
December 1647—Mortgage of Thomas Wallace to George Ludlow
Early 1647/8—Term of Servitude for Captain William Taylor‘s Indian Girl
Early 1647/8—Estate of William Pryor to Captain John Chisman
1648—Estimated Population of Virginia
October 1649—ACT II
March 1655—Anthony Johnson‘s Suit to Regain Possession of His Slave
March 1655/6—ACT I. An Induction to the Acts concerning Indians
1656—Elizabeth Key‘s Suit for Her Freedom
1657 to 1666—An Increase in the Importation of Africans to York County
October 25, 1657—The Manumission of Mihill Gowen
March 1657/8—ACT XLVI. What Persons are Tithable

64

March 1659/60—ACT XVI. An Act for the Dutch and all other Strangers for
Tradeing
to this Place
1660 to mid 1670s—Virginia Planters Make Arrangements to Buy Africans
March 1660/1—ACT XXII. English running away with negroes
August 1661—Proclamation of Governor Berkeley
March 1661/2—ACT CII. Run-aways
March 1661/2—ACT CV. Against trading with servants
March 1661/2—ACT CXXXVIII. Concerning Indians
March 1661/2—Freedom for Metappin
December 1662—ACT XII. Negro womens children to serve according to the
condition
of the mother
December 1662—ACT XIII. Women servants whose common imployment is
working in
the ground to be accompted tythable
September 1663—ACT XVIII. An act prohibiting servants to go abroad without
a
lycence
September 1667—ACT III. An act declaring that baptisme of slaves doth not
exempt
them from bondage
September 1668—ACT VII. Negro women not exempted from tax
October 1669—ACT I. An act about the casuall killing of slaves
October 1670—ACT IV. Noe Negroes nor Indians to buy christian servants
October 1670—ACT XII. What tyme Indians to serve
1670—Enquiries to the Governor of Virginia from the Lords Commissioners of
Foreign
Plantations; Answered by Sir William Berkeley in 1671

65

September 1671—ACT IV. An act providing how negroes belonging to orphants
of
intestates shall be disposed of
1672—Charter to the Royal African Company
1672—Attempts to Restrict the Movement of Slaves
September 1672—ACT III. An act concerning tythbles borne in the country
September 1672—ACT VIII. An act for the apprehension and suppression of
runawayes, negroes and slaves
June 1673—Punishment for Will
June 16, 1675—The Petition of Philip Gowen for his Freedom
June 1676—ACT I. An act for carrying on a warre against the barbarous
Indians
September 1676—Nathaniel Bacon‘s Loyalty Oath
October 1676—The British Use Treachery to Get the Remainder of Bacon‘s
Army to
Surrender
February 1676/7

Part IV—An Increase in the Restrictions on Slaves and Free Blacks
1677—Petition of Susannah
1678—John Barber‘s Petition
1678—Andrew James Secures his Freedom
April 1679—ACT I. An act for the defence of the country against the incursions
of the
Indian enemy
1680—Changes in Relationships Between White Indentured Servants and Black
Slaves
June 1680—ACT VII. An act assertaining the time when Negroe Children shall
be

66

tythable
June 1680—ACT X. An act for preventing Negroes Insurrections
1681—Lord Culpepper‘s Estimation of Virginia‘s Population
1681—A Case of Miscegenation
November 1682—ACT I. An act to repeale a former law making Indians and
others
ffree
November 1682—ACT II. An act declaring Indian women servants tithables
November 1682—ACT III. An additional act for the better preventing
insurrections by
Negroes
March 23, 1684/5—Deed of Gift from William Booth to William
October 24, 1687—Governor Effingham Reveals a Planned Insurrection by
Slaves
November 1687—Proclamation from Governor Effingham
April 26, 1688—Punishment for Sam
1689—End of the Monopoly of the Royal African Company
1690—Proportion of Africans and Their Descendants in the Chesapeake
July 26, 1690—Proclamation Issued by Governor Nicholson
April 1691—ACT XVI. An act for suppressing outlying slaves
April 1692—ACT III. An act for the more speedy prosecution of slaves
committing
Capitall Crimes
June 1692 to February 1694/5—Status of Mary Walter
April 14, 1694—Proclamation of Governor Andros
May 24, 1694—Presentment of Mary Jewell for Bearing an Illegitimate Child
April 1695—William Cattilla‘s Petition

67

1697—The Need for a Christian Overseer on Plantations
1698—The Slave Trade Opened to All British Subjects
1699 and 1702—Advice on the Management of Servants and Slaves
April 1699—ACT XII. An act for laying an imposition upon servants and slaves
imported into this country, towards building the Capitoll
June 1699—A Difference Between Slaves Imported From Africa and Those Born
in
Virginia
December 14, 1699—The Will of Jane Merry
August 1701—ACT II. An act for the more effectuall apprehending an outlying
negro
who hath commited divers robberyes and offences

Part V—Virginia Summarizes the Legislation That Established Slavery
September 1705—The Need for a Definition of Who was a Mulatto
October 1705—CHAP. IV. An act declaring who shall not bear office in this
country
October 1705—CHAP. VII. An act concerning Tithables
October 1705—CHAP. XI. An act for the speedy and easy prosecution of Slaves,
committing Capitall Crimes
October 1705—CHAP. XII. An act to prevent the clandestine transportation or
carrying
of persons in debt, servants, and slaves, out of this colony
October 1705—CHAP. XIX. An act for establishing the General Court, and for
regulating and settling the proceedings therein
October 1705—CHAP. XXII. An act declaring the Negro, Mulatto, and Indian
slaves
within this dominion, to be real estate
October 1705—CHAP. XXIV. An act for settling the Militia

68

October 1705—CHAP. XLIX. An act concerning Servants and Slaves

Part VI—Conclusion
Selection from Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom
Selection from Allan Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves

69

Part I—Introduction
The English who arrived in Virginia in 1607 found that they had to adapt their way of life
to the New World. Factors that made it difficult to recreate English institutions in
Virginia included disease, conflicts with the Native Americans, the struggle to find a
profitable commodity, and the acute need for labor. The early settlers endured starvation
and malaria and feared attacks by members of Powhatan‘s confederacy during the
colony‘s first decade. The leaders also worked to establish their authority in a settlement
in which they lacked many of the material goods that set them off from the other settlers.
The fortunes and direction of the colony changed in 1614 when John Rolfe (after two
years of work) raised a strain of tobacco that sold in the English market. Colonists who
hoped to emulate Rolfe‘s success began to grow tobacco on every available acre, even
the streets in Jamestown. The men who grew rich from tobacco exploited the labor of
others for their own profit. Those who labored in the tobacco plantations of the colony‘s
prosperous residents included individuals from England and Africa.1
Recent documentary research provides background information on ―20. And Odd
Negroes‖ who arrived in August 1619 on a Dutch ship. The individuals who arrived at
Point Comfort in the summer of 1619 had been taken off a Portuguese slave ship by the
Dutch. The Portuguese captured this group of recently enslaved persons in Angola on the
west coast of Africa. It is possible that they had been baptized and made Christians
(according to Portuguese law) before they arrived in Virginia.2
It is likely that the ―20. and Odd Negroes‖ were slaves in the eyes of the Portuguese and
Dutch. The English were familiar with the concept of lifetime servitude, but they did not
have a system of slavery to transport to the New World. As a result, the Africans who
arrived in the colony during the first part of the seventeenth century occupied an
ambiguous position. Kathleen Brown notes that ―the history of early Virginia was not
initially one of black people and white people but of Indian, African, and English peoples
who had yet to define the meaning of ‗black‘ and ‗white.‘‖ The English settlers needed
the presence of ―others‖—both Native Americans and Africans—in order to create their

1 See the selections from Philip D. Curtin, The Rise and Fall of the Plantation Complex: Essays in
Atlantic History in the Background section of the resource book for information on the differences between
plantations in the American South and other regions in the Western Hemisphere.

2 Engel Sluiter, ―New Light on the ‗20. and Odd Negroes‘ Arriving in Virginia, August 1619,‖ William
and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., LIV(1997):395-398; and John Thornton, ―The African Experience of the ‗20.
and Odd Negroes‘ Arriving in Virginia in 1619,‖ William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., LV(1998):421434.
William Thorndale argues that the Virginia Census of March 1619 should be interpreted as March 1618/9;
however, Martha McCartney‘s analysis of this census indicates that the correct date is March 1619/20; see
Thorndale, ―The Virginia Census of 1619,‖ Magazine of Virginia Genealogy, 33(1995):155-170; and
McCartney, ―Analysis of March 1619/20 Census,‖ unpublished research notes, November 1998.

70

own identity in the New World.3 There were opportunities for African men and women
and their descendants to gain their freedom across much of the seventeenth century
before Virginia‘s leaders firmly defined a system of slavery in the colony.
Philip D. Morgan points out that Virginia changed from a slaveowning society to a slave
society during the seventeenth century: ―In the former, some slaves exist; in the latter
slavery is the determinative institution. A slaveowning society may become a slave
society, but only when a significant proportion of its population is enslaved (say, for
argument‘s sake, more than 20 percent) and, more important, when slavery becomes
central to the economic functioning of that society.‖ Morgan finds that
Race relations tended to be more flexible in slaveowning than in slave societies. Three
features particularly reveal the differences between the two systems. First, the legal
status of black was often uncertain or ambiguous in societies where bondsmen were few,
and the slave might pass fairly readily from bondage to freedom or live in some twilight
zone between the two. By contrast, whenever slavery became a central institution,
elaborate legal codes dispelled any uncertainty concerning the slave‘s status, and the
opportunities for freedom generally narrowed. Second, in societies where slavery was
economically marginal, the niches for blacks tended to be quite wide-ranging. At least
work was not primarily associated with the drudgery of field labor, so prevalent in slave
societies. Finally, sexual relations between whites and blacks tended to involve choice as
well as coercion in slaveowning, as opposed to slave, societies. Slaveowning societies
and slave societies were not, of course, uniform across space and time. Rather, within
each type a spectrum existed, with differences in environment, demographic structure,
and, in particular, stage of economic development producing significant variations.
Virginia‘s planters preferred to purchase white indentured servants instead of slaves until
the 1680s when the supply of English servants decreased. The planters turned to
enslaved Africans to work in their tobacco fields. Slaves did not account for twenty
percent of Virginia‘s population until 1710. Morgan concludes that ―During this slave
owning phase of Virginia‘s history, access to freedom was greater for blacks than it ever
would be again until the Civil War.‖4

3 Kathleen M. Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in
Colonial Virginia, (Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of
Early American History and Culture, 1996), p. 6. See also p. 45.

4 Philip D. Morgan, ―British Encounters with Africans and African-Americans, circa
1600-1780,‖ in Bernard Bailyn and Philip D. Morgan, eds., Strangers within the Realm:
Cultural Margins of the First British Empire, (Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1991), pp. 163164, 171. See also Philip D. Morgan, Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the
Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Lowcountry, (Chapel Hill and London: The
University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and
Culture, 1998).

71

****
The following documents provide information about the system of slavery that Virginians
developed during the seventeenth century. ―American Odyssey‖ begins with five
documents (from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) that detail the horrors of the
Middle Passage, from the point of view of a ship owner, the captain of a slaver, a sailor,
and an enslaved African. Documents from William Waller Hening‘s The Statutes at
Large and H. R. McIlwaine‘s Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial
Virginia trace the evolution of lifetime slavery in the Old Dominion. Excerpts from local
records reveal the fluidity in race relations during Virginia‘s first century. The
―American Odyssey‖ concludes with selections from two historians—Edmund S. Morgan
and Allan Kulikoff—who analyze the evolution of slavery in Virginia.

Part II—The Middle Passage
1678 to 1712—John Barbot‘s Writings on West Africa
John Barbot, an agent for the French Royal African Company, made at least two voyages
to the West of Africa, in 1678 and 1682. He used his voyage journals and printed sources
to begin an account of West Africa in 1683. Barbot, a Huguenot, fled to England in 1685
and finished his work in 1688. When he realized that he could not get his account
published in French, he translated it into English, enlarged it, and continued to revise it
until his death in 1712. Barbot‘s manuscript was published in 1732.
The following excerpts focus on conditions on the English slave ship, Don Carlos.
Barbot‘s nephew, James Barbot, Jr., sailed on the Don Carlos in 1700-1701.
As to the management of our slaves aboard, we lodge the two sexes apart, by means of a
strong partition at the main mast; the forepart is for the men, the other behind the mast for
the women. If it be in large ships carrying five or six hundred slaves, the deck in such
ships ought to be at least five and a half or six foot high, which is very requisite for
driving a continual trade of slaves: for the greater height it has, the more airy and
convenient it is for such a considerable number of human creatures; and consequently far
the more healthy for them, and fitter to look after them. We build a sort of half-deck
along the sides with deals and spars provided for that purpose in Europe, that half-deck
extending no farther than the sides of our scuttles and so the slaves lie in two rows, one
above the other, and as close together as they can be crouded.
...
The planks, or deals, contract some dampness more or less, either from the deck
being so often wash‘d to keep it clean and sweet, or from the rain that gets in now and
then through the scuttles or other openings, and even from the very sweat of the slaves;

72

which being so crouded in a low place, it perpetual, and occasions many distempers, or at
best great inconveniences dangerous to their health.
...
It has been observ‘d before, that some slaves fancy they are carry‘d to be eaten,
which make them desperate; and others are so on account of their captivity: so that if care
be not taken, they will mutiny and destroy the ship‘s crue in hopes to get away.
To prevent such misfortunes, we used to visit them daily, narrowly searching
every corner between decks, to see whether they have not found means, to gather any
pieces of iron, or wood, or knives, about the ship, notwithstanding the great care we take
not to leave any tools or nails, or other things in the way: which, however cannot be
always so exactly observ‘d, where so many people are in the narrow compass of a ship.
We cause as many of our men as is convenient to lie in the quarter-deck and gunroom, and our principal officers in the great cabin, where we keep all our small arms in a
readiness, with sentinels constantly at the doors and avenues to it; being thus ready to
disappoint any attempts our slave might make on a sudden.
These precautions contribute very much to keep them in awe; and if all those who
carry slaves duly observ‘d them, we should not hear of so many revolts as have happen‘d.
Where I was concern‘d, we always kept our slaves in such order, that we did not perceive
the least inclination in any of them to revolt, or mutiny, and lost very few of our number
in the voyage.
It is true, we allow‘d them much more liberty, and us‘d them with more
tenderness than most other Europeans would think prudent to do; as, to have them all
upon deck every day in good weather; to take their meals twice a-day, at fix‘d hours, that
is, at ten in the morning, and at five at night; which being ended, we made the men go
down again between the decks; for the women were almost entirely at their own
discretion, to be upon deck as long as they pleas‘d, nay even many of the males had the
same liberty by turns, successively; few or none being fetter‘d or kept in shackles, and
that only on account of some disturbances, or injuries, offer‘d to their fellow captives, as
will unavoidably happen among a numerous croud of such savage people. Besides we
allow‘d each of them betwixt their meals a handful of Indian wheat and Mandioca, and
now and then short pipes and tobacco to smoak upon deck by turns, and some coconuts;
and to the women a piece of coarse cloth to cover them, and the same to many of the
men, which we took care they did wash from time to time, to prevent vermin, which they
are very subject to; and because it look‘d sweeter and more agreeable. Toward the
evening they diverted themselves on the deck as they thought fit, some conversing
together, others dancing, singing, and sporting after their manner, which pleased them
highly, and often made us pastime; especially the female sex, who being apart from the
males, on the quarterdeck, and many of them sprightly maidens, full of jollity and goodhumour, afforded us abundance of recreation, as did several fine little boys, which we
mostly kept to attend on us about the ship.
We mess‘d the slaves twice a day, as I have observed; the first meal was of our
large beans boil‘d, with a certain quantity of Muscovy lard. . . . The other meal was of
pease, or of Indian wheat, and sometimes meal of Mandioca . . . boiled with either lard,
or suet, or grease by turns: and sometimes with palm-oil and malaguette or Guinea

73

pepper I found they had much better stomachs for beans, and it is a proper fattening food
for captives.
...
At each meal we allow‘d every slave a full coconut shell of water, and from time
to time a dram of brandy, to strengthen their stomachs. . . .
Source: Barbot, ―A Supplement to the Description of the Coasts of North and South
Guinea,‖ in Mintz, ed., African American Voices: The Life Cycle of Slavery, pp. 50-52.

June 10, 1679—Edwyn Stede and Stephen Gascoigne to the Royal African Company,
Barbados
The two slavers described below stopped for provisions in Barbados after about nine
weeks at sea. Many Africans who ended up in Virginia arrived in stages and had their
first view of North America in the West Indies.
On Thursday the 29th of May Capt. Wm. Smith in the Blossom arrived here In
about 9 weeks from Cape Corsoe bound for Virginia touching here for wat‘r and
Refreshments for the Negroes not having touched at the Islands. he brought hither 117
men one Boy and one hundred twenty six women in pretty good Condition. on his
arrivall wee searched the Ship and found noe Negroes more than before menconed nor
other private trade the Factor Mr. Lynch also assuring us there was none. they saild the
5th Instant Leaving with us coppy of their acco‘t of disposall of their cargo at Guynie
signed by the Master and Factor to be sent the Compa.
This day arrived the Swallow Evan Seyes from new Callabar in 9 weeks and in 9
weeks 4 daies from Anibo where he touched for refreshm‘ts and came hither for
Provisions his Yeams being all rotten. they tooke in at Callabar 179 Neg‘rs and Lost 19
of them. wee shall furnish them with all speed with such provisions as this country at
present affords and will dispatch them with all speed to their designed port of Virginia.
Source: Donnan, ed., Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to
America, I:249-250.
1704—William Snelgrave‘s Recollection of a Mutiny on Board a Ship Bound for
Virginia
Captain William Snelgrave published A New Account of some Parts of Guinea, and the
Slave Trade in London in 1734, after some thirty years in the business of slaving. In this
selection from the book, he recounted an unsuccessful uprising that took place on a slaver
that had not yet left Africa for Virginia. Snelgrave recalled that a young man who
intervened on behalf of the ship‘s captain was given his freedom and worked for Colonel
Carter in Virginia before setting out on his own.

74

The first Mutiny I saw among the Negroes, happened during my first Voyage, in
the Year 1704. It was on board the Eagle Galley of London, commanded by my Father,
with whom I was as Purser. We had bought our Negroes at the River of Old Callabar in
the Bay of Guinea. At the time of their mutinying we were in that River, having four
hundred of them on board, and not above ten white Men who were able to do Service:
For several of our Ship‘s Company were dead, and many more sick; besides, two of our
Boats were just then gone with twelve People on Shore to fetch Wood, which lay in sight
of the Ship. All these Circumstances put the Negroes on consulting how to mutiny,
which they did at four a clock in the Afternoon, just as they went to Supper. But as we
had always carefully examined the Mens Irons, both Morning and Evening, none had got
them off, which in a great measure contributed to our Preservation. Three white Men
stood on the Watch with Cutlaces in their Hands. One of them who was on the
Forecastle, a stout fellow, seeing some of the Men Negroes take hold of the chief Mate,
in order to throw him over board, he laid on them so heartily with the flat side of his
Cutlace, that they soon quitted the Mate, who escaped from them, and run on the Quarter
Deck to get Arms. I was then sick with an Ague, and lying on a Couch in the great
Cabbin, the Fit being just come on. However, I no sooner heard the Outcry, That the
Slaves were mutinying, but I took two Pistols, and run on the Deck with them; where
meeting with my Father and the chief Mate, I delivered a Pistol to each of them.
Whereupon they went forward on the Booms, calling to the Negroe Men that were on the
Forecastle; but they did not regard their Threats, being busy with the Centry, (who had
disengaged the chief Mate,) and they would have certainly killed him with his own
Cutlace, could they have got it from him; but they could not break the Line, wherewith
the Handle was fastened to his Wrist. And so, tho‘ they had seized him, yet they could
not make use of his Cutlace. Being thus disappointed, they endeavoured to throw him
overboard, but he held so fast by one of them that they could not do it. My Father seeing
this stout Man in so much Danger, ventured amongst the Negroes to save him; and fired
his Pistol over their Heads, thinking to frighten them. But a lusty Slave struck him with a
Billet so hard, that he was almost stunned. The Slave was going to repeat his Blow, when
a young Lad about seventeen years old, whom we had been kind to, interposed his Arm,
and received the Blow, by which his Arm-bone was fractured. At the same instant the
Mate fired his Pistol, and shot the Negroe that had struck my Father. At the sight of this
the Mutiny ceased, and all the Men-negroes on the Forecastle threw themselves flat on
their Faces, crying out for Mercy.
Upon examining into the matter, we found, there were not above twenty Men
Slaves concerned in this Mutiny; and the two Ringleaders were missing, having, it seems,
jumped overboard as soon as they found their Project defeated, and were drowned. This
was all the Loss we suffered on this occasion: For the Negroe that was shot by the Mate,
the Surgeon, beyond all Expectation, cured. And I had the good Fortune to lose my
Ague, by the fright and hurry I was put into. Moreover, the young Man, who had
received the Blow on his Arm to save my Father, was cured by the Surgeon in our
Passage to Virginia. At our Arrival in that Place we gave him his Freedom; and a worthy
Gentleman, one Colonel Carter, took him into his Service, till he became well enough
acquainted in the Country to provide for himself.

75

Source: Donnan, ed., Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to
America, II:353-354.

April 30, 1723—Captain Edward Hollden to the Owners of the Grayhound, Barbados
By the time the slaver the Grayhound reached Barbados en route to Virginia from Bonny
in present-day Nigeria, one hundred and twenty-five slaves had died, more than one third
of those who had boarded the ship. The captain, at a loss to explain such a high rate of
mortality, defended his oversight of the slaves. He planned to continue to Virginia,
leaving behind twenty-five sick slaves in Barbados. Before they even arrived in Virginia,
then, the Grayhound‘s slaves had had a particularly stark encounter with the horror and
the capriciousness of slavery.
Sir, This With My Humble Servis to you and the Rest of the Gentlemen Owners
of the Ship Grayhound Galley and is to certifie you of my Arrivall hear haveing seven
Weeks Passage from Bony but very Dismall and Mortall for outt of 339 Slaves I brought
in hear butt 214 for the Like Mortalaty I think Never was known for Jolly Likely Men
Slaves to Eatt thair Diett over Night and the Nex Morning Dead 2 and 3 in a Night for
severall Days after Wee Came from Bony as for Managementt I think itt Could Nott be
Better I always had their Victualls in good order and Took that Care to keep them and the
Ship Sweet and Cleane allthoyt I Did itt my Self and Nott to Sufer any of them to Wett
Their Foott on No Acctt: att my Arivall hear I aplyd my self to Mr. Crump and Heasell as
Orderd I haveing on bord aboutt 20 or 25 Slaves outt of flesh and do think itt for your
Intrust to Leave them With Mr. Crump and Mr. Heasell for I think there Will be More
Gain then Loss for to Run the Risk in Carrying them to Virginia and besids
Discomodeing them as is in health. Provicions I have an Nought as Bread, beefe, Rice,
beanes, yames so I Desire to Take in hear Sum Plantains a barrell of Flower a few Limes
and sum Rum for a Recrute and so make the best of My Way to Virgina as Directted by
your orders hear Capt. Coster is hear butt is under sum Troble his Vesell was seise on the
Acctt of his being a foriner as I under stand itt is Nott over itt [yet] Nor No one know
when itt Will. Gentellmen I Purchase att Bony 339 Slaves 189 Men and 128 Women 16
boys and 6 Girles I buried 17 before Came over the bar and 113 after Wards and have
bought 28 Teeth Weighing between 15 and 16 hundred pound and Sum Red Wood.
Dockter Smith is Dead and the Copper [cooper] and four Sailors and one boy besides.
Source: Donnan, ed., Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to
America, II: 299-300.
1789—Olaudah Equiano‘s The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano or
Gustavus Vassa the African
In the following excerpt, Olaudah Equiano recounts his experience during the Middle
Passage from Africa to Barbados in the 1750s.

76

The stench of the hold while we were on the coast was so intolerably loathsome,
that it was dangerous to remain there for any time . . . . some of us had been permitted to
stay on the deck for the fresh air. But now that the whole ship‘s cargo were confined
together, it became absolutely pestilential. The closeness of the place and the heat of the
climate, added to the number of the ship, which was so crowded that each had scarcely
room to turn himself, almost suffocated us.
This produced copious perspirations so that the air became unfit for respiration
from a variety of loathsome smells, and brought on a sickness among the slaves, of which
many died–thus falling victims of the improvident avarice, as I may call it, of their
purchasers. This wretched situation was again aggravated by the galling of the chains,
which now became insupportable, and the filth of the necessary tubs [toilets] into which
the children often fell and were almost suffocated. The shrieks of the women and the
groans of the dying rendered the whole a scene of horror almost inconceivable.
Happily perhaps for myself, I was soon reduced so low that it was necessary to
keep me almost always on deck and from my extreme youth I was not put into fetters. In
this situation I expected every hour to share the fate of my companions, some of whom
were almost daily brought upon the deck at the point of death, which I began to hope
would soon put an end to my miseries. Often did I think many of the inhabitants of the
deep much more happy than myself. I envied them the freedom they enjoyed, and as
often wished I could change my condition for theirs. Every circumstance I met with,
served only to render my state more painful and heightened my apprehensions and my
opinion of the cruelty of the whites.
One day, when we had a smooth sea and moderate wind, two of my wearied
countrymen who were chained together (I was near them at the time), preferring death to
such a life of misery, somehow made through the nettings and jumped into the sea.
Immediately another quite dejected fellow, who on account of his illness was suffered to
be out of irons, followed their example. I believe many more would very soon have done
the same if they had not been prevented by the ship‘s crew, who were instantly alarmed.
Those of us that were the most active were in a moment put down under the deck, and
there was such a noise and confusion among the people of the ship as I never heard
before to stop her and get the boat out to go after the slaves. However, two of the
wretches were drowned, but they got the other and afterwards flogged him unmercifully
for thus attempting to prefer death to slavery.
I can now relate hardships which are inseparable from the accursed trade. Many a
time we were near suffocation from the want of fresh air, which we were often without
for whole days together. This, and the stench of the necessary tubs, carried off many.
Source: The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano or Gustavus Vassa the
African (London, 1789), in Mintz, ed., African American Voices: The Life Cycle of
Slavery, pp. 55-56.

Part III—Identifying Who Was a Slave in Virginia

77

The Africans who arrived in Virginia in late August 1619 probably became part of the
group of servants who labored for the London Company. In the early years of the colony
the English did not have precise legal identities for English or African servants. The
indenture process was informal and many people—white and black—faced indefinite
terms as servants. It is possible that the presence of Africans—some of whom arrived on
Dutch ships as slaves—helped leaders define the conditions and length of servitude for
white men and women. A precise legal definition for slavery in the colony was not
created until 1662. The following selections indicate that Africans and their descendants
received unequal treatment in the years before the General Assembly decided that
children of enslaved women would be slaves for life. The documents also reveal that
relations between English and Africans had a degree of fluidity during the seventeenth
century as Virginia developed into a society where race, instead of status, determined
one‘s place in the social hierarchy.

November 30, 1624—The Testimony of John Phillip
John Phillip‘s status as a Christian may have allowed him the right to testify in the
General Court on November 30, 1624.
It is likely that several of the Africans who arrived in Virginia in the late 1610s and the
early 1620s were baptized. As Thad W. Tate notes, Christian names such as Anthony,
Isabella, and John Pedro suggest that the Portuguese baptized the Africans before they
were transported to the colony. Anthony and Isabella‘s son, William, received his
baptism in Jamestown soon after his birth in late 1624 or early 1625. The couple gave
him their master‘s surname, Tucker.
John Phillip A negro Christened in England 12 yeers since, sworne and exam
sayeth, yt beinge in a shipp wth Sr Henry Maneringe, they tooke A spanish shipp aboute
Cape Sct Mary, and Caryed her to mamora in wch shipp was A spanish ladye and divers
other, And beinge in mamra Mr Symon Tuchinge Cam into Mamora in a smale shipp, and
after some Conference had by ye said Tuchinge wth the Spaniards taken as aforesaid, he
was by them ymployed in ye said smale shipp to Lisbone to feach money for the
Ransominge of the said lady, wch Accordinglie he pformed.
Source: McIlwaine, ed., Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia,
p. 33; Tate, The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg, pp. 65-66.

1624/5—The Population of Virginia
Two documents, A List of Names of the Living and the Dead in Virginia dated February
1623/4 and The Virginia Muster of 1624/5, provide details about the early residents of
Virginia. Colonists took the 1623/4 list to have a record of the individuals who survived
the 1622 Indian attack. The 1624/5 muster is a house-to-house survey of Virginia‘s
inhabitants that the Crown ordered after it took control of the colony from the Virginia

78

Company in 1624. Irene W. D. Hecht analyzed the muster to learn details about the
population of Virginia in 1624/5.
In 1624/5, there were 1,218 persons living in the colony. A total of 115 individuals had
died since 1624. The majority of the population—934 (76.7%) were male. The females
accounted for 270 (22.1%) individuals, and the gender of fourteen (1.2%) could not be
determined. There were twenty-two Africans, a child born to African parents, and two
Native Americans who lived as part of the colony. The 1,218 men, women, and children
lived in 309 households and about one-third of the households had at least one servant.
Two tables from Hecht‘s article follow.
Table V—Servants in Virginia, 1625

Negroes
Indians
Hired Servants
White Servants
Total

Males
13
1
3
437
454

Females
9
43

Unknown
1
1

52

2

Total
23
1
3
480
507

Fifteen of the twenty-three Africans lived in two households. The remaining eight
belonged to five households. All but two of the Africans lived in households that were
among the fourteen largest in the colony.
Table VII—Distribution of Negro Servants or Slaves in Virginia, 1625
Negro Servants or Slaves
Muster
A. Piersey
G. Yeardley
W. Tucker
W. Pierce
E. Bennett
F. West
R. Kingsmill

Total No.
of Servants
40
36
18
17
12
6
4
133

Male
4
3
1
0
1
1
1
11

Female
2
5
1
1
1
0
0
10

Child
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2

Total
7
8
3
1
2
1
1
23

Source: Hecht, ―The Virginia Muster of 1624/5,‖ p. 77, 78.
1624/5—The Muster of Edward Bennett‘s Servants in Wariscoyack and Captain William
Tucker‘s Muster in Elizabeth City

79

Both Edward Bennett and William Tucker had Africans in their housholds in 1624/5.
The muster does not indicate whether the Africans were seen as servants or slaves. The
fate of Tucker‘s Anthony, Isabella, and William is unknown. Bennett‘s Antonio arrived
in the colony in 1621 and survived the Indian attack the following year—perhaps because
the Native Americans spared the lives of Africans. Antonio married Mary, an African
woman who was brought to Virginia soon after the 1622 uprising. Antonio and Mary
gained their freedom and moved to the Eastern Shore. Antonio, later known as Anthony
Johnson, was one of the free black landowners in Northampton County.
The MUSTER of m‘ EDWARD BENNETT‘s servant‘s
HENERY PINKE came in the London Marchannt 1619
JOHN BATE in the Addam 1621
PEETER COLLINS in the Addam 1621
WASSELL WEBLING } in the James 1621
ANTONIO a Negro
CHRISTOPHER REYNOLD‘S
LUKE CHAPPMAN
} in the John & Francis 1622
EDWARD MAYBANK
JOHN ATTKINS
WILLIAM DENUM
} in the Guifte 1623
FRANCIS BANK‘S
MARY a Nergro Woman in the Margrett & John 1622
CAPT WILLIAM TUCKER his MUSTER
Capt WILLIAM TUCKER: aged: 36: in the Mary and James: 1610
Mrs MARY TUCKER aged: 26: in the George: 1623.
ELZABETH TUCKER borne in Virginia in August:
GEORGE TOMSON aged: 17…….
PAULE TOMSON aged: 14………. } in the George 1623:
WILLIAM THOMSON — 11 ……..
PASCOE CHAMPION aged 23…….} in the Ellonor 1621:
STRENGHT SHEERE aged: 23……
THOMAS EVAND‘S aged: 23…….
STEPHEN COLLOWE aged: 23…..} in the George: 1623.
ROBART MUNDAY aged: 18……..
MATHEWE ROBINSONN aged: 24 in the greate hopewell 1623:
RICHARD APPLETON aged: 19: in the James 1622.
JOHN MORRIS aged 24: in the Bona Nova: 1619.
MARY MORRIS aged 22: in the George 1623
WILLIAM HUTCHINSON aged 21: in the Diana 1618
PEETER PORTER aged 20 in the Tyger 1621.
WILLIAM CRAWSHAW an Indean Baptised.
ANTONEY Negro: ISABELL Negro: and WILLIAM theire Child Baptised

80

Source: Hotten, ed., The Original Lists of Persons of Quality, pp. 241, 244.

October 1629—ACT IX
Although this law did not rule out the possibility that English women would work in the
tobacco fields, it did begin the process of creating a distinction between the work that
English and African women performed in the colony.
IT is thought fitt that all those that worke in the ground of what qualitie or condition
soever, shall pay tithes to the ministers.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1:144.

September 17, 1630—Punishment of Hugh Davis
Perhaps Hugh Davis received a whipping and had to acknowledge that he committed
fornication with an African woman because the legislators believed that interracial
fornication was more sinful. Compare Davis‘s punishment with that handed out to
Robert Sweat in 1640.
Hugh Davis to be soundly whipped, before an assembly of Negroes and others for
abusing himself to the dishonor of God and shame of Christians, by defiling his body in
lying with a negro; which fault he is to acknowledge next Sabbath day.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1:146.

1635—Headright System Expanded to Include Africans
In 1635, Virginians began to claim a headright of fifty acres for each African imported
into the colony.
JOHN UPTON, 1650 acs., Warresquioake Co., 7 July 1635, p. 210. About 3 mi.
up Pagan point Cr., bounding almost W. from the Cr. into the woods a little Cr. running
in by the sd. Land out of the Pagan Pt. Cr. to a great poplar tree. Trans. of 33 pers: Rich.
Young, Antho. a Negroe, Mary a Negroe, Florence Richards, Roger Bagnol, Ralph
Harwood, Thomas Reevs, Rich. Spackman, Edward Burr, Savage Merrie, Wm. Scott,
Rich. Jones, Fr. Savage, Owen Howell, Nich. Bushell, James Parsons, Jon. Parker, Lewis
Phillipps, Morgan Roberts, Wm. Davis, John Fitchett, Morgan Roberts, Wm. Davis, John
Fitchett, Morgan Evans, Christopher Lewis, Phillipp Jennersly, Eliz. King, Martha
Swann, Mary Johnson, Jonas Sadlington, Anth. Tyler, Peter Heyes, Rich. Jackson, Wm.
Pincher, Eliz. Larkin.

81

Source: Nugent, et al., comps., Cavaliers and Pioneers, I:25; Tate, The Negro in
Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg, p. 11.

1640s—Economic Changes in Virginia
The colonists who rushed to plant tobacco prospered during the late 1610s and the 1620s.
This time of economic growth—described as Virginia‘s ―Boom Time‖ by Edmund S.
Morgan—ended in 1630. Overproduction of tobacco in the colony resulted in a
decreased price for tobacco in England. The dramatic decline in tobacco prices
encouraged some planters to allow their all of their laborers—white and black—to work
independently.
While some slaveowners spurred productivity in this labor-short economy by
laying on the lash, others offered more generous incentives to servants and slaves.
Among the benefits planters extended was the opportunity to labor independently at least
a portion of the time, with an understanding that servants and slaves would feed and
clothe themselves or at least share the profits of their independent ventures. Such
incentives did nothing to challenge the planters‘ domination or the system of servitude
upon which it rested. Indeed, they strengthened the planters‘ hand by allowing them to
transfer the burden of subsistence to their laborers, while they concentrated singlemindedly on tobacco.
If many slaveowners welcomed the exchange, gladly shrugging off their
responsibilities as masters and mistresses while retaining their prerogatives, many slaves
embraced the possibilities implicit in the bargain. Laboring to support themselves meant
additional work, to be sure, but it provided a mechanism for them to control a portion of
their lives, and it offered an opportunity—however slight—to buy their way out of
bondage. The benefits that flowed to slaves from self-subsistence often extended beyond
a richer diet and a larger wardrobe. In Virginia, the justices of one county court allowed
a miscreant slave the choice of the lash or a fine, which he could pay ―out of that hee
calls his owne estate.‖
The exchange of subsistence for time to labor independently marked the
beginnings of the slaves‘ economy in the Chesapeake region, an elaborate system of
exchange that complemented, overlapped, and sometimes competed with the owners‘
economy within the larger system of staple production. Given time to attend to their own
affairs in exchange for subsisting themselves, slaves gardened, tended barnyard animals,
and hunted and fished on their own. Occasionally, they manufactured small items and
sold them to their owners, neighbors, or other slaves.
Such arrangements had a long history in the evolution of plantation societies in
the Atlantic world, reaching back to the emergence of the plantation in the Mediterranean
and the island off the coast of Africa in the fourteenth century. They were widely
practiced in the Caribbean.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, p. 33.

82

January 1639/40—ACT X
This statute created a legal distinction between white and black men.
ALL persons except negroes to be provided with arms and ammunition or be fined at
pleasure of the Governor and Council.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1:226.

June 30, 1640—Commission to Organize a Group to Pursue Runaway Blacks
On June 30, 1640 the General Court commissioned John Mattrom and Edward Fleet to
organize a group of men to pursue runaway blacks. This group was similar to the patrols
authorized by the Assembly in the eighteenth century.
The court hath granted that a commission shall be drawn for John Mattrom and
Edward ffleet authorizing them to levy a party of men, or more if need require, out of the
trained band for Charles river [York] county with arms and ammunition to go in psuit of
certain runaway negroes and to bring them to the governor. And it is further ordered that
such men as shall be pressed for this expedition shall receive their pay and satisfaction
for their pains at the public charge of the counties from whence such negroes are runaway
and likewise for any boat or boats that shall be taken for the said service.
Source: McIlwaine, ed., Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia,
p. 468.

July 9, 1640—Punishment for Runaway Servants
On July 9, 1640, members of the General Court decided the punishment for three
servants—a Dutchman, a Scotsman, and an African—who ran away from their master as
a group. The proceedings reveal an example of interracial cooperation among servants at
a time when the colony‘s leaders were starting to create legal differences between
Europeans and Africans. John Punch became the first African to be a slave for life by
law in Virginia.
Whereas Hugh Gwyn hath by order from this Board Brought back from Maryland three
servants formerly run away from the said Gwyn, the court doth therefore order that the
said three servants shall receive the punishment of whipping and to have thirty stripes
apiece one called Victor, a dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall
first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole
year apiece after the time of their service is Expired. By their said Indentures in
recompense of his Loss sustained by their absence and after that service to their said
master is Expired to serve the colony for three whole years apiece, and that the third

83

being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of
his natural Life here or elsewhere.
Source: McIlwaine, ed., Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia,
p. 466.

October 17, 1640—Punishment for a White Man and a Black Woman Who Commited
Fornication
The General Court handed out different punishments to a white man and to a black
woman who bore a mulatto child.
Whereas Robert Sweat hath begotten with child a negro woman servant belonging
unto Lieutenant Sheppard, the court hath therefore ordered that the said negro woman
shall be whipt at the whipping post and the said Sweat shall tomorrow in the forenoon do
public penance for his offence at James city church in the time of devine service
according to the laws of England in that case pvided.
Source: McIlwaine, ed., Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia,
p. 477; see also Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1:552.

March 31, 1641—Suit of John Graweere
The suit of John Graweere reveals that there were greater restrictions on the ownership of
personal property by black servants. In addition, Graweere‘s successful petition to
purchase his child indicates another difference between white and black men.
Graweere‘s decision to use the court to secure his son‘s freedom indicates that he was
one of the many blacks in Virginia who knew how to use the colony‘s institutions. Ira
Berlin notes that ―Identifying themselves with the community‘s most prominent icons
and institutions, much as they connected themselves with the community‘s most
prominent men and women, Atlantic creoles [defined as those by experience or choice, as
well as by birth became part of a new culture that emerged along the Atlantic coast—in
Africa, Europe, or the Americas—beginning in the 16th century] demonstrated a
determination not to be excluded from Chesapeake society by intimations that they were
libidinous heathens without language, lineage, or culture. Nowhere was this persistent
drive for inclusion more evident than in their mastery of the law. Perhaps because of the
fragile nature of their social position, creoles were extremely conscious of their rights at
law.‖
Whereas it appeareth to the court that John Graweere being a negro servant unto
William Evans was pmitted by his said master to keep hogs and make the best benefit
thereof to himself pvided that the said Evans might have half the increase which was
accordingly rendered unto him by the said negro and the other half reserved for his own

84

benefit: And whereas the said negro having a young child of a negro woman belonging
to Lieut. Robert Sheppard which he desired should be made a christian and be taught and
exercised in the church of England, by reason whereof he the said negro did for his said
child purchase its freedom of Lieut. Sheppard with the good liking and consent of Tho:
Gooman‘s overseer as by the deposition of the said Sheppard and Evans appeareth, the
court hath therefore ordered that the child shall be free from the said Evans or his assigns
and to be and remain at the disposing and education of the said Graweere and the child‘s
godfather who undertaketh to see it brought up in the christian religion as aforesaid.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, p. 42; McIlwaine, ed., Minutes of the Council
and General Court of Colonial Virginia, p. 477.

March 1642/3—ACT I
This statute enacted the first legal distinction between English and African women. The
difference reflects that fact that Virginia‘s legislators believed that English and African
women would play different roles in the colony. Kathleen Brown notes that the members
of the General Assembly focused their attention on African women between 1642/3 and
1668 as they created Virginia‘s system of slavery.
Be it also enacted and confirmed That there be tenn pounds of tob‘o. per poll & a bushell
of corne per poll paid to the ministers within the severall parishes of the collony for all
tithable persons, that is to say, as well for all youths of sixteen years of age as upwards,
as also for all negro women at the age of sixteen years.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1:242; Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches,
and Anxious Patriarchs.

April 18, 1644—Native American Attack
According to Helen C. Rountree, it appears that the Native Americans did not kill any
Africans or descendants of Africans during their attack on the English on April 18, 1644.
Rountree notes that Opechancanough‘s followers did take several enslaved Africans as
prisoners.
On April 18, 1644, Opechancanough staged the second major attack on the English.
Because of the poor survival rate of Virginia records of the 1640s, we know little about
the initial assault on the English or its aftermath. By reconstruction, it seems that the
Weyanocks, Nansemonds, Pamunkeys, and Chickahominies were involved; the
participation of the Rappahannocks and other chiefdoms on the northern neck was
questionable. After killing about four hundred English people and taking many prisoners,
[including negro slaves], Indian warriors melted away into the woods and attempted no
follow-up attack, once again giving the English time to regroup.

85

Source: Rountree, Pocahontas‘s People, p. 84.
Fall 1644—The ―rioutous & rebellious‖ Activities of Mrs. Wormeley‘s Slaves.
The September and October 1644 minutes of the General Court noted that Mrs.
Wormeley‘s slaves were involved in ―rioutous & rebellious‖ activities. Perhaps these
words reflected a fear that the Africans in the colony would join forces with the Native
Americans in another attack against the colonists.
Septr 3. 1644
negroes
Sept 10. 1644
Sept

Concerning the rioutous & rebellious conduct of Mrs Wormleys
p 301, 2. also Octo 10. 1644 p. 319
Psons apprehended for rebellion (Phaps Mrs Wormleys Servants
3d) 332

Source: McIlwaine, ed., Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia,
p. 502.

February 1644/5—ACT VIII
African women and their descendants were counted among the tithes in 1644/5.
And because there shall be no scruple or evasion who are and who are not tithable, It is
resolved by this Grand Assembly, That all negro men and women, and all other men from
the age of 16 to 60 shall be adjudged tithable.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1:292.

[February] 27, 1645/6—Deed from Henry Brooks Junior to Nicholas Brooks Senior
A deed between Henry Brooks Junior and Nicholas Brooks Senior on [February] 27,
1645/6 indicates that some residents of York County viewed Africans as slaves for life.
Henry Brooks Junior sold ―3 Negroes Viz: two Negroe woem[en] and one childe‖ to
Nicholas Brooks Senior ―& his heirs execrs etc for ever.‖
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (2) 63, 27 [February] 1645/6.

Last day of February 1645/6—Inventory of the Estate of Lieutenant Thomas Smallcomb

86

Thomas Smallcomb was one York County resident who had Native American servants.
The executors of Smallcomb‘s estate sold two Indians to Sir William Berkeley for 600
pounds of tobacco, an equal number to John Hammon for 500 pounds of tobacco, and
one Native American to Captain Thomas Pettus for 600 pounds of tobacco.
one Indian Gerle three yeares of age or thereabouts praysed at 300 [pounds of tobacco]
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (2) 99, dated ―last of February‖ and 130131, dated 10 March 1645[/6].

December 1647—Mortgage of Thomas Wallace to George Ludlow
Thomas Wallace had an African, an English, and a Native American servant in his
household in December 1647. The English boy was the only servant whose surname was
noted.
Thomas Wallis of County of Warwick River in Va Doctor of Physick in consideration of
6000 lbs tobo &ca. Due from me sd Thomas to George Ludloe Esqr have by these
presents for consideration aforesd Bargained & sold unto sd George and in open market
delivered to sd George one Negro by name Sebastiane one English boy named Nathaniell
Chambers one Indian woman named Martian one great feather bedd boulster & two
pillows marked with L one Redd Rugg & a pair of blankets one lesser fether bed bolster
& pillow marked with L one white rugg & one black, To have and to hold the sd Negro
English boy and Indian Woman bedds pillows etc unto sd Ludlowe & his execrs etc
freely peacably etc forever yet nevertheless that the sd Thomas shall pay or cause to be
pd to sd George the sd sum of tob in manner & form as followeth that is to say 3000 lbs
on the 20th of Nov next & 3000 lbs on 20th of Nov wch shalbe in the yr 1649 then this
bill to be void or else to remain in effect. 16 Dec 1647.
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (2) 308, 1 December 1647.
Early 1647/8—Term of Servitude for Captain William Taylor‘s Indian Girl
In early 1647/8 the York County Court decided that Captain William Taylor‘s Indian girl
would be his servant until she reached her eighteenth birthday.
The Ct doth order that Formue a girl brought from the Indians and kept by Capt Willm
Taylor shall serve the sd Capt Willm Taylor till she comes to the age of 18 yrs.
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (2) 329, 25 January 1647/8.

Early 1647/8—Estate of William Pryor to Captain John Chisman

87

Captain John Chisman bought eight blacks from the estate of William Pryor in early
1647/8. The description of the persons whom Chisman bought—―6 old Negores and 2
Negro Children‖—indicates that six of the group had been in Virginia for several years.
Chisman and other residents of York County also purchased Africans who were
transported to Virginia in the 1640s, 1650s, and 1660s.
Capt Thomas Harrison of Ratliffe in County of Midd gent. and Capt Thomas Harrwood
of Va Gent. overseers and feofes in trust of estate of Mr Willm Pryor late of Va Gent. for
the use of the sd testators daughters Margerrett and Mary Pryor the will dated 21 Jan
1646 & probate granted to sd Harrison & Harrwood by Gov Berkeley 4th Feb 1646 and
by like power & virtue of probate taken in England in name of Mr Jasper Clayton Gent.
one of the overseers & feofes in trust of sd estate & Capt Harrison under the seale of the
sprerogative Ct bearing date 15 April 1647 sold to Capt John Chisman of Va Gent. & his
heirs etc 6 old Negores and 2 Negro Children about the age of 2 yrs old apeece Vizt 4
Negro men called by names Anthony, Francis, Peeter and Domingoe and the 2 Negro
women called Kate and Grace the sd Chisman & his heirs etc forever in consideration
whereof Chisman in hand pd to sd Harrison & Harrwood for the use of Margerret and
Mary the sum of 150 £ Sterl of Lawful money of England. 31 Jan 1647/8.
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (2) 338, 25 January 1647/8.

1648—Estimated Population of Virginia
15,000 English; 300 Negro servants
Source: Greene and Harrington, American Population Before the Federal Census of
1790, p. 136.

October 1649—ACT II
This act concerning tithes did not mention African women.
WHEREAS it appeareth to severall Grand Assemblies that the lists of tithable persons are
very imperfect, and that notwithstandinge the yearly importation of people into the
collonie, the number of tithables in the said lists is rather diminished then augmented,
which is in great part conceived, by this Assembly, to happen, in that all under the age of
sixteen yeeres are exempted from the lists, and that once passing under that age they are
seldom or never acknowledged to exceed the same, in respect of the impossibility of, or
at least unlikelyhood of produceinge convinceing proofes against them: Bee it therefore
enacted, for the preventing of the like abuse hereafter through false & imperfect lists,
That all male servants imported hereafter into the collony of what age soever they be,
shall be brought into the lists and shall be liable to pay country leavyes, excepting in this
act such as are natives of this collony and such as are imported free, either by theire

88

parents or otherwise, who are exempted from leavies, being under the said age of sixteen
years.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1:361.
March 1655—Anthony Johnson‘s Suit to Regain Possession of His Slave
Anthony Johnson moved to Northampton County after he gained his freedom from
Edward Bennett. He became a landowner and a slaveowner. In 1655, he turned to the
county court to regain possession of John Casor, a slave whom Robert Parker detained.
The deposition of Captain Samuel Goldsmith taken (in open court) 8th of March Sayth,
That beinge at the howse of Anthony Johnson Negro (about the beginninge of November
last to receive a hogshead of tobacco) a Negro called John Casar came to this Deponent,
and told him that hee came into Virginia for seaven or Eight yeares (per Indenture) And
that hee had demanded his freedome of his master Anthony Johnson; And further said
that Johnson had kept him his servant seaven yeares longer than hee ought, And desired
that this deponent would see that hee might have noe wronge, whereupon your Deponent
demanded of Anthony Johnson his Indenture, hee answered, hee never sawe any; The
said Negro (John Casor) replyed, hee came for a certayne time and had an Indenture
Anthony Johnson said hee never did see any But that hee had him for his life; Further this
deponent saith That mr. Robert Parker and George Parker they knew that the said Negro
had an Indenture (in on Mr. Carye hundred on the other side of the Baye) And the said
Anthony Johnson did not tell the negro goe free The said John Casor would recover most
of his Cowes of him; Then Anthony Johnson (as this deponent did suppose) was in a
feare. Upon this his Sonne in lawe, his wife and his 2 sonnes perswaded the said
Anthony Johnson to sett the said John Casor free. more saith not
Samuel
Goldsmith
This daye Anthony Johnson Negro made his complaint to the Court against mr. Robert
Parker and declared that hee deteyneth his servant John Casor negro (under pretence that
the said Negro is a free man.) The Court seriously consideringe and maturely weighinge
the premisses, doe fynde that the said Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said
Negro from Anthony Johnson his master as appeareth by the deposition of Captain
Samuel Goldsmith and many probable circumstances. It is therefore the Judgment of the
Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of
his said master Anthony Johnson, And that mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charge
in the suit. also Execution.
Source: Northampton County Order Book (1655-1668) f. 10, quoted in Billings, ed., The
Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 155-156.

March 1655/6—ACT I. An Induction to the Acts concerning Indians

89

Colonial legislators created a distinction between Native Americans and Africans in this
statute.
If the Indians shall bring in any children as gages of their good and quiet intentions to us
and amity with us, then the parents of such children shall choose the persons to whom the
care of such children shall be intrusted and the countrey by us their representatives do
engage that wee will not use them as slaves, but do their best to bring them up in
Christianity, civillity and the knowledge of necessary trades; And on the report of the
commissioners of each respective country that those under whose tuition they are, do
really intend the bettering of the children in these particulars then a salary shall be
allowed to such men as shall deserve and require it.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1:396.
1656—Elizabeth Key‘s Suit for Her Freedom
A mulatto woman named Elizabeth Key sued for her freedom in January 1655/6. She
based her petition on the following facts: her father was a white man, she was a
Christian, and a contract that her father arranged in her behalf had been violated. Key
gained her freedom and married William Greensted in 1656. Key‘s suit indicates that
enslaved Africans and their descendants had the right to sue in court in the years before
legislators defined the institution of slavery in Virginia.
The Court doth order that Col. Thomas Speke one of the overseers of the Estate of Col.
John Mottrom deceased shall have an Appeale to the Quarter Court next att James Citty
in a Cause depending betweene the said overseers and Elizabeth a Moletto hee the said
Col. Speke giving such caution as to Law doth belong.
Wee whose names are underwritten being impannelled upon a Jury to try a difference
between Elizabeth pretended Slave to the Estate of Col. John Mottrom deceased and the
overseers of the said Estate doe finde that the said Elizabeth ought to be free as by
severall oathes might appeare which we desire might be Recorded and that the charges of
Court be paid out of the said Estate. [names of the jury omitted]
Memorandum it is Conditioned and agreed by and betwixt Thomas Key on the one part
and Humphrey Higginson on the other part [word missing] that the said Thomas Key hath
put unto the said Humphrey one Negro Girle by name Elizabeth for and during the
[term?] of nine yeares after the date hereof provided that the [said?] Humphrey doe find
and allow the said Elizabeth meate drinke [and?] apparrell during the said tearme And
allso the said Thomas Key that if that if [sic] the said Humphrey doe dye before the end
of the said time abovespecified that then the said Girl be free from the said Humphrey
Higginson and his assignes Allsoe if the said Humphrey Higginson doe goe for England
with an Intention to live and remaine there that then hee shall carry [the?] said Girle with
him and to pay for her passage and likewise that he put not of[f] the said Girle to any man
but to keepe her himselfe In witness whereof I the said Humphrey Higginson. Sealed and

90

delivered in the presence of us Robert Booth Francis Miryman. 20th January 1655 this
writing was Recorded.
Mr. Nicholas Jurnew aged 53 yeares or thereabouts sworne and Examined Sayth That
about 16 or 17 yeares past this deponent heard a flying report at Yorke that Elizabeth a
Negro Servant to the Estate of Col. John Mottrom deceased was the Childe of Mr. Kaye
but the said Mr. Kaye said that a Turke of Capt. Mathewes was Father to the Girle and
further this deponent sayth not signed Nicholas Jurnew
20th January 1655 Jurat in Curia [i.e., ―sworn in court‖]
Anthony Lenton aged 41 yeares or thereabouts sworne and Examined Sayth that about 19
yeares past this deponent was a servant to Mr. Humphrey Higginson and at that time one
Elizabeth a Molletto nowe servant to the Estate of Col. John Mottrom deceased was then
a servant to the said mr. Higginson and as the Neighbours reported was bought of mr
Higginson with the said servant both himself and his Wife intended a voyage for
England and at the nine yeares end (as the Neighbours reported) the said Mr Higginson
was bound to carry the said servant for England unto the said mr. Kaye, but before the
said mr Kaye went his Voyage hee Dyed about Kecotan, and as the Neighbours reported
the said mr. Higginson said that at the nine yeares end hee would carry the said Molletto
for England and give her a portion and lett her shift for her selfe And it was a Common
report amongst the Neighbours that the said Molletto was mr Kays Child begott by him
and further this deponent sayth not the marke of Anthony Lenton 20th January 1655
Jurat in Curia
Mrs. Elizabeth Newman aged 80 yeares or thereabouts sworne and examined Sayth that it
was a common Fame in Virginia that Elizabeth a Molletto nowe servant to the Estate of
Col. John Mottrom deceased was the Daughter of mr. Kay; and the said Kaye was
brought to Blunt-point Court and there fined for getting his Negro woman with Childe
which said Negroe was the Mother of the said Molletto and the said fine was for getting
the Negro with Childe which Childe was the said Elizabeth and further this deponent
sayth not the marke of Elizabeth Newman
20th January 1655 Jurat in Curia
John Bayles aged 33 yeares or thereabouts sworne and Examined Sayth That at the House
of Col. John Mottrom Black Besse was tearmed to be mr Kayes bastard and John Keye
calling her Black Bess mrs. Speke Checked him and said Sirra you must call her Sister
for shee is your Sister and the said John Keye did call her Sister and further this deponent
Sayth not the marke of John Bayles 20th January 1655 Jurat in Curia
The deposition of Alice Larrett aged 38 yeares or thereabouts Sworne and Examined
Sayth that Elizabeth which is at Col. Mottroms is twenty five yeares of age or thereabouts
and that I saw her mother goe to bed to her Master many times and that I heard her
mother Say that shee was mr. Keyes daughter and further Sayth not the marke of Alice
Larrett Sworne before mr. Nicholas Morriss 19th Jan. 1655. 20th January this
deposition was Recorded

91

Anne Clark aged 39 or thereabouts Sworne and Examined Sayth that shee this deponent
was present when a Condition was made betweene mr. Humphrey Higginson and mr.
Kaye for a servant called Besse a Molletto and this deponents Husband William
Reynolds nowe deceased was a witness but whether the said Besse after the Expiration of
her time from mr Higginson was to be free from mr Kaye this deponent cannot tell and
mr Higginson promised to use her as well as if shee were his own Child and further this
deponent Sayth not Signum Ann Clark 20th January 1655. Jurat in Curia
Elizabeth Newman aged 80 yeares or thereabouts Sworne and Examined Sayth that shee
this deponent brought Elizabeth a Molletto, Servant to the Estate of Col. John Mottrom
deceased to bed of two children and shee layd them both to William Grinsted and further
this Deponent Sayth not Elizabeth Newman her marke 20th January 1655 Jurat in Curia
A Report of a Committee from an Assembly Concerning the freedome of Elizabeth Key
It appeareth to us that shee is the daughter of Thomas Key by severall Evidences and by a
fine imposed upon the said Thomas for getting her mother with Child of the said Thomas
That she hath bin by verdict of a Jury impannelled 20th January 1655 in the County of
Northumberland found to be free by severall oathes which the Jury desired might be
Recorded That by the Comon Law the Child of a Woman slave begott by a freeman
ought to bee free That shee hath bin long since Christened Col. Higginson being her God
father and that by report shee is able to give a very good account of her fayth That
Thomas Key sould her onely for nine yeares to Col. Higginson with severall conditions to
use her more Respectfully than a Comon servant or slave That in case Col. Higginson had
gone for England within nine yeares hee was bound to carry her with him and pay her
passage and not to dispose of her to any other For theise Reasons wee conceive the said
Elizabeth ought to bee free and that her last Master should give her Corne and Cloathes
and give her satisfaction for the time shee hath served longer than Shee ought to have
done. But forasmuch as noe man appeared against the said Elizabeths petition wee thinke
not fitt a determinative judgement should passe but that the County or Quarter Court
where it shall be next tried to take notice of this to be the sence of the Burgesses of this
present Assembly and that unless [torn] shall appear to be executed and reasons [torn]
opposite part Judgement by the said Court be given [accordingly?]
Charles Norwood Clerk
Assembly
James Gaylord hath deposed that this is a true coppy
James Gaylord
21th July 1656 Jurat in Curia
21th July 1656 This writeing was recorded
Att a Grand Assembly held at James Citty 20th of March 1655 Ordered that the whole
business of Elizabeth Key [and?] the report of the Committee thereupon be returned [to
the?] County Court where the said Elizabeth Key liveth
This is a true copy from the book of Records of the Order granted the last Assembly
Teste Robert Booth

92

21th July 1656 This Order of Assembly was Recorded
Upon the petition of George Colclough one of the overseers of Col. Mottrom his Estate
that the cause concerning a Negro wench named Black Besse should be heard before the
Governor and Councell Whereof in regard of the Order of the late Assembly referrring
the said caise to the Governor and Councell at least upon Appeale made to them These
are therefore in his Highness the Lord Protector his name to will and require the
Commissioners of the County of Northumberland to Surcease from any further
proceedings on the said Cause and to give notice to the parties interested therein to
appear before the Governor at the next Quarter Court on the fourth day for a
determination thereof. Given under my hand this 7th of June 1656. Edward Digges 21th
1656 This Writeing was Recorded.
Whereas mr. George Cloclough and mr. William Presly overseers of the Estate of
Colonell John Mottrom deceased were Summoned to theis Court at the suite of Elizabeth
Kaye both Plaintiffe and Defendant being present and noe cause of action at present
appearing The Court doth therefore order that the said Elizabeth Kaye shall be non-suited
and that William Grinsted Atturney of the said Elizabeth shall by the tenth of November
next pay fifty pounds of tobacco to the said overseers for an non-suite with Court charges
else Execution. Whereas the whole business concerning Elizabeth Key by Order of
Assembly was Referred to this County Court. According to the Report of a Comittee at
an Assembly held at the same time which upon the Records of this County appears, It is
the judgement of this Court that the Said Elizabeth Key ought to be free and forthwith to
have Corne Cloathes and Satisfaction according to the said Report of the Comittee. Mr.
William Thomas dissents from this judgment.
These are to Certifie whome it may concerne that William Greensted and Elizabeth Key
intends [sic] to be joyned in the Holy Estate of Matrimony. If any one can shew any
Lawfull cause why they may not be joyned together lett them Speake or ever after hold
their tongues Signum William Greenstead Signum Elizabeth Key
21th July 1656 this Certificate was Published in open Court and is Recorded
I Capt. Richard Wright administrator of the Estate of Col. John Mottrom deceased doe
assigne and transfer unto William Greensted a maid servant formerly belonging unto the
Estae of the said Col. Mottrom commonly called Elizabeth Key being nowe Wife unto
the said Greensted and doe warrant the said Elizabeth and doe bind my Selfe to save here
[i.e., her] and the said Greensted from any molestation or trouble that shall or futurely
arise from or by any person or persons that shall pretend or claime any title or interest to
any manor of service [torn] from the said Elizabeth witness [my ha]nd this 21th of July
1659
Test William Th[omas]
Richard Wright
James Aust[en]
Source: Northumberland County Record Books (1652-1658) ff. 66-67, 85; (1658-1660),
f. 28; Northumberland County Order Book (1652-1665) ff. 40, 46, 49, quoted in Billings,
ed., The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 165-169; see also Warren M.

93

Billings, ―The Cases of Fernando and Elizabeth Key: A Note on the Status of Blacks in
Seventeenth-Century Virginia,‖ William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XXX (1973): 467474.

1657 to 1666—An Increase in the Importation of Africans to York County
Lorena Walsh notes that the records of headrights and York County inventories indicate
that residents of York County gained possession of a number of Africans whom they
regarded as slaves before Virginia‘s legislators defined hereditary slavery.
From both headright entries and York County probate inventories, we can identify a
surge in the importation of blacks, most of whom were sold upon arrival as hereditary
slaves, into the colony between 1657 and 1666; the first Bacon [Nathaniel Bacon] slaves
likely arrived during these years.
Source: Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove, p. 27.

October 25, 1657—The Manumission of Mihill Gowen
Christopher Stafford decided to free his black servant, Mihill Gowen, in his will.
Stafford‘s sister, Amy Barnhouse, carried out his wishes in 1657. The widow Barnhouse
also freed Mihill Gowen‘s son, William. She did not free her enslaved woman, who was
William‘s mother.
Bee itt known unto all Christian people that whereas Mihill Gowen Negro of late servant
to my Brother Xopher Stafford deced by his last will & Testament bearing Date the 18 of
Jan 1654 had his freedom given unto him after the expiration of 4 yeares service unto my
uncle Robert Stafford Therefore know all whom itt may concern that I Anne Barnehouse
for divers good couses mee hereunto moving doe absolutely quitt & discharge the sd
Mihill Gowen from any service & for ever sett him free from any claim of service either
by mee or any one my behalf as any part or parcell of my Estate that my be claimed by
mee the said Amy Barnhouse my heyres Exers Admrs or Assignes as witness my hand
this 25 Oct 1657 Amy (AB) Barnhouse
Bee itt knowne unto all Xcian people that I Ame Barnehouse of Martins hundred widdow
for divers good causes & consideracons mee hereunto moving hath given unto Mihill
Gowen Negro hee being att this time servant unto Robert Stafford a Male child borne the
25 Aug 1655 of the body of my Negro Prosta being baptised by Mr. Edward Johnson 2
Sept 1655 & named William & I the said Amy Barnhouse doth bind my selfe my heyres
Exer Admr & Ass never to trouble or molest the said Mihill Gowin or his sone William
or demand any service of the said Mihill or his said sone William In wittnes whereof I
have caused this to be made & done I hereunto sett my hand & Seale this present 16 Sept
1655 Amy (AB) Barnhouse
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (3) 16, 26 January
1657/8.

94

March 1657/8—ACT XLVI. What Persons are Tithable
This statute (passed during the Commonwealth period) noted that all imported African
women and female Native Americans were tithable unless they were Christians born in
the colony or free when their parents imported them into Virginia.
BEE it enacted for the prevention of the greate abuse used by presenting of imperfect
lists, that all male servants hereafter imported into this collony of what age soever they
be, shall bee brought into the lists and shall be liable to pay countrey levies; and all
negroes imported whether male or female, and Indian servants male or female however
procured, being sixteen years of age, to be listed and pay leavies as aforesaid; such
christians onlie to be excepted as are natives of this countrey, or such as are imported free
either by parents or otherwise, who are exempted from levies being under the age of
sixteen years.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1:454.

March 1659/60—ACT XVI. An Act for the Dutch and all other Strangers for Tradeing
to this Place
When the Virginia government dropped the export duty of ten shillings per hogshead of
tobacco to two shillings, it encouraged colonists to trade tobacco to the Dutch in
exchange for slaves. In the 1660s most of the bound laborers in the colony were
indentured servants.
WHEREAS the restriction of trade hath appeared to be the greatest impediment to
the advance of the estimation and value of our present only commodity tobacco, Bee it
enacted and confirmed, That the Dutch and all strangers of what Xpian nation soever in
amity with the people of England shall have free liberty to trade with us, for all allowable
comodities, And receive protection from us to our utmost powers while they are in our
jurisdiction, and shall have equall right and justice with our own nation in all courts of
judicature, Provided they give bond and pay the impost of tenn shillings per hogshead
laid upon all tobacco exported to any fforreigne dominions and give bond according to
act, Allwaies provided, That if the said Dutch or other forreiners shall import any negro
slaves, They the said Dutch or others shall, for the tobacco really produced by the sale of
the said negro, pay only the impost of two shillings per hogshead, the like being paid by
our owne nation.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1:540.

1660 to mid 1670s—Virginia Planters Make Arrangements to Buy Africans

95

In 1660, the English Parliament, aiming to strengthen England‘s international commerce
and to weaken the Dutch rivals, prohibited Dutch ships from trading in the English
colonies. Virginia planters had to look elsewhere if they wanted to purchase Africans to
labor on their plantations.
From 1660, when Dutch slavers were prohibited from trading in the English colonies, to
the mid-1670s, Virginia planters, including Nathaniel Bacon and Lewis Burwell II, either
had to make special arrangements for purchasing African workers in the West Indies or
else had to buy them from ship captains trading between Barbados or other islands and
the mainland.
Source: Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove, p. 54.

March 1660/1—ACT XXII. English running away with negroes
This law indicates that some Africans and their descendants were not servants for life.
However, if an indentured servant ran away with a black person who was considered a
servant for life, the white servant had to serve additional time to compensate a master (or
masters) for his/her absence and for the absence of the black individual.
Between 1660/1 and 1680 the legislators worked to place all blacks in a low level on the
social hierarchy. The laws enacted during this time period defined this lower status.
BEE itt enacted That in case any English servant shall run away in company with
any negroes who are incapable of makeing satisfaction by addition of time, Bee it enacted
that the English so running away in company with them shall serve for the time of the
said negroes absence as they are to do for their owne by a former act.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:26.

August 1661—Proclamation of Governor Berkeley
Governor Berkeley was concerned about the threat that Quakers presented to political and
religious authority in the colony. Berkeley also focused on women whose behavior did
not fit their proper social role. In the following proclamation the governor ordered
Edmund Chisman, a York County justice of the peace to stop his wife, Mary, and several
of his slaves from attending Quaker meetings.
Whereas notwithstanding the Kings most Excellent Majesties gratious pardon of all
Quakers for the time before his said proclamacon and the Right Honble Governrs
explanacon thereof by both which it appeares that all Quakers are to be conformable to
the Law as from publicacon thereof severall mettings have been of the said Quakers in
this Countrey especially by women whereuppon his Matjes [Majesty‘s] said Governr ord
that all women who should after publicacon of the said proclamacon and explanacon

96

continue their said unlawfull meetings & breach their schismaticall and hereticall
doctrines & opinions should by their adjoyning magestrate be tendred the oathes of
Supremacy & allegeance & the refusees to be Imprisoned according to Law. And it
appearing by 2 oathes taken this day in Court that severall Quakers mett the 25th instant
in the woods amongst which were Mrs Mary Chisman and 2 or 3 Negroes belonging to
hir husband. It is ord that the said Edmond Chisman & his wife have notice of the
Governrs said order & that shee shall hereafter offend in the like kind that the said order
be put in Effectuall execution against hir, and also that Mr Chisman restreyne his said
Negroes & whole family from repairing to the said unlawfull Assemblyes at his perill.
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (3) 125, 26 August 1661.

March 1661/2—ACT CII. Run-aways
This statute indicates that there were Africans who were not slaves in March 1661/2. The
legislators continued to try to discourage white indentured servants from running away
with enslaved blacks by increasing the punishment that a white man or woman would
receive after their capture. After March 1661/2 a white servant who ran away with a
black servant for life was responsible for additional service or a fine if a black person
became lost or died while they were away from their master(s).
WHEREAS there are diverse loytering runaways in this country who very often
absent themselves from their masters service and sometimes in a long time cannot be
found, that losse of the time and the charge in the seeking them often exceeding the value
of their labor: Bee it therefore enacted that all runaways that shall absent themselves
from their said masters service shalbe lyable to make satisfaction by service after the
times by custome or indenture is expired (vizt.) double their times of service soe
neglected, and if the time of their running away was in the crop or the charge of
recovering them extraordinary the court shall lymitt a longer time of service
proportionable to the damage the master shall make appeare he hath susteyned, and
because the adjudging the time they should serve is often referred untill the time by
indenture is expired, when the proofe of what is due is very uncertaine, it is enacted that
the master of any runaway that intends to take the benefitt of this act, shall as soone as he
hath recovered him carry him to the next commissioner and there declare and prove the
time of his absence, and the charge he hath bin at in his recovery, which commissioner
thereupon shall grant his certificate, and the court on that certificate passe judgment for
the time he shall serve for his absence; and in case any English servant shall run away in
company of any negroes who are incapable of making satisfaction by addition of a time,
it is enacted that the English soe running away in the company with them shall at the time
of service to their owne masters expired, serve the masters of the said negroes for their
absence soe long as they should have done by this act if they had not beene slaves, every
christian in company serving his proportion; and if the negroes be lost or dye in such time
of their being run away, the christian servants in company with them shall by proportion
among them, either pay fower thousand five hundred pounds of tobacco and caske or
fower yeares service for every negroe soe lost or dead.

97

Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:116-117.

March 1661/2—ACT CV. Against trading with servants
The following statute suggests that white and black servants and apprentices traded with
those who lived near their masters.
WHEREAS diverse ill disposed persons doe secretly and covertly track and trade
with other mens servants and apprentices who to the greate injury of their masters are
thereby induced and encouraged to steale perloyne and imbezell their masters goods, Bee
it therefore enacted that what person or persons soever shall buy, sell, trade or truck with
any servant for any comodity whatsoever without lycense or consent of the said servants
master, he or they soe offending against the premisses, shall suffer one months
imprisonment without baile or mainprise, give bond with security for his good behaviour,
and also forfeite to the master of the said servant fower times the value of the things soe
bought, sold, trucked or traded for.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:118-119.

March 1661/2—ACT CXXXVIII. Concerning Indians
The legislators decided that Native American and English servants were to serve their
masters the same length of time.
And be it further enacted that what Englishman, trader, or other shall bring in any
Indians as servants and shall assigne them over to any other, shall not sell them for slaves
nor for any longer time than English of the like ages should serve by act of assembly.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:143.

March 1661/2—Freedom for Metappin
Members of the Assembly ruled that Metappin should be free. They noted that he spoke
perfect English and wanted to be baptized.
METAPPIN a Powhatan Indian being sold for life time to one Elizabeth Short by
the king of Wainoake Indians who had no power to sell him being of another nation, it is
ordered that the said Indian be free, he speaking perfectly the English tongue and
desiring baptism.

98

Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:155.

December 1662—ACT XII. Negro womens children to serve according to the condition
of the mother
As of December 1662, the child of an enslaved mother was also a slave for life. The
statute was a dramatic departure from the English tradition in which a child received his
or her status from his or her father. Members of the General Assembly also hoped that an
increased fine would discourage white men and women from having sexual partners who
were African or of African descent.
WHEREAS some doubts have arrisen whether children got by any Englishman
upon a negro woman should be slave or ffree, Be it therefore enacted and declared by
this present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shalbe held bond or
free only according to the condition of the mother, And that if any christian shall committ
ffornication with a negro man or woman, hee or shee soe offending shall pay double the
ffines imposed by the former act.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:170.

December 1662—ACT XIII. Women servants whose common imployment is working in
the ground to be accompted tythable
In December 1662, legislators placed a tithe on all female servants; perhaps this was an
attempt to create a distinction between English women who worked in the fields and
those who did not, in addition to the distinction between English women who labored in
the house and African women.
WHEREAS diverse persons purchase women servants to work in the ground that
thereby they may avoyd the payment of levies, Be it henceforth enacted by the authority
aforesaid that all women servants whose common imployment is working in the crop
shalbe reputed tythable, and levies paid for them accordingly; and that every master of a
family if he give not an accompt of such in his list of tythables shalbe fined as for other
concealments.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:170.

September 1663—ACT XVIII. An act prohibiting servants to go abroad without a
lycence

99

The colonial legislators hoped to control the movement of all laborers—white servants,
black servants, and enslaved blacks—in this statute.
FOR better suppressing the unlawful meetings of servants, it is thought fitt and
enacted by this present grand assembly and the authority thereof that all masters of
ffamilies be enjoyned and take especiall care that their servants doe not depart from their
houses on Sundayes or any other dayes without perticuler lycence from them, and that the
severall respective counties (as they find cause) to take espetiall care to make such by
laws within themselves, as by the act dated the third of December 1662, they are
impowred as may cause a further restraint of all unlawfull meetings of servants and
punish the offenders.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:195.

September 1667—ACT III. An act declaring that baptisme of slaves doth not exempt
them from bondage
The passage of this statute indicates that Christianity was important to the concept of
English identity. Legislators decided that slaves born in Virginia could not become free
if they were baptized, but masters were encouraged to Christianize their enslaved
laborers. David Galenson notes ―Although this act was intended to encourage masters to
have their slaves baptized, its language clearly indicates that at least some planters feared
that baptism of a slave might destroy their property rights in the worker. The desire of
legislators to stimulate planters‘ demand for slaves by guaranteeing that baptism would
not free their workers was made explicit in the very title of the parallel law enacted by the
Maryland Assembly in 1671: ‗An Act for the Encourageing the Importacon of Negroes
and Slaves into this Province.‘ The act stated the assembly‘s concern and its resolution:
Whereas Severall of the good People of this Province have been discouraged to import
into or purchase within this Province any Negroes or other Slaves…upon a mistake and
ungrounded apprehension that by becoming Christians they and the Issues of their bodies
are actually manumitted and made free from their servitude and bondage be itt declared
and Enacted…That where any Negro…Slave being in Servitude or bondage is…or shall
become Christian…the same is not…to amount to a manumicon….‖
WHEREAS some doubts have risen whether children that are slaves by birth, and
by the charity and piety of their owners made pertakers of the blessed sacrament of
baptisme, should by vertue of their baptisme be made ffree; It is enacted and declared by
this grand assembly, and the authority thereof, that the conferring of baptisme doth not
alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or ffreedome; that diverse masters,
ffreed from this doubt, may more carefully endeavour the propagation of christianity by
permitting children, though slaves, or those of greater growth if capable to be admitted to
that sacrament.

100

Source: Galenson, ―Economic Aspects of the Growth of Slavery,‖ pp. 271-272; Hening,
ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:260.

September 1668—ACT VII. Negro women not exempted from tax
The passage of this law indicates that legislators decided that English women and free
black women were to be treated differently. The payment of a tithe was a financial
burden and an indication that free black women made a different contribution to the
colony based on their agricultural labor. This is the first reference to free blacks in the
statutes.
WHEREAS some doubts, have arisen whether negro women set free were still to
be accompted tithable according to a former act, It is declared by this grand assembly
that negro women, though permitted to enjoy their ffreedome yet ought not in all respects
to be admitted to a full fruition of the exemptions and impunities of the English, and are
still lyable to payment of taxes.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:267.

October 1669—ACT I. An act about the casuall killing of slaves
Colonial leaders decided that corporal punishment was the only way in which a master
could correct a slave since his or her time of service could not be extended. This law
represents the loss of legal protection for a slave‘s life in Virginia. It also was the first of
several laws passed during the last thirty years of the seventeenth century that reduced the
personal rights of black men and women.
WHEREAS the only law in force for the punishment of refractory servants
resisting their master, mistris or overseer cannot be inflicted upon negroes, nor the
obstinacy of many of them by other then violent meanes supprest, Be it enacted and
declared by this grand assembly, if any slave resist his master (or other by his masters
order correcting him) and by the extremity of the correction should chance to die, that his
death shall not be accompted ffelony, but the master (or that other person appointed by
the master to punish him) be acquit from molestation, since it cannot be presumed that
prepensed malice (which alone makes murther ffelony) should induce any man to destroy
his owne estate.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:270.

October 1670—ACT IV. Noe Negroes nor Indians to buy christian servants
The number of blacks and Native Americans in Tidewater Virginia was small when this
act was passed. The legislators knew that access to labor was necessary to succeed.

101

WHEREAS it hath beene questioned whither Indians or negroes manumited, or
otherwise free, could be capable of purchasing christian servants, It is enacted that noe
negroe or Indian though baptised and enjoyned their owne ffreedome shall be capable of
any such purchase of christians, but yet not debarred from buying any of their owne
nation.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:280-281.

October 1670—ACT XII. What tyme Indians to serve
This law created an additional distinction between African Americans and Native
Americans. It was an attempt to make lifetime servitude the normal condition for all
Africans imported into Virginia. The legislators repealed this statute in November 1682.
David Galenson places the act in the context of similar statutes in Barbados and
Maryland. He writes: ―In 1664, Charles Calvert had found that it was the high price of
slaves, rather than any skepticism about their capacity for labor, that prevented him and
his fellow planters from being able to guarantee a market for one shipload a year. In
1664, however, the unwillingness of some Chesapeake planters to meet that high price
might have resulted from uncertainty about their ability to hold the Africans in servitude
for life. No such uncertainty existed in Barbados, the major destination for Africans in
English America at the time, where thousands of slaves arrived annually to grow sugar on
great plantations. Nearly three decades earlier, in 1636, that colony‘s Council had
declared that ‗Negroes and Indians, that came here to be sold, should serve for Life,
unless a Contract was before made to the contrary,‘ and this act appears subsequently to
have been enforced without exceptions. Although Maryland‘s ‗Act Concerning Negroes
& Other Slaves‘ . . . . gave an assurance of this kind to that colony‘s planters in 1664, it
was not until 1670 that Virginia‘s legislature produced such a guarantee when it declared
that ‗all servants not being christians imported into this colony by shipping shalbe slaves
for their lives.‘ An important part of the answer to the question of why Chesapeake
planters hesitated to invest heavily in slaves during the 1660s may be that during that
decade they lacked the statutory assurance concerning the security of their investments
that their counterparts in Barbados had received thirty years earlier.‖
WHEREAS some dispute have arisen whither Indians taken in warr by any other
nation, and by that nation that taketh them sold to the English, are servants for life or
terme of yeares, It is resolved and enacted that all servants not being christians imported
into this colony by shipping shalbe slaves for their lives; but what shall come by land
shall serve, if boyes or girles, untill thirty yeares of age, if men or women twelve yeares
and no longer.
Source: Galenson, ―Economic Aspects of the Growth of Slavery,‖ pp. 272-273; Hening,
ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:283.

102

1670—Enquiries to the Governor of Virginia from the Lords Commissioners of Foreign
Plantations; Answered by Sir William Berkeley in 1671
15. What number of planters, servants and slaves; and how many parishes are
there in your plantation?
Answer. We suppose, and I am very sure we do not much miscount, that there is
in Virginia above forty thousand persons, men, women, and children, and of which there
are two thousand black slaves, six thousand christian servants, for a short time, the rest
are born in the country or have come in to settle and seat, in bettering their condition in a
growing country.
16. What number of English, Scots, or Irish have for these seven yeares last past
come yearly to plant and inhabite within your government; as also what blacks or slaves
have been brought in within the said time?
Answer. Yearly, we suppose there comes in, of servants, about fifteen hundred, of
which, most are English, few Scotch, and fewer Irish, and not above two or three ships of
negroes in seven years.
17. What number of people have yearly died, within your plantation and
government for these seven years last past, both whites and blacks?
Answer. All new plantations are, for an age or two, unhealthy, ‘till they are
thoroughly cleared of wood; but unless we have a particular register office, for the
denoting of all that died, I cannot give a particular answer to this query, only this I can
say, that there is not often unseasoned hands (as we term them) that die now, whereas
heretofore not one of five escaped the first year.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:515.

September 1671—ACT IV. An act providing how negroes belonging to orphants of
intestates shall be disposed of
The legislators noted the financial importance of slaves to an orphan‘s estate. They
decided that the county courts would be responsible for handling the enslaved laborers
inherited by an orphan.
WHEREAS in the former act concerning the estates of persons dying intestate, it
is provided that sheep, horses, and cattle should be delivered in kind to the orphant, when
they came of age, according to the several ages the said cattle were of when the guardian
took them into his possession, to which some have desired that negroes may be added;
this assembly considering the difficulty of procureing negroes in kind as alsoe the value
and hazard of their lives have doubted whither any sufficient men would be found who
would engage themselves to deliver negroes of equall ages if the specificall negroes
should dye, or become by age or accident unserviceable; Be it therefore enacted and
ordayned by this grand assembly and the authority thereof that the consideration of this
be referred to the county courts who are hereby authorized and impowred either to cause
such negroes to be duly apprized, sold at an outcry, or preserved in kind, as they then find

103

it most expedient for preservation, improvement or advancement of the estate and interest
of such orphants.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:288.

1672—Charter to the Royal African Company
In 1672, the Royal African Company received a charter that gave it a monopoly on the
slave trade to the English colonies.
Between 1672 and 1689 the Royal African Company, a chartered trading corporation,
had exclusive rights for transporting slaves from Africa to the English colonies. It sent
most of its human cargoes to the main West Indian slave markets but beginning in the
mid-1670s also sent a few ships direct from Africa to Virginia, engaging local agents to
sell the slaves and to collect the payments for a commission.
Source: Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove, p. 54.

1672—Attempts to Restrict the Movement of Slaves
In September 1672, the justices of the peace in Surry County decided that residents
needed to enforce the legislation that restricted the movement of slaves. They also
wanted masters to dress their enslaved laborers in blue shirts and shifts as a way to
identify slaves and to reduce what the magistrates called ―theire foolish pride.‖
Whereas information hath been given to this Court that the too Careles and
inconsiderable Liberty given to Negroes, not only in being p‘mitted to mete together
upon Satterdayes & Sundayes, whereby they wine opportunity to consult of unlawfull
p‘jects & combinations to the danger & damage of the neighbours, as well as to theire
Masters, and Also that the apparrell comonly worne by negroes doth as well Highten
theire foolish pride as induse them to steale fine Linninge & other ornaments, for the
p‘vention whereof itt is hereby ord‘d & published to the Inhabitants of this county that
the Act of Assembly for p‘vention of serv‘ts goeing abroard be put in due execution &
from hence forth Noe negro shall be allowed to weare any white Linninge, but shall
weare blew shirts and shifts that they may be herby discovered if they steale or weare
other Linninge, & if the Master of any Negro shall p‘tend that blew is not to be had for
men & women Negros for their shifts & shirts, caps or neckclothes, then he shall supply
that want in course Lockerham or Canvis, & this to be duly observed untill a by law be
made to confirme the same.
Source: ―Management of Slaves, 1672,‖ Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 7
(1899-1900): 314.

104

September 1672—ACT III. An act concerning tythables borne in the country
The legislators decided that each tithe taker was responsible for keeping track of the age
of all black, mulatto, and Native American children in their precinct. In addition, each
master was to have the birth of a black or a mulatto child registered in his or her parish
within one year.
FOR the better discovery of what persons borne in this country are and ought to
be accounted tythables, and the ages of the younger better known, Be it enacted by the
governor, counsell and burgesses of this grand assembly and by the authority thereof that
all persons who are appointed by the county courts to take the lyst of tythables, in each
county shall take an account of all negro, molatto, and Indian children, within their
severall precincts, and the masters and owners of such children are to make appeare upon
oath or evidence the ages of them. And that all negro, and molatto children, and slaves
that shalbe borne in the country, shall by their respective masters or owners within twelve
months after their birth be registred in the parish register with their exact ages, and in
default thereof, the said master or owner shall pay levy for them that yeare, and soe
yearley till such register be made; And it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid,
that all negro women borne in this country shall be accompted tythable at sixteene yeares
of age.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:296.

September 1672—ACT VIII. An act for the apprehension and suppression of
runawayes, negroes and slaves
The members of the General Assembly hoped to suppress the rebellious activities of
slaves throughout the colony. In addition, they wanted to keep servants and Native
Americans from joining the slaves in any unlawful activities. They decided that it was
legal to wound or kill an enslaved person who resisted arrest.
FORASMUCH as it hath beene manifested to this grand assembly that many
negroes have lately beene, and now are out in rebellion in sundry parts of this country,
and that noe meanes have yet beene found for the apprehension and suppression of them
from whome many mischeifes of very dangerous consequence may arise to the country if
either other negroes, Indians or servants should happen to fly forth and joyne with them;
for the prevention of which, be it enacted by the governour, councell and burgesses of
this grand assembly, and by the authority thereof, that if any negroe, molatto, Indian
slave, or servant for life, runaway and shalbe persued by the warrant or hue and crye, it
shall and may be lawfull for any person who shall endeavour to take them, upon the
resistance of such negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life, to kill or wound him
or them soe resisting; Provided alwayes, and it is the true intent and meaning hereof, that
such negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life, be named and described in the hue
and crye which is alsoe to be signed by the master or owner of the said runaway. And if
it happen that such negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life doe dye of any

105

wound in such their resistance received the master or owner of such shall receive
satisfaction from the publique for his negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life, soe
killed or dyeing of such wounds; and the person who shall kill or wound by virtue of any
such hugh and crye any such soe resisting in manner as aforesaid shall not be questioned
for the same, he forthwith giveing notice thereof and returning the hue and crye or
warrant to the master or owner of him or them soe killed or wounded or to the next
justice of peace. And it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid that all such negroes
and slaves shalbe valued at ffowre thousand five hundred pounds of tobacco and caske a
peece, and Indians at three thousand pounds of tobacco and caske a peice, And further if
it shall happen that any negroe, molatto, Indians slave or servant for life, in such their
resistance to receive any wound whereof they may not happen to dye, but shall lye any
considerable tyme sick and disabled, then alsoe the master or owner of the same soe sick
or disabled shall receive from the publique a reasonable satisfaction for such damages as
they shall make appeare they have susteyned thereby at the county court, who shall
thereupon grant the master or owner a certificate to the next assembly of what damages
they shall make appeare; And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians doe and
hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runawayes whatsoever that
shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace
whoe upon the receipt of such servants, slave, or slaves, from the Indians, shall pay unto
the said Indians for a recompence twenty armes length of Roanoake or the value thereof
in goods as the Indians shall like of, for which the said justice of peace shall receive from
the publique two hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco, and the said justice to proceed in
conveying the runaway to his master according to the law in such cases already provided;
This act to continue in force till the next assembly and noe longer unlesse it be thought
fitt to continue.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:299-300.

June 1673—Punishment for Will
The Governor and the Council decided to imprison Will, a runaway slave who belonged
to Robert Bryan of Gloucester County. Will confessed that he helped two slaves to
escape from jail. The following month the legislators ordered Will to be whipped and
returned to his master.
Whereas Will a Runaway Negroe Suspected to have Lett out of Prison a Negroe
Condemned the last Court and Confesseth that he did See the Negroe breake Loose out of
irons and did Attempt to breake out of the fore Doore of the Prison and that he see a
Negroe Breake Open the back doore and Lett the said Negroe out of Prison and further
that he hath beene Twice in the Condemned Negroes Company. It is therefore orderd by
this Court that the said Negroe be Comitted to the Comon Prison of James Citty till
further order & if the sherriffe thinke fitt to take the said Negroe Will along wth him for
the better Discovery for finding the said Condemned Negroe, but the sherriffe to keepe
him in prison till further order

106

It is orderd that Will a Negroe Slave to Mr Robt Bryan of Gloster County who the
9 of June Last was Comitted to the sherriffs Custody as A Runaway Rogue and one that
Confessed to have Seene the Late Condemned Negroe breake his Irons and Prison and
that after he See breaking Prison to have bene Severall times in the said Condemned
Negroes Company it is therefore ordrd he Discharge his prison and have to morrow
morning A Good and well laid on whipping, and putt into the Constables hands of James
Citty who is to Convey him to the Next Constable and Soe from Constable to Constable
till he be Delivred to his said master Mr Bryan, And it is further orderd that the said
Bryan pay unto ffra: Kirkman high Sherriff of this County One Thousand pound of
tobacco and Caske for Charges & fees als ex
th

Source: McIlwaine, ed., Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia,
pp. 346-347.

June 16, 1675—The Petition of Philip Gowen for his Freedom
Philip Gowen sued for his freedom from his master, John Lucas, in June 1675. Perhaps
he was a second son born to Mihill Gowen and Amy Barnhouse‘s enslaved woman
Prosta.
Phillip Gowen negro Suing Mr Jno Lucas to this Court for his freedome It is
Orderd that the said Phill Gowen be free from ye Said Mr Lucas his Service and that the
Indenture Acknowledg‘d in Warwick County County [sic] be Invallid and that ye Said Mr
Lucas pay unto ye Gowen three Barrels of Corne att the Cropp According to ye Will of
Mrs Amye Boazlye decd wth Costs
Source: McIlwaine, ed., Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia,
p. 441.

June 1676—ACT I. An act for carrying on a warre against the barbarous Indians
In 1676 many Virginians were alarmed by Governor Berkeley‘s poor leadership and
weak response in handling the Indian threat by merely suggesting a series of forts be built
along the frontier rather than dispatching troops. Nathaniel Bacon, a member of
England‘s gentry newly arrived in Virginia, became the military leader of a band of
Virginians who armed themselves against the Indians in defiance of the governor in the
spring of that year. Berkeley responded by unsuccessfully dispatching men to confront
Bacon and declared him a rebel.
Until Bacon‘s death from natural causes on October 26, 1676 he and Governor Berkeley
struggled to control Virginia militarily and politically, embroiling Virginians in civil war.
After the Assembly enacted many of Bacon‘s demands, Bacon with five hundred men
captured the government and demanded from Berkeley the power to fight the Indians.
That was granted on June 25 but later withdrawn. The governor, however, could not

107

raise loyal troops to assert his authority and was forced to retreat to the Eastern Shore.
Berkeley later returned to Jamestown to prepare for Bacon‘s attack but was forced to
return to the Eastern Shore while Bacon burned the capital. Virginians, hesitant to fight
one another, continued to vacillate in their support of Berkeley and Bacon in the everincreasing confusion. Bacon‘s men, however, now turned to plundering loyalist
plantations in Gloucester County and elsewhere. Bacon‘s sudden death left his men
without a strong leader, and in January 1677 Berkeley returned to power and sought
reparations for the loyalists.
During the Rebellion the Indians probably suffered the most. Many were killed and a
number of their villages were destroyed. In June of 1676 members of the Assembly
decided that Native Americans captured during the rebellion would become slaves for
life.
And bee it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all Indians taken in warr be
held and accounted slaves dureing life, and if any differences shall arise in cases about
plunder or slaves, the cheife commander of the party takeing such slaves or plunder is to
be the sole judge thereof to make equall division as hee shall see fit.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:346.
September 1676—Nathaniel Bacon‘s Loyalty Oath
Nathaniel Bacon issued a loyalty oath in which his supporters pledged that they would
leave Virginia before they would submit to the slavery of life in the colony under
Governor Berkeley.
Whereas Sir William Berkeley Knight, late Governor of Virginia hath in a most
Barbarous and abominable manner exposed and betrayed our lives, and for greediness of
sordid Gaine did defer our just defence and hinder all the Loyall endeavours of his
Majesties faithfull subjects; and further when the Country did raise a sufficient Force for
the effectual proceeding against the Indian Enemy, he did, contrary to all Equity and
Justice and the tenors of his commission, endeavour to oppose the said Forces by himself
and the Assembly sett forth: of which attempts being severall tymes defeated by the
Peoples abhorrence of soe Bloody a design he left the country in a small vessell, it being
unknown to all People to what parts of the world he did repair, and whereas as our army
upon his departure betaking themselves to the care of the Frontiers did march out against
the Indians and obtain soe great a victory, as hath in a manner finished all the disaster and
almost Resettled the country in a happy Peace, yet notwithstanding Sir Wm. Berkeley
with Forces raised in Accomack, did invade the country with acts of hostility, with all
intentions to persecute the said Army with these aforsaid reasons, as also having betray‘d
his Trust to the king by flying from his seate of Judicature, and acting wholly contrary to
his comission, We protest against him unanimously as a Traytor and most pernitious
Enemy to the Publick, and further we sweare that in all places of his Majestyes Colony of
Virginia wee will oppose and prosecute him with all our Endeavours by all acts of

108

hostility as occasion shall present, and further whereas Plotting and wishing in his heart a
totall Ruine and Destruction of this Poore colony he hath Endeavoured to set the heart of
our Soveraigne against us by false Information and Lyes, requesting forces of his
Majestie wherewith to compell and subdue us, hindering, intercepting and preventing all
our Remonstrances for Peace, which might have gone home in our Justification, as also
hindering of our sending home of agents in the Peoples behalf which was the most
humble and earnest request of the People at first, We doe further declare and sweare that
wee think it absolutely consisting with our allegiance and Loyalty to treat with and
discourse with the said Forces and commissioners with all submission to his Majesty.
But otherwise if it shall soe prove that notwithstanding all intreaties and offers wee shall
make, they shall offer to land by Force, in our owne Defense to fly together as in a
common calamity and jointly with the present army now under the command of General
Bacon, to stand or fall in the Defense of him and the country in soe just a cause, and in all
places to oppose their Proceedings (onely untill such time as his Majesty by our agents
shall fully understand the miserable case of the country, and the Justice of our
Proceedings) Which most just request if they shall refuse and by force endeavour to enter
the country, wee are resolv‘d to uphold the country as long as we can and never to absent
and joyne with any such army whatever, and lastly in case of utmost extremity rather than
submit to any soe miserable a slavery (when none can longer defend themselves, our
lives and Liberties) to acquit the colony rather than submitt to soe unheard of Injustice,
and this wee al sweare in the presence of Almighty God as unfeignedly and freely as ever
wee desire of him for happiness to come.
Source: Andrews, ed., Narratives of the Insurrections 1675-1690, pp. 136-137.
October 1676—The British Use Treachery to Get the Remainder of Bacon‘s Army to
Surrender
A number of Bacon‘s followers deserted him in early September 1676. He needed to
increase the size of his army and he proclaimed freedom for all servants and slaves who
joined him. The rebel‘s offer is similar to the one that Governor Dunmore made to slaves
owned by Patriots in November 1775. The rebel army that seized Jamestown in
September 1676 included white indentured servants, recently freed servants, and slaves.
Enslaved men and indentured servants were among the last of Bacon‘s followers to
return home after Berkeley regained control of the colony. The group of holdouts
included eighty slaves and twenty white servants. Anthony S. Parent describes the way
in which the British fooled the remainder of the rebel army and got them to surrender.
After Bacon‘s death in late October, the rebel movement declined because of lack
of leadership, the opposition‘s exploitation of the class differences in the movement, and
treachery. The original planters‘ rebellion had not included the freeing of servants and
slaves, which would have effectively destroyed Virginia‘s labor base. The inclusion of
servants, freedmen, and slaves in the rebel army had transformed the conflict into one of
class struggle, which helped unite the planters in opposition. The rebels were tricked into

109

submission by the treachery of Thomas Grantham, an English merchant adventurer, who
promised freedom in return for surrender. At West Point, Grantham promised the aid of
the new rebel general, Laurence Ingram, whom Grantham had known before, to secure
the surrender of 300 black and white rebels with ―never to be performed promises.‖ Then
Grantham took on a rebel stronghold, three miles away. There he met 400 black and
white rebels who were dissatisfied with the surrender at West Point and threatened to
shoot or cut him to pieces for betraying them. But by ―giving them severall noates under
my hand‖ promising freedom, Grantham convinced all but 100 men, 80 blacks and 20
whites, to return to their homes. He captured the remaining 100 rebels by steering them
into an ambush of an armed ship on the York River. After disarming the rebels he
returned them to their respective owners. This was the last time blacks and whites would
unite in common cause in such numbers in an attempt to change the society they were
living in.
Source: Parent, ―‘Either a Fool or a Fury,‘‖ pp. 164-165.

February 1676/7
The Royal Commissioners tried to discourage the Assembly from treating Native
Americans who were captured during Bacon‘s Rebellion as slaves. They did not
succeed.
IT is ordered that all such souldiers who either already have taken or hereafter
shall take prisoners any of our Indian enemies, or any other Indian plunder, and at the
tyme of takeing such Indians or Indian goods then were or shall hereafter be under a
lawfull comand from due and full authority, that they reteyne and keepe all such Indian
slaves or other Indian goods as they either have taken or hereafter shall take to their owne
proper use for their better encouragement to such service.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:404.

Part IV—An Increase in the Restrictions on Slaves and Free Blacks
The plantation revolution came to the Chesapeake with the thunder of cannons and the
rattle of sabres. Victory over the small holders, servants, and slaves who composed
Nathaniel Bacon‘s motley army in 1676 enabled planters to consolidate their control over
Chesapeake society. In quick order, they elaborated a slave code that singled out people
of African descent as slaves and made their status hereditary. In the years that followed,
as the number of European servants declined and white farmers migrated west, the great
planters turned to Africa for their workforce. During the last decades of the seventeenth
century, the new order began to take shape. The Chesapeake‘s economy stumbled into
the eighteenth century, but the grandees prospered, as the profits of slave labor filled their
pockets. A society with slaves gave way to a slave society around the great estuary.

110

Although black people grew tobacco as before, the lives of plantation slaves in no
way resembled those of the charter generations. White indentured servants might
graduate to tenantry or gain small holdings of their own, but black slaves could not.
Planters restricted the slaves‘ access to freedom and stripped slaves of their prerogatives
and free blacks of their rights. Rather than participate in a variety of enterprises, slaves
labored single-mindedly under the direction of white overseers whose close supervision
left little room for initiative or ambition. The slaves‘ economy withered and with it the
robust network of exchanges that had rested upon the slaves‘ independent production.
But even as the great planters installed the new harsh regime, African slaves and their
descendants, sometimes in league with remnants of the charter generations, began to
reshape black life. In the process, they created a new African-American society.
…
Foreshadowing the transformation of Chesapeake society, during the last quarter of the
seventeenth century the linkages among people of color—free and unfree—grew at the
expense of connections with white patrons, on one hand, and white servants and free
men, on the other. Ties among black people did not need to be invented, as black men
and women had always lived and worked in the close proximity, traded among
themselves, given security for one another, socialized, shared memories, and exchanged
gifts and other intimacies. Tight communities, bound together by blood and marriage and
linked by connections of godparentage and guardianships, existed throughout the
Chesapeake region.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, p. 109, 46; see also Brown, Good Wives, Nasty
Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs.

1677—Petition of Susannah
Susannah was not able to convince the justices of the peace for Charles City County that
she was dependent and therefore free from paying a tithe on herself.
Upon the petition of Susannah a free Negro-Woman that she may be Exempted from
payeing Levyes, And Whereas the Worshipful Courte is informed of her strength and
ability It is thereupon thought fit that she be not Exempted but pay Levyes.
Source: Charles City County Order Book (1677-1679) p. 216 in Billings, ed., The Old
Dominion in the Seventeenth Century, p. 158.
1678—John Barber‘s Petition
In contrast to Susannah, Barber convinced the Charles City County magistrates that he
should not pay a tithe on his servant woman.

111

John Barber proved ―that his woman servant (presumably English) was rarely employed
in the ground ‗unless for the tearing corn[,] housing tob[acc]o or such like.‘ The tasks
that Barber detailed as those of his servant were seasonal and sporadic, suggesting her
occasional presence in corn and tobacco fields during the harvest of each crop.‖
Source: Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs, p. 121.

1678—Andrew James Secures his Freedom
William Hay, a prominent resident of Charles Parish, married Margery Jolly Griggs in
1655. The bride-to-be entered into a marriage agreement with her third husband in order
to protect the estate that her second husband, John Griggs, bequeathed to their son, John,
and their daughter, Margery. In addition to outlining the terms under which Hay would
protect the inheritance of the two orphans, Hay gave a slave boy named Andrew to his
step-son. Andrew and John Griggs grew up together and possibly had a close
relationship. In October 1677, Andrew secured a promise from his master that enabled
him "to worke for himselfe paying his sd master at the expiracon of sd tyme 2000 lbs
sweet sented tobo & caske." In addition, Griggs was not "to hinder sd Andrew from
working at his trade of Carpenter" except to plant and tend 3000 corn hills. Andrew
James apparently made the most of his opportunity to do work for others who lived
nearby. However, Andrew might not have been prompt in doing his work or paying his
bills because four planters—Thomas Nutting, Samuel Snignall, John Travillion, and
William Wise—received an attachment against the estate of Andrew James to cover the
debts he had accumulated and apparently did not pay before he left the Charles Parish
and York County area in 1679.
In 1678, Andrew James petitioned the administrator of his former master's estate in order
to secure the freedom he had been promised. Members of the court made their decision
in February 1678/9.
Whereas Mr John Griggs did by his deed under his hand & seale dated 23 Dec
1673 covenant with Andrew James his Negro that when Griggs death should
come sd Negro shoud be a freeman (at his owne dispose & not subject to claime
by Griggs heirs) & sd Griggs being deceased & sd Negro by vertue of sd deed
peticoning for his freedome it is courts opinion that hee is thereby free &
therefore ord that hee be & is hereby dischardged from all manner & service any
waies due to the decedts estate de futuro.
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (6) 67, 24 February 1678/9; ibid., p. 117,
25 August 1679.

April 1679—ACT I. An act for the defence of the country against the incursions of the
Indian enemy

112

This statute reflected the bias against Native Americans in the years after Bacon‘s
Rebellion.
And for the better encouragement and more orderly government of the souldiers, that
what Indian prisoners or other plunder shalbe taken in warre, shalbe free purchase to the
souldier taking the same.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:440.

1680—Changes in Relationships Between White Indentured Servants and Black Slaves
Most of the slaves who arrived in Virginia after 1680 were transported directly from
Africa. At the same time the number of indentured servants who arrived in the colony
dropped. Lorena S. Walsh describes the change in the relations between indentured
servants and slaves on Nathaniel Bacon‘s plantation (uncle of the leader of Bacon‘s
Rebellion) from the 1660s to the 1680s.
Immediately upon arrival the Bacon slaves had been set to work raising tobacco
and corn on Bacon‘s home plantation on King‘s Creek in northern York County or on
nearby quarters at Piney and Farlow‘s Neck. There they likely at first shared dwellings
with and worked alongside with indentured servants (most young men) whom Bacon also
regularly purchased in the 1660s, 1670s, and 1680s . . . . In addition, Native Americans
also occasionally were present in the quarters. Bacon had at least two Indian servants,
Will, an eight-year-old boy acquired in 1666, and Dick, another boy whose service he
purchased in 1689. Interracial work groups would have been common on both the Bacon
and the Burwell plantations into the 1680s but less frequent after that. Burwell did
continue to buy indentured servants through the early 1690s but probably in diminished
numbers. Many fewer white servants immigrated to the York basin after the early 1680s,
and those who did were increasingly likely to be skilled artisans who probably did not
share accommodations with slaves or work closely with them.
Once the stream of new white servants diminished to a trickle in the mid-1680s
and blacks became dominant in the bound labor force, their working conditions began to
deteriorate. Colonial courts ruled that slaves had no claim to English workers‘ customary
rights to food of reasonable quantity and quality, adequate clothing and shelter, and a
certain amount of rest and leisure. And, across the last half of the century, laws stripped
the slaves of any significant freedom for themselves or their children and denied them not
only any right to hold property but any security for their persons against whatever
brutality any white chose to inflict. Slaves living in isolation commanded scant hedges
against their master‘s ever-growing power. However, groups of slaves who were as
numerous as those on the Bacon and Burwell estates and among whom there was an
unusual degree of residential and intergenerational continuity surely had some collective
resources for resisting adverse changes in plantation custom, at least for a time.
Source: Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove, pp. 31, 32.

113

June 1680—ACT VII. An act assertaining the time when Negroe Children shall be
tythable
The colonial leaders decided that enslaved children should be counted as tithes (capable
of working) at the age of twelve and that Christian servants should be included on a list
of tithes at the age of fourteen.
WHEREAS it is deemed too hard and severe that children (as well christians as
slaves) imported into this colony should be lyable to taxes before they are capable of
working, Bee it enacted by the kings most excellent majestie by and with the consent of
the generall assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all negroe
children imported or to be imported into this colony shall within three months after the
publication of this law or after their arrivall be brought to the county court, where there
age shalbe adjudged of by the justices holding court, and put upon record, which said
negroe, or other slave soe brought to court, adjudged and recorded shall not be accompted
tythable untill he attaines the age of twelve yeares, any former law, usuage, or custome to
the contrary notwithstanding. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it
is hereby enacted, that noe christian servants imported into this colony shalbe tythable
before they attaine the age of fourteene yeares any former law, usuage, or custome to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:479-480.

June 1680—ACT X. An act for preventing Negroes Insurrections
This law represents an attempt to restrict the freedom and personal rights of enslaved
persons. The members of the Assembly also decided that a slave who resisted a white
individual was to be punished. The statute designated the punishments for three crimes:
leaving a plantation without the permission of one‘s master, raising a hand against a
Christian, and resisting capture after running away.
WHEREAS the frequent meeting of consideable numbers of negroe slaves under
pretence of feasts and burialls is judged of dangerous consequence; for prevention
whereof for the future, Bee it enacted by the kings most excellent majestie by and with the
consent of the generall assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority aforesaid, that
from and after the publication of this law, it shall not be lawfull for any negroe or other
slave to carry or arme himselfe with any club, staffe, gunn, sword or any other weapon of
defence or offence, nor to goe or depart from of his masters ground without a certificate
from his master, mistris or overseer and such permission not to be granted but upon
perticuler and necessary occasions; and every negroe or slave soe offending not haveing a
certificate as aforesaid shalbe sent to the next constable, who is hereby enjoyned and
required to give the said negroe twenty lashes on his bare back well layd on, and soe sent
home to his said master, mistris or overseer. And it is further enacted by the authority

114

aforesaid that if any negroe or other slave shall presume to lift up his hand in opposition
against any christian, shall for every such offence, upon due proofe made thereof by the
oath of the party before a magistrate, have and receive thirty lashes on his bare back well
laid on. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid that if any negroe or
other slave shall absent himself from his masters service and lye hid and lurking in
obscure places, comitting injuries to the inhabitants, and shall resist any person or
persons that shalby any lawfull authority be imployed to apprehend and take the said
negroe, that then in case of such resistance, it shalbe lawfull for such person or persons to
kill the said negroe or slave soe lying out and resisting, and that this law be once every
six months published at the respective county courts and parish churches within this
colony.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:481-482.

1681—Lord Culpepper‘s Estimation of Virginia‘s Population
70,000 or 80,000 population, of which 15,000 servants, 3,000 blacks
Source: Greene and Harrington, American Population Before the Federal Census of
1790, p. 137.

1681—A Case of Miscegenation
County courts used fines and the whip to try to enforce racial separation between the
sexes. The slave William charged in this case apparently received additional punishment
for thumbing his nose at members of Linhaven Church.
Whereas upon the Information of mr. James Porter minister It hath appeared to this Court
that Mary Williamson hath Comitted the filthy sin of fornication with William a negro
belonging to William Basnett Squire It is therefore ordered that shee bee fined five
hundred pounds of tobacco and Caske for the use of Linhaven parish, for which the said
Basnet hath In open Court Ingaged himself etc. security.
Whereas It hath appeared to this Court that William a negro belonging to William Basnett
Squire hath Comitted fornication with Mary Williams[on], and hath very arrogantly
behaved himself in Linhaven Church in the face of the Congregation, It is therefore
ordered that the Sheriff take the said William Into his Custody and give him thirty Lashes
on his bare back.
Source: Lower Norfolk County Order Book, 1681-1686, in Billings, ed., The Old
Dominion in the Seventeenth Century, p. 161.

115

November 1682—ACT I. An act to repeale a former law making Indians and others
ffree
Two acts passed in November of 1682 joined Native Americans and Africans into one
racial category—―negroes and other slaves.‖
And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that all servants except Turkes and
Moores, whilest in amity with his majesty which from and after publication of this act
shall be brought or imported into this country, either by sea or land, whether Negroes,
Moors, Mollattoes or Indians, who and whose parentage and native country are not
christian at the time of their first purchase of such servant by some christian, although
afterwards, and before such their importation and bringing into this country, they shall be
converted to the christian faith; and all Indians which shall hereafter be sold by our
neighbouring Indians, or any other trafiqueing with us as for slaves are hereby adjudged,
deemed and taken to be slaves to all intents and purposes, any law, usage or custome to
the countrary notwithstanding.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:491-492.

November 1682—ACT II. An act declaring Indian women servants tithables
WHEREAS it hath bin doubted whether Indian women servants sold to the
English above the age of sixteene yeares be tythable, Bee it enacted and declared, and it
is hereby enacted and declared by the governour, councill and burgesses of this generall
assembly and the authority thereof, that all Indian women are and shall be tythables, and
ought to pay levies in like manner as negroe women brought into this country doe, and
ought to pay.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:492.

November 1682—ACT III. An additional act for the better preventing insurrections by
Negroes
This statute placed an additional restriction on the mobility of enslaved persons: slaves
were not to gather at a plantation other than that of their master for more than four hours.
WHEREAS a certaine act of assembly held at James Citty the 8th day of June, in
the yeare of our Lord 1680, intituled, an act preventing negroes insurrections hath not had
its intended effect for want of due notice thereof being taken; it is enacted by the
governour, councell and burgesses of this generall assembly, and by the authority
thereof, that for the better putting the said act in due execution, the church wardens of
each parish in this country at the charge of the parish by the first day of January next
provide true coppies of this present and the aforesaid act, and make or cause entry thereof
to be made in the register book of the said parish, and that the minister or reader of each

116

parish shall twice every yeare vizt. some one Sunday or Lords day in each of the months
of September and March in each parish church or chappell of ease in each parish in the
time of divine service, after the reading of the second lesson, read and publish both this
present and the aforerecited act under paine such churchwarden minister or reader
makeing default, to forfeite each of them six hundred pounds of tobacco, one halfe to the
informer and the other halfe to the use of the poore of the said parish. And for the further
better preventing such insurrections by negroes or slaves, Bee it likewise enacted by the
authority aforesaid, that noe master or overseer knowingly permitt or suffer, without the
leave or licence of his or their master or overseer, any negroe or slave not properly
belonging to him or them, to remaine or be upon his or their plantation above the space of
four houres at any one time, contrary to the intent of the aforerecited act upon paine to
forfeite, being thereof lawfully convicted, before some one justice of peace within the
county where the fact shall be comitted, by the oath of two witnesses at the least, the
summe of two hundred pounds of tobacco in cask for each time soe offending to him or
them that will sue for the same, for which the said justice is hereby impowered to award
judgment and execution.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:492-493.

March 23, 1684/5—Deed of Gift from William Booth to William
William was one of three children born to a white woman named Katherine Jewell and an
unknown black father before her marriage to Stephen Pond, a white planter. Jewell
bound out her son to William Booth, one of the leading planters in Charles Parish. In this
deed of gift Booth conveyed a heifer to William.
Mr Jenings
I would desyer you to Record It as followeth
Whereas William a Mulatto boy sonn of Katharine Jewell is bound to me by a certaine
Indenture beareing date the 6th of March 1670[/1] for the tearme & time of thirty yeares
In Consideration whereof I am to give him his bringing up and Corne & Cloathes at the
Expiration of his time and a heifer of a yeare old when he attaines to the Age of
fowerteen about which age he is now I doe therefore acknowledge to have marked a pied
yeareling with a figure of three under the right Eare having browne Eares & a browne
Mussell her & her Increase to run and be for the use and behoofe of the sd Malattoe boy
& him onely serveing out his full time accoarding to the sd Indenture otherwise to returne
to me & this I doe acknowledge to the Records of York County Given under my hand
this 23d March 1684/5 Wm Booth
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (7) 61, 24 March 1684/5.

October 24, 1687—Governor Effingham Reveals a Planned Insurrection by Slaves

117

The discovery of an insurrection plot on the Northern Neck induced members of the
Governor's Council to urge slaveowners to restrict their slaves' mobility on weekends and
to ban funerals among their bondspeople. Black Virginians took advantage of funerals to
share information and to demonstrate racial solidarity. These large gatherings would
continue to provoke suspicion among white leaders throughout the colonial and
antebellum periods and even after the end of the Civil War.
His Excellency was pleased this day in Councell to acquaint the Councell that he
had even then reced from Mr Secretary Spencer Intelligence of the Discovery of a Negro
Plott, formed in the Northern Neck for the Distroying and killing his Majties Subjects the
Inhabitants thereof, with a designe of Carrying it through the whole Collony of Virga
which being by Gods Providence timely discovered before any part of the designes were
put in Execution, and thereby their whole Evill purposes for the present defeated, and Mr
Secretary Spencer haveing by his Care Secured some of the Principall Actors &
Contrivers, and the Evill & fatall Consequences that might have hapned, being by this
Board Seriously considered, Have found fit to Order that the Negro Conspirators now in
Custody be either safely Secured untill the next Genll Court, to the Intent they may then
be proceeded against according to Law, or if it be found more Necessary for the present
Safety of the Country that they be brought to a Speedy Tryall, that then his Excellcy will
be pleased to direct a Commission to Mr Secretary Spencer, Col Rich: Lee, and Coll:
Isaac Allerton three of this Majties Councell Inhabitants in the Northern Neck to Sitt
heare and try according to Law the Negro Conspirators, and to proceed to Sentence of
Condemnacon & Execucon, or to Such other punishmts as according to Law they shall be
found Guilty off, by such examples of Justice to deterr other Negroes from plotting or
Contriveing either the Death wrongs or Injuries of any of this Majties Subjects. And this
Board having Considered that the great freedome and Liberty that has beene by many
masters given to their Negro Slaves for Walking on Broad on Saterdays and Sundays and
permitting them to meete in great Numbers in Making and holding Funeralls for Dead
Negroes gives them the Opportunityes under pretention of such publique meetings to
Consult and advise for the Carrying on of their Evill & wicked purposes & Contrivances,
for prevention whereof for the future, It is by this Board thought fitt that a Proclamacon
doe forthwith Issue, requiring a Strickt observance of Severall Laws of this Collony
relateing to Negroes, and to require and Comand all Masters of families having any
Negro Slaves, not to permitt them to hold or make any Solemnity or Funeralls for any
deced Negros.
Source: McIlwaine, ed., Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, 1:8687.

November 1687—Proclamation from Governor Effingham
Effingham issued this proclamation in response to ―a Negro Plott‖ that was discovered on
the Northern Neck. The governor reminded residents of Virginia about the restrictions
placed on the movement of slaves in the June 1680 law entitled An act for preventing
Negroes Insurrections.

118

By His Excellency a Proclamacon—
Whereas by the prudent care of the Genll. Assembly a most necessary and good law was
thereby made, to deter and prevent the insurrection of Negroe slaves for want of due
observance whereof, and by the too frequent remissnesse of Masters of families in not
restraining their Negroes from walking and rambling on broad on Satterdayes and
Sundayes, by such liberty given them the opportunities of meetings in great tumults, to
consentt and advise by all maner of wicked meanes and contrivances to hope by such
plottings to putt themselves into a capacity to exende their bloody purposes on their
Masters and Mistrisses and by the execution of their sins, blood, plotts and designes to
exempt and free themselves from their present slavery which of late yeares has beene too
frequently notoriously made manifest threatning the total ruine and subversion of the
inhabitants of this his Majties. governmt. if by Gods providence a timely discovery had
not beene made of such plotts and designes and to the intent for the future that better care
and diver observance may bee had and paid unto that wholesome and necessary law
entituled an act preventing Negroes insurrections, I Francis Lord Howard Baron of
Effingham his Majties. Leiut. and Governor Genll. of Virginia by and with the consent
and advice of the councell of state have thought fitt that for the future noe Negroes slaves
bee suffered to carry or arme himselfe with any staffe, clubb, gunn, sword, or other
weapon, offensive or defensive, nor presume to depart from off his Master or Mistress
grownd without the permission of his Master, Mistress or overseer and that to bee made
manifest by certificate under the Master, Mistress or overseer hand, and any Negroe
prosumeing otherwise to doe to bee taken and securyed and severly punished according
as the before recited law hath directed and appointed and to the intent a strict enquiry bee
made unto this good law the Grand Jury men of every respective county are hereby in his
Majties. name strictly charged and comanded to make enquiry whether any Master or
Mistresses of Negroes slaves bee neglectfull of their parts of the afoemenconed act, as
alsoe whether Constables and other officers doe well and truely give correction unto such
offending Negroes as shall be brought before them, and alsoe to enquire whether or noe
that according to the direction of the said act the same bee published every six monethes
att the respective county courts and parish churches within this collony, and if upon the
Grand Juries enquiry of the due performance of the aforesaid act that they shall finde
whether Master, Mistress or overseer wanting in their parts in the performance of the said
act that then they present the same to the intent the offenders may bee prceeded against
according to law. Given under my hand and the seale of the colony att Rosegill this fifth
day of Nov Anno Dom. 1687. God Save the King Effingham
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (8) 99-100, 24 January 1687/8.

April 26, 1688—Punishment for Sam
At a meeting held on April 26, 1688, the General Court punished Sam, a slave
who belonged to Richard Metcalf, for his role in a planned insurrection.

119

Whereas at a Genll Court held att James Citty Aprill the 26th 1688 Present the
honourable his Majties Councill of State It apeard that Sam a Negro Servt to Richard
Metcalfe hath several times endeavoured to promote a Negro Insurreccon in this Colony,
It is therefore ordered to deter him & others from the like evil practice for time to come,
that he be by the Sheriff of James Citty County or his deputy severely whipt att a cart
tayle from the prison round about the town & then to the Gallows, and from thence to the
prison againe and that hee be conveyed by the sheriff of Westmoreland County to that
county & hee is ordered to whip him severely at the next Court to be held for that
County, & that hee have a halter about his necke during that time, & afterwards that hee
have a strong Iron collar affixed about his neck with four spriggs wch collar he is never
to take or gett off nor to goe off his master or masters plantacon during all the time he
shall live, and if he shall goe off his said master or masters plantacon or get off his collar
then to be hanged.
Vera Copia test,
W Edward Cl Gen Cur.
In Obedience to wch Order we command the sheriff of this county or his deputy
sedente curia to give him twenty-nine lashes on the bare back well laid on wch was
performed accordingly with a halter about his neck, and the collar put on.
Source: ―Punishment For a Negro Rebel,‖ William and Mary Quarterly, 1st ser., X
(1901-1902):177-178.

1689—End of the Monopoly of the Royal African Company
The Royal African Company decided to stop protecting its monopoly in the slave trade to
the British colonies.
After 1689 the company no longer tried to enforce its monopoly rights, and other English
merchants operating as ‗separate traders‘ licensed by and paying a tax to the company, as
well as less scrupulous ship captains (‗interlopers‘) who traded in slaves illegally, joined
in the business of transporting Africans to the mainland colonies.
Source: Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove, p. 54.

1690—Proportion of Africans and Their Descendants in the Chesapeake
Lorena S. Walsh notes the proportion of Africans and descendants of Africans in the
Chesapeake.
As late as 1690 Africans or their descendants were no more than 7 percent of the total
population in Virginia and Maryland, which then numbered about 75,000.

120

Source: Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove, p. 25.

July 26, 1690—Proclamation Issued by Governor Nicholson
Francis Nicholson‘s proclamation of July 26, 1690 indicates that masters and mistresses
did not always follow the directions in Effingham‘s 1687 decree. Nicholson reminded
Virginians that the 1680 statute entitled An act for preventing Negroes Insurrections was
to be read in the county courts and the parish churches.
By the Right Honorable their Majties Leiut Governor
Whereas there are divers good lawes made in England & Va restraining the profaining
the Sabbath day & agt the wicked sins of cursing, swearing, drunkenesse & debauchery
& for the good govermt of this country & amonge the rest of the good & wholesome
lawes there are severall acts made for the well ordering of Negroes particularly 1 made at
a genll assembly begun June 8, 1680 to prevent the rambling about of Negroes (which
must frequently happen on the Sabbath day) & agt Masters of families & overseers that
shall entertaine or suffer them to be in their plantacons. And whereas there is an act
made that enjoynes the haveing grand juries in every county that all offenders may be
presented & a due course taken for their punishmts to deter the like offences for the
future. Now to the end that the Sabbath day may be kept holey, & that all prophainenesse
& debaucheryes of what sort soever may be discouraged & deterred that the judgmts of
God Almighty bee not drawne down upon all heads & that the good & wholesome lawes
concerning the same be put in execution & all other lawes for the good governmt of this
country, I Francis Nicholson Esq their Majties Leiut Gov. of Va by the advise & consent
of the councill doe by this proclamacon in their Majties names will & require all & every
the justices of the peace in their severall county cts & stations to take care to present &
punish such as are Sabbath breakers & all other prophaine & scandalous livers to put the
lawes agt prophainouss in execution, & all other the good lawes for the well ordering this
their Majties country. And take escpeciall care that Grandjuries of the best & most
substantiall men in their counties bee duly sworne & a strict charge given them to inquire
agt all offences & offenders & to present them to the county cts whoe are to cause all due
prosecutions to be had agt offenders & such punishmts & penalties to be inflicted on
them as the serverall lawes injoynes & to take care that the act about Negroes be read in
all county cts & churches as the lawes injoynes. Hereof noe person is to faile as they will
answer the contrary att their attmost perills. Given under my hand & the seale of the
collony July 26, 1690. Fr. Nicholson
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (8) 498-499, 24 September 1690.

April 1691—ACT XVI. An act for suppressing outlying slaves
The legislators detailed a systematic plan to gather a force of men to recapture ―outlying
slaves‖ in this statute. This document also contains the first legal restriction on the

121

manumission of slaves. The law required a master to transport an emancipated slave out
of the colony within six months. In addition, partners in an interracial marriage could not
stay in Virginia more than three months after they wed. Lawmakers did not want white
women to bear mulatto children because the free black population would increase. They
decided to punish white women who gave birth to mulattos and to require a longer term
of servitude (until the age of thirty) for these children than they did for poor orphans or
illegitimate white boys (until the age of twenty-one) and girls (until the age of eighteen).
Finally, in this law, the General Assembly first used the term ―white‖ as an additional
way to legally separate the English and Europeans from Africans and Native Americans.
WHEREAS many times negroes, mulattoes, and other slaves unlawfully absent
themselves from their masters and mistresses service, and lie hid and lurk in obscure
places killing hoggs and committing other injuries to the inhabitants of this dominion, for
remedy whereof for the future, Be it enacted by their majesties lieutenant governour,
councell and burgesses of this present general assembly, and the authoritie thereof, and
it is hereby enacted, that in all such cases upon intelligence of any such negroes,
mulattoes, or other slaves lying out, two of their majesties justices of the peace of that
county, whereof one to be of the quorum, where such negroes, mulattoes or other slave
shall be, shall be impowered and commanded, and are hereby impowered and
commanded to issue out their warrants directed to the sherrife of the same county to
apprehend such negroes, mulattoes, and other slaves, which said sherriffe is hereby
likewise required upon all such occasions to raise such and soe many forces from time to
time as he shall think convenient and necessary for the effectual apprehending such
negroes, mulattoes and other slaves, and in case any negroes, mulattoes or other slaves or
slaves lying out as aforesaid shall resist, runaway, or refuse to deliver and surrender him
or themselves to any person or persons that shall be by lawfull authority employed to
apprehend and take such negroes, mulattoes or other slaves that in such cases it shall and
may be lawfull for such person and persons to kill and distroy such negroes, mulattoes,
and other slave or slaves by gunn or any otherwaise whatsoever.
Provided that where any negroe or mulattoe slave or slaves shall be killed in
pursuance of this act, the owner or owners of such negro or mulatto slave shall be paid
for such negro or mulatto slave four thousand pounds of tobacco by the publique. And
for prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may
encrease in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with
English, or other white women, as by their unlawfull accompanying with one another, Be
it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, that for the time to come,
whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a
negroe, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within three months after
such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion forever, and that the justices
of each respective countie within this dominion make it their perticular care that this act
be put in effectuall execution. And be it further enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and
it is hereby enacted, That if any English woman being free shall have a bastard child by
any negro or mulatto, she pay the sume of fifteen pounds sterling, within one moneth
after such bastard child be born, to the Church wardens of the parish where she shall be
delivered of such child, and in default of such payment she shall be taken into the
possession of the said Church wardens and disposed of for five yeares, and the said fine

122

of fifteen pounds, or whatever the woman shall be disposed of for, shall be paid, one third
part to their majesties for and towards the support of the government and the contingent
charges thereof, and one other third part to the use of the parish where the offence is
committed, and the other third part to the informer, and that such bastard child be bound
out as a servant by the said Church wardens untill he or she shall attaine the age of thirty
yeares, and in case such English woman that shall have such bastard child be a servant,
she shall be sold by the said church wardens, (after her time is expired that she ought by
law to serve her master) for five yeares, and the money she shall be sold for divided as is
before appointed, and the child to serve as aforesaid.
And forasmuch as great inconveniences may happen to this country by the setting
of negroes and mulattoes free, by their either entertaining negro slaves from their masters
service, or receiveing stolen goods, or being grown old bringing a charge upon the
country; for prevention thereof, Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby
enacted, That no negro or mulatto be after the end of this present session of assembly set
free by any person or persons whatsoever, unless such person or persons, their heires,
executors or administrators pay for the transportation of such negro or negroes out of the
countrey within six moneths after such setting them free, upon penalty of paying of tenn
pounds sterling to the Church wardens of the parish where such person shall dwell with,
which money, or so much thereof as shall be necessary, the said Church wardens are to
cause the said negro or mulatto to be transported out of the countrey, and the remainder
of the said money to imploy to the use of the poor of the parish.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:86-88.

April 1692—ACT III. An act for the more speedy prosecution of slaves committing
Capitall Crimes
This law represents the first time that the members of the General Assembly detailed the
procedure for a slave brought to trial for a capital offense. A slave had a trial in a court
of oyer and terminer. The literal translation of ―oyer and terminer‖ is ―to hear and
determine.‖ Four of a county‘s justices of the peace heard the trial and decided the fate
of the person charged with a crime. The slave was denied the right to a jury trial that
white men and women had. This statute also decreed that enslaved individuals were not
permitted to own horses, cattle, and hogs after December 31, 1692.
WHEREAS a speedy prosecution of negroes and other slaves for capital
offences is absolutely necessarie, that others being detered by the condign
punishment inflicted on such offenders, may vigorously proceed in their labours
and be affrighted to commit the like crimes and offences, and whereas such
prosecution has been hitherto obstructed by reason of the charge and delay
attending the same.
Be it therefore enacted by their Majesties Lieutenant Governour, Councell and
Burgesses of this present Generall Assembly and the authority thereof, and it is hereby
enacted, That every negro or other slave which shall after this present session of

123

Assembly commit or perpetrate any cappitall offence which the law of England requires
to be satisfyed with the death of the offender or loss of member, after his commiting of
the said offence, shall be forthwith committed to the common gaol of the county within
which such offence shall be committed, there to be safely continued, well laden with
irons, and that the sheriff of the said county doe forthwith signifie the same to the
governour for the time being, who is desired and impowered to issue out a commission of
oyer and terminer directed to such persons of the said county as he shall think fitt, which
persons forthwith after the receipt of the said commission are required and commanded
publicly at the courthouse of the said county to cause the offender to be arraigned and
indicted, and to take for evidence the confession of the part or the oathes of two witnesses
or of one with pregnant circumstances, without the sollemnitie of jury, and the offender
being found guilty as aforesaid, to pass judgment as the law of England provides in the
like case, and on such judgment to award execution.
And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That all
horses, cattle and hoggs marked of any negro or other slaves marke, or by any slave kept,
and which shall not by the last day of December next, be converted by the owner of such
slave to the use and marke of the said owner, shall be forfeited to the use of the poore of
the parish wherein such horse, beast, or hogg shall be kept, seizable by the church
wardens thereof.
And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That where
it shall happen that any damage shall be hereafter commited by any negro or other slave
living at a quarter, where there is noe christian overseer, the same damage shall be
recompenced by the owner of such slave to the party injured.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:102-103.

June 1692 to February 1694/5—Status of Mary Walter
In June 1692 Joseph Walter, a free black man, entered a complaint against Mary Bennett
―for the unjust detention & withholding a child of the complnt wife from her in slavery.‖
Walter claimed that Bennett‘s previous husband, Isaac Collier, freed his wife, Mary,
before she gave birth to their child. The county clerk did not note the fate of the child
born to Joseph and Mary Walter.
It appears that the question of Mary Walter‘s status—enslaved or free—worked against
her in subsequent appearances before the local justices of the peace on November 24,
1693 and February 26, 1693/4. In November 1693 John and Elizabeth Sampson accused
Mary Walter of verbal and physical abuse of Elizabeth Sampson. Three months later,
unnamed persons told the justices of the peace that Mary Walter was a dangerous person.
York County‘s magistrates decided that Mary Walter was an enslaved woman and that
she was to be sold to someone who would transport her out of the colony. It is possible
that Joseph Walter remained in York County after his wife was deported. Walter might
have been the man named Joseph Waters who was presented by the grand jury in
February 1694/5 for ―keeping company with an English woman & constantly lying with
her.‖

124

In the diff depending at this ct btwn John Sampson & Eliz his wife plts agt Joseph
Walters & Mary his wife defts Negroes in an action of trespass assault & battery wherein
it evidently appearing that she sd Mary hath most notoriously & wickedly abused Eliz not
only by words but alsoe by blows & offered great violence upon her w/unlawfull wepons
continuing her threats of a further revenge upon Eliz whereupon it is ord that the sherr
take Mary into his custody & give her 29 lashes on her bare back & from thence to comitt
her to close prison until she give sec for her future good behavior during the cts pleasure
& have satisfyed & pd all costs of suite due to the plt.
There haveing been brought to this ct diverse actions of trespass assault & battery agt
Mary Walters a Negroe wife of Joseph Walters in YC whoe pretends herself a free
woman & likewise a gennll complaint agt her to be of that wicked & dangerous life &
conversation both by her actions & expressions & threats in soe much it is believed &
adjudged the issue of her ungovernd life will prove of dangerous consequence if some
cause be not speedily taken to prevent her wherefore it is ord that she be well secured in
ord to her transportation out of this collony if she cannot prove her freedom & that the
sherr present the humble addresses of this ct to his Excell. the Gov for his pleasure to be
known therein.
In persuance of an ord of Nov ct last Mary Walters being now brought upon her tryall at
this ct to prove her former assertions & pretence of being a free Negro whoe not being in
the least capable of maintaining the same but that she formerly was a slave & never
otherwise knowne amongst her neighbors she having now neither grounds nor placesable
circumstances to prove her imediate condicon to be otherwise then a slave It is therefore
ord that the sherr take her into safe custody & secure her in close prisson until an
opportunity presents to expose her to saile to such person as will give bond for her
exportation out of Va during which time the sherr is ord to take care that she want not
suff for her natureall support & that the county charge & other fees & dues which have &
hereafter shall arise by her be reimburst & pd out of the produce of such consideration
when sold etc.
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (9) 155, 24 August 1692; ibid., p. 173,
26 September 1692; ibid., p. 270, 24 November 1693; ibid., p. 297, 26 February 1693/4;
York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (10) 106-107, 25 February 1694/5.

April 14, 1694—Proclamation of Governor Andros
The fact that Andros issued this proclamation indicates that several masters continued to
allow their slaves to travel from their plantations and to gather with family members and
friends in spite of the restrictions placed on enslaved persons in the June 1680 statute
entitled An act for preventing Negroes Insurrections.
Whereas the lawes concerning Negros & other slaves have not had the good effort by
them intended for want of being duly executed & particularly one Act of Assembly made

125

at James City the 8th day of June 1680 Entituled an Act for preventing Negros
Insurrections in which it is provided that it shall not be lawful for any Negro or any other
slave to carry or arme himselfe with any club, staffe, gun, sword or any other wepon of
defense or offense nor to go nor part from his masters ground without certificate from his
master mistresse or overseer, & such permission not to be granted but upon particuler &
necessary occasions & by one other Act of Assembly made at James City the 10th day of
November 1682 Entituled an Additionall Act for the better preventing the insurrection by
Negroes It is further provided that both the sd Acts shall be by the minister or reader of
each parish read & published twice every year vizt some one Sunday or Lords day in
each of the monthes of September & March in each parish church or chappell of ease in
each parish in this collony in the time of Devine Service after the reading of the second
lesson under the paine & penalty thereon exprest & also that no master or overseer shall
at any time Knowingly permitt or suffer without the leave or lysence of his or their
master or overseer any Negro or slave not properly belonging to him or them to remaine
or be upon his or their plantations above the space of 4 hours contrary to the intent of the
before verited Act upon paine or forfeiting as in the sd law mentioned but
notwithstanding which through the remissness & lysentiousness of the severall masters
mistresses overseers & other persons enjoyned by the sd lawes to performe their serverall
dutyes therein diverse Negroes & slaves in sundry parts & countyes in this collony have
met congregated & got together which meetings & gatherings together of such Negroes
or slaves as aforesd being of a dangerous consequence I Sr Edmund Andross knt: their
Maties Lt: & Governor Genll: of Virginia by advice in Councell do by this proclamation
in their Maties names will & require that accord. to law, no master mistress or overseer
do grant certificate or permitt any Negro or other slave to depart from of their masters
ground but upon particular & necessary occasions & such certificate so granted to
expresse the place where & limit the time for their goeing & returneing upon such
occasions as aforesd & I do further will & require that all & every sherr justice of the
peace constables & other officers & all & every other person or persons within this
Dominion of Virginia to take spetial care that the lawes concerning Negroes be fully &
duly executed as they & every of them shall answere the contrary at their utmost perillls
Given under my hand & the seale of the collony this 14th day of April 1694 & in the 6th
year of their Maties Raigne E Andros
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (10) 20, 25 June 1694.

May 24, 1694—Presentment of Mary Jewell for Bearing an Illegitimate Child
Mary Jewell was the daughter of Katherine (Jewell) Pond and the sister of William
Cattilla. She and a white man named John Berry were the parents of a son named James.
Mary Jewell‘s step-father, Stephen Pond, paid her fine for bearing an illegitimate child.
Pond also promised to help support her and her son. James Berry was the first member of
the free black family with the surname Berry in Charles Parish, Elizabeth City County,
and Warwick County.

126

John Toomer churchwarden of the lower presincts of Poquoson parish having exhibited
his informacon agt Mary Jewell a mollotto for her late comitting the sinn of fornication
w/an Englishman named John Berry having a bastard child borne of her body & she ack
the same in ct & made oath sd Berry is the father thereof whereupon Stiphen Pond in ct
became her sec to the parish for paymt of her fyne of 500 lbs tob accord to law to remit
her from her punishmt of whipping & alsoe to save the parish harmless from the charge
of keeping sd child which he is ord duly to perform as alsoe to pay sd fyne w/costs als
exe.
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (9) 341, 24 May 1694.
April 1695—William Cattilla‘s Petition
William Cattilla, mulatto son of Katherine (Jewell) Pond, successfully petitioned for his
freedom from his mistress, Margaret Booth, the widow of William Booth. Cattilla‘s
success indicates that his identity as a free black man was based on social relationships in
addition to the colony‘s laws.
Willm Catillah servant to Mrs Margrett Booth haveing sumonsed his sd mistres to this
Court to answer his complainant who saith that whereas he was the son of a free woman
& was baptized into the Christian faith haveing honestly & truly served his mistres
aforesd to his full age of 24 years praying order for his freedom together with his corne &
cloathes accord. to law with costs the same is accordingly granted & the next Court to be
confirmed if the dft his sd mistress then faile personally to appear & shew just cause to
the contrary.
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (10) 137, 6 April 1695.

1697—The Need for a Christian Overseer on Plantations
Thomas Nutting informed the York County Court that William Wise Senior failed to
have a Christian overseer on his plantation and that Wise‘s slave Robin killed one of his
hogs.
Mr Thomas Nutting complainant haveing presented his complaint to this Court agt Mr
Willm Wise sen dft setting forth that the dft hath placed A Negro man named Robin upon
a plantation adjacent to the complainant plantation where hee liveth in Charles Parrish in
this County & the year past did keep noe Christian overseer to looke after him by which
means he comitted injurys to severall of the neighbors but espetially to him the
complainant &c Wherefore it is ordered that the sherr sumons the dft Willm Wise for his
personall appearance at the next Court then & these to answer the same
Thomas Nutting hath Judgmt: granted per nihil dicit agt Willm Wise in an Accon of Dt:
for 2000 lbs. of tob. fine for his the sd Wises negro illegall killing & stealing of A hogg

127

of the plts at a quarter of the sd dfts who kept then & there noe Christian overseer to
looke after him which Judmt: is the next Court to be confirmed if he the sd dft then faile
to appear & answer the same
Mr Thomas Nutting plt hath Judgmt: granted agt Mr Willm Wise dft in an Accon of Dt
for the sume of 300 lbs. of tob. for 1 of the dfts negroes named Robin illegall killing &
stealing 1 of the plts hoggs At a quarter of the dfts adjoyning to the plts plantation whoe
kept there noe Christian overseer to looke after him which sd sume of 300 lbs. of tob. the
deft is ordered to pay to the plt with costs als exec.
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (10) 377, 24 March 1696/7; ibid., p. 452,
24 August 1697; ibid., p. 464, 24 September 1697.

1698—The Slave Trade Opened to All British Subjects
The Crown decided to open the slave trade to all of its subjects in 1698.
Beginning in 1698, the slave trade was officially opened to all English subjects, and
thereafter shipments direct from Africa to the Chesapeake multiplied . . . . By the turn of
the century, however, only about 10 percent of the Africans arriving in the Chesapeake
came on Royal African Company ships.
Source: Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove, pp. 54, 55.

1699 and 1702—Advice on the Management of Servants and Slaves
Daniel Parke gave his daughter Frances advice about the management of servants and
slaves in two letters, the first written in October 1699 and the second in 1702.
Be Calm and Obligeing to all the servants, and when you speak doe it mildly, Even to the
poorest slave; if any of the Servants committ small faults that are of no consequence, doe
you hide them. If you understand of any great faults they commit, acquaint y‘r mother,
but do not aggravate the fault.
Be kind and good-natured to all of your servants. It is much better to have them
love you than fear you.
Source: Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 20 (1912): 375, 377.

April 1699—ACT XII. An act for laying an imposition upon servants and slaves
imported into this country, towards building the Capitoll

128

The legislators hoped that this statute would raise money so that a new Capitol building
could be erected in Williamsburg. They did not want to discourage the slave trade.
Members of the General Assembly renewed the duty in 1701, 1704, and 1705.
WHEREAS the state house of this his majesties colony and dominion in which the
generall assemblyes and general courts have been kept and held hath been unhappily
destroyed and burnt downe, and it being absolutely necessary that a capitoll should be
built with all expedition, and foreasmuch as a more suitable expedient cannot be found
for avoiding the laying a levy upon the poll for the building the same than by laying an
imposition upon servants and slaves imported into this his majesties colony and
dominion,
Be it enacted by the Governour, Councill and Burgesses of this present generall
assembly and the authority thereof, and it is hereby enacted, That from and after the
publication of this act the sume of fifteen shillings per poll for every servant not born in
England and Wales and twenty shillings for every negro or other slaves which shall be
imported into this his majesties colony and dominion shall be from time to time paid and
satisfyed to his majestie, his heirs and successors for and towards the erecting a building
a convenient capitoll for this his majesties colony and dominion and for no nother [sic]
use, intent or purpose whatsoever, which said sume or sumes shall be paid by the
imported or importers of such [blank] and for the better levying and collecting the said
duty and impost,
Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That from and
after the publication thereof no servant or servants, negro or negroes imported into this
country shall be landed or put on shoar out of any shipp or vessell before due entry first
made with the officer or collector appointed for the customes in such port or place where
the same shall be imported, nor before the master of the said shipp or vessell hath made
oath to such officer or collector who is hereby impowered and required to administer the
same of the number of servants or slaves imported in such shipp or vessell and of the
reputed place of the birth of such servant or servants, nor before the duty due and payable
for the same shall be fully paid and satisfyed to such officer or collector, and that every
warrant for the landing of such servants or slaves shall be under the hand and seale of the
said officer or collector respectively upon paine that all such servants or slaves as shall be
landed or putt on shore contrary to this act or the vallue thereof shall be forfeited and lost
and shall be recovered of the importer or proprietor of the same.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3,:193-194; see also ibid., 3:212-213 (1701);
Winfree, comp., The Laws of Virginia, p. 22 (1704); and Hening, ed., The Statutes at
Large, 3:229-235 (1705).

June 1699—A Difference Between Slaves Imported From Africa and Those Born in
Virginia
In June 1699 a colonial legislator noted that he saw a difference between slaves imported
from Africa slaves who had been born in Virginia. It is possible that Virginians also saw

129

free persons of color who had been born in the colony in a more favorable light than the
slaves who had been transported across the Atlantic or from the Caribbean Islands.
The negroes born in this country are generally baptized and brought up in the Christian
religion, but for negroes imported hither, the gross bestiality and rudeness of their
manners, the variety and strangeness of their languages, and the weakness and
shallowness of their minds, render it in a manner impossible to make any progress in their
conversion.
Source: Minutes of the Council, 2 June 1699, Board of Trade of Virginia, vol. liii, quoted
in Bruce, Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, 1:9.

December 14, 1699—The Will of Jane Merry
In December 1699, Mary (Jewell) Cattilla, and her mother Katherine Pond, gave
depositions in the York County Court in support of the oral will that they persuaded their
neighbor, Jane Merry, to make. The depositions reveal that Mary (Jewell) Cattilla was a
part of the social world of white women in Charles Parish.
The Deposicons of Katherine P[o]nd & Mary her daughter Katherine being near six[ ]
years of Age or thereabouts and Mary being therty years of [ ] age or thereabout this
Deposeth
That Your Depon[en]ts being att the house of Jane Merry about two days before her
death being the 16th October 1699 was pswadeing the said Jane Merry to settle her
busines & to dispose of what Shee had telling her itt would be a great Satisfaccon to her
selfe & ease her friends of a great deal of trouble.
Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (11) 269-270, 14 December 1699.

August 1701—ACT II. An act for the more effectuall apprehending an outlying negro
who hath commited divers robberyes and offences
The legislators offered a reward for anyone who killed Billy and punishment for anyone
who helped to conceal this enslaved man.
WHEREAS one negro man named Billy, slave to John Tillit, but lately the slave
of Thomas Middleton, and formerly of James Bray, gentleman, of James City county, has
severall years unlawfully absented himselfe from his masters services, lying out and
lurking in obscure places suposed within the countys of James City, York, and New-

130

Kent, devouring and destroying the stocks and crops, robing the houses of and
committing and threatening other injuryes to severall of his majestyes good and leige
people within this his colony and dominion of Virginia in contempt of the good laws
thereof,
Be it therefore enacted by the governour, councell and burgesses of this present
generall assembly, and the authority therefor, and it is hereby enacted, That the said
negro slave Billy stand and be adjudged by the authority of this present act convicted of
unlawfully lying out, lurking and destroying the stocks and crops and comiting robberyes
as aforesaid, and that he suffer the paines of death. And for further encouragement in a
more speedy and effectual apprehending or destroying the said negro and discovering and
punishing his accomplices,
Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That whosoever
shall kill or destroy the said negro slave Billy and apprehend and deliver him to justice in
this colony and dominion, he, she or they shall be paid and allowed for the same by the
publick one thousand pounds of tobacco: and that all persons whatsoever within this his
majestyes colony and dominion that from and after the publication of this act shall
witingly and wilingly entertaine, assist, harbour, conceale, truck or trade with the said
negroe Billy, and every of them, shall be and by authority of this present act be adjudged
guilty of felony and incur the paines, penaltyes and forfeitures lyable by law to be
inflicted for felony, any thing in this act or any other act contained to the contrary in any
wise notwithstanding. Provided alwayes, that if the said negro Billy shall be kiled in
pursuance of this act, his master or owner shall be paid by the publick four thousand
pounds of tobacco, as is provided by a former act in the like cases.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:210-211.

Part V—Virginia Summarizes the Legislation That Established Slavery

September 1705—The Need for a Definition of Who was a Mulatto
On August 16, 1705 the Council heard the petition of John Bunch and Sarah Slaydon
who wanted to marry. The minister of Blissland Parish in New Kent County refused to
marry them because Bunch was a mulatto. The Councillors decided to refer the petition
to Stevens Thompson, the Attorney General of Virginia, ―to report his opinion whether
the Petitioners case be within the intent of the Law to prevent Negroes & White Persons
intermarrying.‖ Thompson noted that there was some confusion as to whether or not a
mulatto was to be treated the same as a negro in regard to the 1691 law prohibiting the
marriage of a white person and a black person.
In October 1705 the statute entitled An act declaring who shall not bear office in this
country included a definition of who was considered a mulatto in Virginia.
I am of opinion & do conceive that ye sd Act being Penal is Coercive or restrictive no
further then the very letter thereof, and being wholly unacquainted with the Appellations

131

given to ye issue of such mixtures, cannot resolve whether the issue begotton on a White
woman by a Mulatto man can properly be called a Mulatto, that name as I conceive being
only appropriated to the Child of a Negro man begotten upon a white woman, or by a
white man upon a negro woman, and as I am told the issue of a Mulatto by or upon a
white Person has another name viz that of, Mustee; wch if so, I conceive it wholly out of
the the Letter (tho it may be conjectured to be within ye intent) of the sd act, The which
(as abovesd being Penal) is, as I conceive not to be contrued beyond ye letter thereof.
S. Thomson, A G
Upon consideration of which Report, and that the Petitionrs Case is matter of
Law, It is therefore ordered that the Petition of the said Bunch and Slayden be referred till
next General Court for Mr Attorney to argue the reasons of his opinion before his
Excellcy and ye Council.
Source: McIlwaine, et al., eds., Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia,
3:28, 31.

October 1705—CHAP. IV. An act declaring who shall not bear office in this country
The text of this act suggests that a free man of color did hold an office sometime before
October of 1705. The statute contains the first definition of a mulatto in Virginia‘s laws.
BE it enacted by the governor, council and burgesses, of this present general
assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That no person
whatsoever, already convicted, or which hereafter shall be convicted in her majestys
kingdom of England in this or in any other her majestys dominion, colonies, islands,
territorys or plantations, or in any other kingdom, dominion or place, belonging to any
foreigh prince or state whatsoever, of treason, murther, fellony, blasphemy, perjury,
forgery or any other crime whatsoever, punishable by the laws of England, this country,
or other place wherein he was convicted with the loss of life or member, nor any negro,
mulatto or Indian, shall, from and after the publication of this act, bear any office,
ecclesiasticall, civill or military, or be in any place of public trust or power, within this
her majestys colony and dominion of Virginia, and that if any person convicted as
aforesaid, or negro, mulatto or Indian shall presume to take upon him, act in, or exercise
any office, ecclesiasticall, civill or military, or any place of publick trust or power, within
this colony and dominion, notwithstanding he be thereunto in any manner whatsoever
comissionated, appointed, chosen or impowered, and have a pardon for his crime, he
shall for such his offence, forfeit and pay five hundred pounds current money, and twenty
pounds of like money for every month he continues to act in or exercise such office or
place after a recovery made of the said five hundred pounds.
And for clearing all manner of doubts which hereafter may happen to arise upon
the construction of this act, or any other act, who shall be accounted a mulatto,
Be it enacted and declared, and it is hereby enacted and declared, That the child
of an Indian and the child, grand child, or great grand child, of a negro shall be deemed,
accounted, held and taken to be a mulatto.

132

Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:250-251, 252.

October 1705—CHAP. VII. An act concerning Tithables
It is possible that the decision to exempt free black women from tithes was designed to
benefit white men who had such women as servants.
I. BE it enacted, by the Governor, Council, and Burgesses of this present general
assembly, and it is hereby enacted, by the authority of the same, That all male persons, of
the age of sixteen years, and upwards, and all negro, mulatto, and Indian women, of the
age of sixteen years, and upwards, not being free, shall be, and are hereby declared to be
tithable, or chargeable, for defraying the public, county, and parish charges, in this her
majesty‘s colony and dominion; excepting such only, as the county court, and vestry, for
reasons, in charity, made appear to them, shall think fit to excuse.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:258-259.

October 1705—CHAP. XI. An act for the speedy and easy prosecution of Slaves,
committing Capitall Crimes
This statute continued the practice (begun in 1692) of trying convicted slaves in a court
of oyer and terminer.
WHEREAS a speedy prosecution of slaves for capitall crimes is absolutely necessary,
and that the same be done without the extraordinary charge usually attending the tryalls
of criminalls in the generall court,
Be it enacted, by the Governor, Council and Burgesses of this present General
Assembly, and it is hereby enacted, by the authority of the same, That every slave
comitting such offence as by the law ought to be sattisfyed by the death of the offender,
or loss of member, shall be forthwith comitted to the comon gaol of the county within
which such offence shall be comitted, there to be safely kept, and that the sheriff of such
county, upon such commitment, shall forthwith certify such comitment with the cause
thereof to the governor or comander in chief of this her majestys colony and dominion for
the time being, who is thereupon desired and impowered to issue out a comission of oyer
and terminer, directed to such persons of the county as he shall think fitt, which persons
forthwith after the receipt of such comission, are impowered and required to cause the
offender to be publickly indicted and arraigned at the court-house of the said county, and
to take for evidence the confession of the party or the oath of two credible witnesses, or
of one with pregnant circumstances without the solemnity of a jury, and the offender
being by them found guilty to pass such judgment upon such offender as the law provides
in the like crimes, and on such judgment to award execution.

133

Provided always, and it is hereby intended, That the master or owner of any slave
to be indicted or arraigned by virtue of this act, may appear at the tryall and make what
just defence he can for such slave, so that such defence do only relate to matters of fact,
and not to any formality in the indictment or other proceedings of the court.
And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That when any slave shall be convicted and condemned upon any tryall to be had by
virtue of this act, the justices that shall sitt in tryall shall put a valuation in money upon
such slave so condemned, and certify such valuation to the next assembly, that the said
assembly may be enabled to make a suitable allowance thereupon, to the master or owner
of such slave.
And be it further enacted, That all and every other act and acts, and every clause
and article thereof heretofore made for so much thereof as relates to the speedy and easy
prosecution of slaves comitting capitall crimes, or to any other matter or thing
whatsoever, within the purview of this act, is, and are hereby repealed and made void, to
all intents and purposes, as if the same had never been made.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:269-270.

October 1705—CHAP. XII. An act to prevent the clandestine transportation or carrying
of persons in debt, servants, and slaves, out of this colony
This act required the master of any vessel to have the permission of a master or a license
in order to transport a servant or slave out of the colony.
II. And be it also enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That after publication of this act, no master of a ship, sloop, boat or other vessel, shall
transport or carry any servant whatsoever, or any negro, mulatto, Indian, or other slave,
out of this colony and dominion, without a licence, or pass as aforesaid, or the consent,
leave, or permission of the person or persons to whom such servant or slave doth of right
belong, upon penalty of forfeiting and paying, in current money, the sum of fifty pounds
for every servant, and the sum of one hundred pounds for every slave transported or
carried hence, contrary to this act; one moiety to our sovereign lady the Queen, her heirs
and successors, for and towards the better support of this government, and the contingent
charges thereof; and the other moiety to the party grieved: To be recovered, with costs,
in any court of record within this colony and dominion, by action of debt, bill, plaint, or
information, wherein no essoin, protection, or wager of law, shall be allowed.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:271.

October 1705—CHAP. XIX. An act for establishing the General Court, and for
regulating and settling the proceedings therein
This law denied all blacks the right to testify as witnesses in court.

134

XXXI. That popish recusants convict, negroes, mulattoes and Indian servants,
and others, not being christians, shall be deemed and taken to be persons incapable in
law, to be witnesses in any cases whatsoever.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:298.

October 1705—CHAP. XXII. An act declaring the Negro, Mulatto, and Indian slaves
within this dominion, to be real estate
The legislators defined enslaved men, women, and children as real property in this act.
See also the 1669 statute entitled An act about the casuall killing of slaves for another
example of masters treating slaves as property.
I. FOR the better settling and preservation of estates within this dominion,
II. Be it enacted, by the governor, council and burgesses of this present general
assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That from and after the
passing of this act, all negro, mulatto, and Indian slaves, in all courts of judicature, and
other places, within this dominion, shall be held, taken, and adjudged, to be real estate
(and not chattels;) and shall descend unto the heirs and widows of persons departing this
life, according to the manner and custom of land of inheritance, held in fee simple.
III. Provided always, That nothing in this act contained, shall be taken to extend
to any merchant or factor, bringing any slaves into this dominion, or having any
consignments thereof, unto them, for sale: But that such slaves whilst they remain unsold,
in the possession of such merchant, or factor, or of their executors, administrators, or
assigns, shall, to all intents and purposes, be taken, held, and adjudged, to be personal
estate, in the same condition they should have been in, if this act had never been made.
IV. Provided also, That all such slaves shall be liable to the paiment of debts, and
may be taken by execution, for that end, as other chattels or personal estate may be.
V. Provided also, That no such slaves shall be liable to be escheated, by reason of
the decease of the proprietor of the same, without lawful heirs: But all such slaves shall,
in that case, be accounted and go as chattels, and other estate personal.
VI. Provided also, That no person, selling or alienating any such slave shall be
obliged to cause such sale or alienation to be recorded, as is required by law to be done,
upon the alienation of other real estate: But that the said sale or alienation may be made
in the same manner as might have been done before the making of this act.
VII. Provided also, That this act, or any thing therein contained, shall not extend,
nor be construed to extend, to give any person, being owner of any slave or slaves, and
not seized of other real estate, the right or privilege as a freeholder, meant, mentioned,
and intended, by one act of this present session of assembly, intituled, An act for
regulating the elections of Burgesses, for settling their privileges, and for ascertaining
their allowances.
VIII. Provided also, That it shall and may be lawful, for any person, to sue for,
and recover, any slave, or damage, for the detainer, trover, or conversion thereof, by
action personal, as might have been done if this act had never been made.

135

IX. Provided always, That where the nature of the case shall require it, any writ
De Partitione facienda, or of dower, may be sued forth and prosecuted, to recover the
right and possession of any such slave or slaves.
X. Provided, and be it enacted, That when any person dies intestate, leaving
several children, in that case all the slaves of such person, (except the widow‘s dower,
which is to be first set apart) shall be inventoried and appraised; and the value thereof
shall be equally divided amongst all the said children; and the several proportions,
according to such valuation and appraisement, shall be paid by the heir (to whom the said
slaves shall descend, by virtue of this act) unto all and every the other said children. And
thereupon, it shall and may be lawful for the said other children, and every of them, and
their executors or administrators, as the case shall be, to commence and prosecute an
action upon the case, at the common law, against such heir, his heirs, executors and
administrators, for the recovery of their said several proportions, respectively.
XI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any widow, seised
of any such slave or slaves, as aforesaid, as of the dower of her husband, shall send, or
voluntarily permit to be sent out of this colony and dominion, such slave or slaves, or any
of their increase, without the lawful consent of him or her in reversion, such widow shall
forfeit all and every such slave or slaves, and all other the dower which she holds of the
endowment of her husband‘s estate, unto the person or persons that shall have the
reversion thereof; any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. And if any
widow, seized as aforesaid, shall be married to an husband, who shall send, or voluntary
permit to be sent out of this colony and dominion, any such slave or slaves, or any of
their increase, without the consent of him or her in reversion; in such case, it shall be
lawful for him or her in reversion, to enter into, possess and enjoy all the estate which
such husband holdeth, in right of his wife‘s dower, for and during the life of the said
husband.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:333-335.

October 1705—CHAP. XXIV. An act for settling the Militia
The members of the General Assembly decided that a white overseer in charge of four or
more slaves, any imported servant, and all slaves were not to serve in the militia. This act
did not restrict the participation of free black men in the militia.
Provided nevertheless, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to give
any power or authority to any colonel or chief officer whatsoever, to list any person that
shall be, or shall have been of her majesty‘s councill in this colony, or any person that
shall be, or shall have been speaker of the house of burgesses, or any person that shall be,
or shall have been her majesty‘s attorney general, or any person that shall be, or shall
have been a justice of the peace within this colony, or any person that shall have born any
military commission within this colony as high as the commission of captain, or any
minister, or the clerk of the councill for the time being, or the clerk of the general court
for the time being, or any county court clerk during his being such, or any parish clerk or
school-master during his being such, or any overseer that hath four or more slaves under

136

his care, or any constable during his being such, or any miller who hath a mill in keeping,
or any servant by importation, or any slave, but that all and every such person or persons
be exempted from serving either in horse or foot. Any thing in this act heretofore to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:336.

October 1705—CHAP. XLIX. An act concerning Servants and Slaves
This statute included a definition of who would become a slave upon entering Virginia
and repeated previous restrictions placed upon enslaved persons in addition to new
constaints. The law contained some modifications on the punishments placed on white
women who bore a mulatto child and white individuals who married a person of color in
1691. The legislators made it clear that Christianity was not the path to freedom for a
slave.
IV. And also be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That all servants imported and brought into this country, by sea or land, who were not
christians in their native country, (except Turks and Moors in amity with her majesty, and
others that can make due proof their being free in England, or any other christian country,
before they were shipped, in order to transportation hither) shall be accounted and be
slaves, and as such be here bought and sold notwithstanding a conversion to christianity
afterwards.
V. And be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That if
any person or persons shall hereafter import into this colony, and here sell as a slave, any
person or persons that shall have been a freeman in any christian country, island, or
plantation, such importer and seller as aforesaid, shall forfeit and pay, to the party from
who the said freeman shall recover his freedom, double the sum for which the said
freeman was sold. To be recovered, in any court of record within this colony, according
to the course of the common law, wherein the defendant shall not be admitted to plead in
bar, any act or statute for limitation of actions.
VI. Provided always, That a slave‘s being in England, shall not be sufficient to
discharge him of his slavery, without other proof of his being manumitted there.
XI. And for a further christian care and usage of all christian servants, Be it also
enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That no negros, mulattos, or
Indians, although christians, or Jews, Moors, Mahometans, or other infidels, shall, at any
time, purchase any christian servant, nor any other, except of their own complexion, or
such as are declared slaves by this act: And if any negro, mulatto, or Indian, Jew, Moor,
Mahometan, or other infidel, or such as are declared slaves by this act, shall,
notwithstanding, purchase any christian white servant, the said servant shall, ipso facto,
become free and acquit from any service then due, and shall be so held, deemed, and
taken: And if any person, having such christian servant, shall intermarry with any such
negro, mulatto, or Indian, Jew, Moor, Mahometan, or other infidel, every christian white

137

servant of every such person so intermarrying, shall, ipso facto, become free and acquit
from any service then due to such master or mistress so intermarrying, as aforesaid.
XV. And also be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That no person whatsoever shall, buy, sell, or receive of, to, or from, any servant, or
slave, any coin or commodity whatsoever, without the leave, licence, or consent of the
master or owner of the said servant, or slave: And if any person shall, contrary hereunto,
without the leave or licence aforesaid, deal with any servant, or slave, he or she so
offending, shall be imprisoned one calender month, without bail or main-prize; and then,
also continue in prison, until he or she shall find good security, in the sum of ten pounds
current money of Virginia, for the good behaviour for one year following; wherein, a
second offence shall be a breach of the bond; and moreover shall forfeit and pay four
times the value of the things so bought, sold, or received, to the master or owner of such
servant, or slave: To be recovered, with costs, by action upon the case, in any court of
record in this her majesty‘s colony and dominion, wherein no essoin, protection, or wager
of law, or other than one imparlance, shall be allowed.
XVI. Provided always, and be it enacted, That when any person or persons
convict [sic] for dealing with a servant, or slave, contrary to this act, shall not
immediately give good and sufficient security for his or her good behaviour, as aforesaid:
then in such case, the court shall order thirty-nine lashes, well laid on, upon the bare back
of such offender, at the common whipping-post of the county, and the said offender to be
thence discharged of giving such bond and security.
XVIII. And if any woman servant shall have a bastard child by a negro, or mulatto, over
and above the years service due to her master or owner, she shall immediately, upon the
expiration of her time to her then present master or owner, pay down to the churchwardens of the parish wherein such child shall be born, for the use of the said parish,
fifteen pounds current money of Virginia, or be by them sold for five years, to the use
aforesaid: And if a free christian white woman shall have such bastard child, by a negro,
or mulatto, for every such offence, she shall, within one month after her delivery of such
bastard child, pay to the church-wardens for the time being, of the parish wherein such
child shall be born, for the use of the said parish fifteen pounds current money of
Virginia, or be by them sold for five years to the use aforesaid: And in both the said
cases, the church-wardens shall bind the said child to be a servant, until it shall be of
thirty one years of age.
XIX. And for a further prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue,
which hereafter may increase in this her majesty‘s colony and dominion, as well by
English, and other white men and women intermarrying with negroes or mulattos, as by
their unlawful coition with them, Be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is
hereby enacted, That whatsoever English, or other white man or woman, being free, shall
intermarry with a negro or mulatto man or woman, bond or free, shall, by judgment of the
county court, be committed to prison, and there remain, during the space of six months,
without bail or mainprize; and shall forfeit and pay ten pounds current money of Virginia,
to the use of the parish, as aforesaid.
XX. And be it further enacted, That no minister of the church of England, or other
minister, or person whatsoever, within this colony and dominion, shall hereafter wittingly

138

presume to marry a white man with a negro or mulatto woman; or to marry a white
woman with a negro or mulatto man, upon pain of forfeiting and paying, for every such
marriage the sum of ten thousand pounds of tobacco; one half to our sovereign lady the
Queen, her heirs and successors, for and towards the support of the government, and the
contingent charges thereof; and the other half to the informer; To be recovered, with
costs, by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record within this her
majesty‘s colony and dominion, wherein no essoin, protection, or wager of law, shall be
allowed.
XXIII. And for encouragement of all persons to take up runaways, Be it enacted,
by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That for the taking up of every
servant, or slave, if ten miles, or above, from the house or quarter where such servant, or
slave was kept, there shall be allowed by the public, as a reward to the taker-up, two
hundred pounds of tobacco; and if above five miles, and under ten, one hundred pounds
of tobacco: Which said several rewards of two hundred, and one hundred pounds of
tobacco, shall also be paid in the county where such taker-up shall reside, and shall be
again levied by the public upon the master or owner of such runaway, for re-imbursement
of the public, every justice of the peace before whom such runaway shall be brought,
upon the taking up, shall mention the proper-name and sur-name of the taker-up, and the
county of his or her residence, together with the time and place of taking up the said
runaway; and shall also mention the name of the said runaway, and the proper-name and
sur-name of the master or owner of such runaway, and the county of his or her residence,
together with the distance of miles, in the said justice‘s judgment, from the place of
taking up the said runaway, to the house or quarter where such runaway was kept.
XXIV. Provided, That when any negro, or other runaway, that doth not speak
English, and cannot, or through obstinacy will not, declare the name of his or her masters
or owner, that then it shall be sufficient for the said justice to certify the same, instead of
the name of such runaway, and the proper name and sur-name of his or her master or
owner, and the county of his or her residence and distance of miles, as aforesaid; and in
such case, shall, by his warrant, order the said runaway to be conveyed to the public gaol,
of this country, there to be continued prisoner until the master or owner shall be known;
who, upon paying the charges of the imprisonment, or giving caution to the prison-keeper
for the same, together with the reward of two hundred or one hundred pounds of tobacco,
as the case shall be, shall have the said runaway restored.
XXV. And further, the said justice of the peace, when such runaway shall be
brought before him, shall, by his warrant commit the said runaway to the next constable,
and therein also order him to give the said runaway so many lashes as the said justice
shall think fit, not exceeding the number of thirty-nine; and then to be conveyed from
constable to constable, until the said runaway shall be carried home, or to the country
gaol, as aforesaid, every constable through whose hands the said runaway shall pass,
giving a receipt at the delivery; and every constable failing to execute such warrant
according to the tenor thereof, or refusing to give such receipt, shall forefeit and pay two
hundred pounds of tobacco to the church-wardens of the parish wherein such failure shall
be, for the use of the poor of the said parish: To be recovered, with costs, by action of
debt, in any court of record in this her majesty‘s colony and dominion, wherein no essoin,
protection or wager of law, shall be allowed. And such corporal punishment shall not

139

deprive the master or owner of such runaway of the other satisfaction here in this act
appointed to be made upon such servant‘s running away.
XXIX. And be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That if any constable, or sheriff, into whose hands a runaway servant or slave shall be
committed, by virtue of this act, shall suffer such runaway to escape, the said constable or
sheriff shall be liable to the action of the party agrieved, for recovery of his damages, at
the common law with costs.
XXXII. And also be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby
enacted, That no master, mistress, or overseer of a family, shall knowingly permit any
slave, not belonging to him or her, to be and remain upon his or her plantation, above
four hours at any one time, without the leave of such slave‘s master, mistress, or
overseer, on penalty of one hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco to the informer;
cognizable by a justice of the peace of the county wherein such offence shall be
committed.
XXXIV. And if any slave resist his master, or owner, or other person, by his or
her order, correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction, it shall
not be accounted felony; but the master, owner, and every such other person so giving
correction, shall be free and acquit of all punishment and accusation for the same, as if
such incident had never happened: And also, if any negro, mulatto, or Indian, bond or
free, shall at any time, lift his or her hand, in opposition against any christian, not being
negro, mulatto, or Indian, he or she so offending shall, for every such offence, proved by
the oath of the party, receive on his or her bare back, thirty lashes, well laid on;
cognizable by a justice of the peace for that county wherein such offence shall be
committed.
XXXV. And also be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby
enacted, That no slave go armed with gun, sword, club, staff, or other weapon, nor go
from off the plantation and seat of land where such slave shall be appointed to live,
without a certificate of leave in writing, for so doing, from his or her master, mistress, or
overseer: And if any slave shall be found offending herein, it shall be lawful for any
person or persons to apprehend and deliver such slave to the next constable or headborough, who is hereby enjoined and required, without further order or warrant, to give
such slave twenty lashes on his or her bare back well laid on, and so send him or her
home: And all horses, cattle, and hogs, now belonging, or that hereafter shall belong to
any slave, or of any slaves mark in this her majesty‘s colony and dominion, shall be
seised and sold by the church-wardens of the parish, wherein such horses, cattle, or hogs
shall be, and the profit thereof applied to the use of the poor of the said parish: And also,
if any damage shall be hereafter committed by any slave living at a quarter where there is
no christian overseer, the master or owner of such slave shall be liable to action for the
trespass and damage, as if the same had been done by him or herself.
XXXVI. And also it is hereby enacted and declared, That baptism of slaves doth
not exempt them from bondage; and that all children shall be bond or free, according to
the condition of their mothers, and the particular direction of this act.

140

XXXVII. And whereas, many times, slaves run away and lie out, hid or lurking in
swamps, woods, and other obscure places, killing hogs, and committing other injuries to
the inhabitants of this her majesty‘s colony and dominion, Be it therefore enacted, by the
authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That in all such cases, upon intelligence
given of any slaves lying out, as aforesaid, any two justices (Quorum unus) of the peace
of the county wherein such slave is supposed to lurk or do mischief, shall be and are
impowered and required to issue proclamation against all such slaves, reciting their
names, and owners names, if they are known, and thereby requiring them, and every of
them, forthwith to surrender themselves; and also impowering the sheriff of the said
county, to take such power with him, as he shall think fit and necessary, for the effectual
apprehending such out-lying slave or slaves, and go in search of them: Which
proclamation shall be published on a Sabbath day, at the door of every church and chapel,
in the said county, by the parish clerk, or reader, of the church, immediately after divine
worship: And in case any slave, against whom proclamation hath been thus issued, and
once published at any church or chapel, as aforesaid, stay out, and do not immediately
return home, it shall be lawful for any person or persons whatsoever, to kill and destroy
such slaves by such ways and means as he, she, or they shall think fit, without accusation
or impeachment of any crime for the same: And if any slave, that hath run away and lain
out as aforesaid, shall be apprehended by the sheriff, or any other person, upon the
application of the owner of the said slave, it shall and may be lawful for the county court,
to order such punishment to the said slave, either by dismembring, or any other way, not
touching his life, as they in their discretion shall think fit, for the reclaiming any such
incorrigible slave, and terrifying others from the like practices.
XXXVIII. Provided Always, and it is further enacted, That for every slave killed,
in pursuance of this act, or put to death by law, the master or owner of such slave shall be
paid by the public:
XXXIX. And to the end, the true value of every slave killed, or put to death, as
aforesaid, may be the better known; and by that means, the assembly the better enabled to
make a suitable allowance thereupon, Be it enacted, That upon application of the master
or owner of any such slave, to the court appointed for proof of public claims, the said
court shall value the slave in money, and the clerk of the court shall return a certificate
thereof to the assembly, with the rest of the public claims.
XL. And for the better putting this act in due execution, and that no servants or
slaves may have pretense of ignorance hereof, Be it also enacted, That the churchwardens of each parish in this her majesty‘s colony and dominion, at the charge of the
parish, shall provide a true copy of this act, and cause entry thereof to be made in the
register book of each parish respectively; and that the parish clerk, or reader of each
parish, shall, on the first sermon Sundays in September and March, annually, after
sermon or divine service is ended, at the door of every church and chapel in their parish,
publish the same; and the sheriff of each county shall, at the next court held for the
county, after the last day of February, yearly, publish this act, at the door of the courthouse: And every sheriff making default herein, shall forfeit and pay six hundred pounds
of tobacco; one half to her majesty, her heirs, and successors, for and towards the support
of the government; and the other half to the informer. And every parish clerk, or reader,
making default herein, shall, for each time so offending, forfeit and pay six hundred
pounds of tobacco; one half whereof to be to the informer; and the other half to the poor

141

of the parish, wherein such omission shall be: To be recovered, with costs, by action of
debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record in this her majesty‘s colony and
dominion, wherein no essoin, protection, or wager of law, shall be allowed.
XLI. And be it further enacted, That all and every other act and acts, and every
clause and article thereof, heretofore made, for so much thereof as relates to servants and
slaves, or to any other matter or thing whatsoever, within the purview of this act, is and
are hereby repealed, and made void, to all intents and purposes, as if the same had never
been made.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:447-462.

Part VI—Conclusion
Edmund S. Morgan provides one of the classic explanations for the development of
slavery in seventeenth-century Virginia. In the following excerpts, Morgan discusses the
transition from indentured servitude to slavery, which he describes as a virtually seamless
shift in the labor force.
Slavery is a mode of compulsion that has often prevailed where land is abundant,
and Virginians had been drifting toward it from the time when they first found something
profitable to work at. Servitude in Virginia's tobacco fields approached closer to slavery
than anything known at the time in England. Men served longer, were subjected to more
rigorous punishments, were traded about as commodities already in the 1620s.
That Virginia's labor barons of the 1620s or her land and labor barons of the
1660s and 1670s did not transform their servants into slaves was probably not owing to
any moral squeamishness or to any failure to perceive the advantages of doing so.
Although slavery did not exist in England, Englishmen were not so unfamiliar with it that
they had to be told what it was. They knew that the Spaniards' gold and silver were dug
by slave labor, and they themselves had even toyed with temporary "slavery" as a
punishment for crime in the sixteenth century. But for Virginians to have pressed their
servants or their indigent neighbors into slavery might have been, initially at least, more
perilous than exploiting them in the ways that eventuated in the plundering parties of
Bacon's Rebellion. Slavery, once established, offered incomparable advantages in
keeping labor docile, but the transformation of free men into slaves would have been a
tricky business. It would have had to proceed by stages, each carefully calculated to stop
short of provoking rebellion. And if successful it would have reduced, if it did not end,
the flow of potential slaves from England and Europe. Moreover, it would have required
a conscious, deliberate, public decision. It would have had to be done, even if in stages,
by action of the assembly, and the English government would have had to approve it. If
it had been possible for the men at the top in Virginia to arrive at such a decision or series
of decisions, the home government would almost certainly have vetoed the move, for fear
of a rebellion or of an exodus from the colony that would prove costly to the crown's
tobacco revenues.
But to establish slavery in Virginia it was not necessary to enslave anyone.
Virginians had only to buy men who were already enslaved, after the initial risks of the

142

transformation had been sustained by others elsewhere. They converted to slavery
simply by buying slaves instead of servants. The process seems so simple, the
advantages of slave labor so obvious, and their system of production and attitude toward
workers so receptive that it seems surprising they did not convert sooner. African slaves
were present in Virginia, as we have seen, almost from the beginning (probably the first
known Negroes to arrive, in 1619, were slaves). The courts clearly recognized property
in men and women and their unborn progeny at least as early as the 1640s, and there was
no law to prevent any planter from bringing in as many as he wished. Why, then, did
Virginians not furnish themselves with slaves as soon as they began to grow tobacco?
Why did they wait so long?
The answer lies in the fact that slave labor, in spite of its seeming superiority, was
actually not as advantageous as indentured labor during the first half of the century.
Because of the high mortality among immigrants to Virginia, there could be no great
advantage in owning a man for a lifetime rather than a period of years, especially since a
slave cost roughly twice as much as an indentured servant. If the chances of a man's
dying during his first five years in Virginia were better than fifty-fifty--and it seems
apparent that they were--and if English servants could be made to work as hard as slaves,
English servants for a five-year term were the better buy.
...
Virginia had developed her plantation system without slaves, and slavery
introduced no novelties to methods of production. Though no seventeenth-century
plantation had a work force as large as that owned by some eighteenth-century planters,
the mode of operation was the same. The seventeenth-century plantation already had its
separate quartering house or houses for the servants. Their labor was already supervised
in groups of eight or ten by an overseer. They were already subject to "correction" by the
whip. They were already often underfed and underclothed. Their masters already lived
in fear of their rebelling. But no servant rebellion in Virginia ever got off the ground.
The plantation system operated by servants worked. It made many Virginians
rich and England's merchants and kings richer. But it had one insuperable disadvantage.
Every year it poured a host of new freemen into a society where the opportunities for
advancement were limited. The freedmen were Virginia's dangerous men. They erupted
in 1676 in the largest ever rebellion known in any American colony before the
Revolution, and in 1682 they carried even the plant-cutting rebellion further than any
servant rebellion had ever gone. The substitution of slaves for servants gradually eased
and eventually ended the threat that the freedmen posed: as the annual number of
imported servants dropped, so did the numbers of men turning free.
The planters who bought slaves instead of servants did not do so with any
apparent consciousness of the social stability to be gained thereby. Indeed, insofar as
Virginians expressed themselves on the subject of slavery, they feared that it would
magnify the danger of insurrection in the colony. They often blamed and pitied
themselves for taking into their families men and women who had every reason to hate
them. William Byrd told the Earl of Augment in July 1736, that "in case there should
arise a Man of desperate courage amongst us, exasperated by a desperate fortune, he
might with more advantage than Cataline kindle a Servile War," and make Virginia's

143

broad rivers run with blood. But the danger never materialized. From time to time the
planters were alarmed by the discovery of a conspiracy among the slaves; but, as had
happened earlier when servants plotted rebellion, some conspirator always leaked the
plan in time to spoil it. No white person was killed in a slave rebellion in colonial
Virginia. Slaves proved, in fact, less dangerous than free or semi-free laborers. They had
none of the rising expectations that have so often prompted rebellion in human history.
They were not armed and did not have to be armed. They were without hope and did not
have to be given hope. William Byrd himself probably did not take the danger from them
seriously. Only seven months before his letter to Augment, he assured Peter Beckford of
Jamaica that "our negroes are not so numerous or so enterprizeing as to give us any
apprehension or uneasiness."
With slavery Virginians could exceed all their previous efforts to maximize
productivity. In the first half of the century, as they sought to bring stability to their
volatile society, they had identified work as wealth, time as money, but there were limits
to the amount of both work and time that could be extracted from a servant. There was
no limit to the work or time that a master could command from his slaves, beyond his
need to allow them enough for eating and sleeping to enable them to keep working. Even
on that he might skimp. Robert Carter of Nomini Hall, accounted a humane man, made it
a policy to give his slaves less food then they needed and required them to fill out their
diet by keeping chickens and by working Sundays in small gardens attached to their
cabins. Their cabins, too, he made them build and repair on Sundays. Carter's uncle
Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, made his slaves buy part of their own clothes out of the
proceeds of what they grew in their gardens.
Demographically, too, the conversion to slavery enhanced Virginia's capacity for
maximum productivity. Earlier the heavy concentration in the population of men of
working age had been achieved by the small number of women and children among the
immigrants and by the heavy mortality. But with women outliving men, the segment of
women and their children grew; and as mortality declined the segment of men beyond
working age grew. There was, in other words, an increase in the non-productive
proportion of the population. Slavery made possible the restoration and maintenance of a
highly productive population. Masters had no hesitation about putting slave women to
work in the tobacco fields, although servant women were not normally so employed.
And they probably made slave children start work earlier than free children did. There
was no need to keep them from work for purposes of education. Nor was it necessary to
divert productive energy to the support of ministers for spiritual guidance to them and
their parents. The slave population could thus be more productive than a free population
with the same age and sex structure would have been. It could also be more reproductive
than a freed population that grew mainly from the importation of servants, because slave
traders generally carried about two women for every three men, a larger proportion of
women by far than had been the case with servants. Slave women while employed in
tobacco could still raise children and thus contribute to the growth of the productive
population. Moreover, the children became the property of the master. Thus slaves
offered the planter a way of disposing his profits that combined the advantages of cattle
and of servants, and these had always been the most attractive investments in Virginia.
The only obvious disadvantage that slavery presented to Virginia masters was a
simple one: slaves had no incentive to work. The difference, however, between the

144

incentive of a slave and that of a servant bound for a term of years was not great. The
servant had already received his reward in the form of the ocean passage which he, unlike
the slave, had been so eager to make that he was willing to bind his labor for a term of
years for it. Having received his payment in advance, he could not be compelled by
threats of withholding it. Virginia masters had accordingly been obliged to make freer
use of the lash than had been common in England. Before they obtained slaves, they had
already had practice in extracting work from the unwilling. Yet there was a difference.
If a servant failed to perform consistently or ran away, if he damaged his master's
property either by omission or commission, the master could get the courts to extend the
term of servitude. That recourse was not open to the slaveowner. If the servant had
received his reward in advance, the slave had received the ultimate punishment in
advance: his term had already been extended.
Masters therefore needed some substitute for the extended term, some sanction to
protect themselves against the stubbornness of those whom conventional "correction" did
not reach. . . . One way might have been to offer rewards, to hold out the carrot rather
than the stick. A few masters tried this in the early years, as we have seen, offering
slaves freedom in return for working hard for a few years, or assigning them plots of land
and allowing them time to grow tobacco or corn crops for themselves. But to offer
rewards of this kind was to lose the whole advantage of slavery. In the end, Virginians
had to face the fact that masters of slaves must inflict pain at a higher level than masters
of servants. Slaves could not be made to work for fear of losing liberty, so they had to be
made to fear for their lives. Not that any master wanted to lose his slave by killing him,
but in order to get an equal or greater amount of work, it was necessary to beat slaves
harder than servants, so hard, in fact, that there was a much larger chance of killing them
than had been the case with servants.
Source: Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, pp. 296-298, 308-312.

Allan Kulikoff, a professor of history at Northern Illinois University, is one of the
foremost social historians of colonial Virginia and Maryland. In his best-known work,
Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 16801800, Kulikoff builds on the exhaustive research of his dissertation on Prince George‘s
County in Maryland to present the most detailed statistical portrait available of the
Chesapeake‘s colonial-era society. As the work of a Marxist historian, Kulikoff‘s book is
most concerned with describing and analyzing the emerging class structure of the early
Chesapeake. Tobacco and Slaves does, however, also include a detailed consideration of
the advent of slavery and the initial development of the basic institutions of AfroAmerican life. While criticized from numerous quarters, Kulikoff‘s appraisal of the
economics behind the spread of slavery in Virginia and Maryland, as well as his
chronology of the stages of the evolution of Afro-American population, ethnicity, family
life, culture and religion, remain the standards for Chesapeake studies. The following
selections include Kulikoff‘s summaries of his conclusions regarding the shift from
indentured servants to slaves during the seventeenth century.
The Great Transformation: From Servants to Slaves

145

The dominance of small planters in Chesapeake society began to disintegrate in the 1680s
because the economic base that had supported their ascendancy crumbled. Ordinary
planters had relied upon the labor of servants and freedmen to increase their income, but
fewer servants came to the region in the 1680s and 1690s, and the servant trade nearly
disappeared after 1700. Ex-servants had accumulated capital to set up their own farms
when tobacco prices were high, but planters often made no profit in the decades between
1680 and 1720, and the rate of social mobility therefore greatly diminished.
The decline of the servant trade transformed the labor system of the region in two
ways. It forced planters to substitute African slaves for white servants, and it permitted
the whole white population to reproduce itself. Planters sought to retain a white labor
force, but they eventually replaced indentured servants with black slaves, and by 1700
slaves produced much of the region‘s tobacco. As the number of servants and other
white immigrants declined and the children of earlier immigrants reached maturity, the
proportion of native-born whites in the population rose. Native whites married at young
ages and had enough children to ensure a naturally increasing population.
The transformation of the Chesapeake labor force from one dominated by
immigrant planters and white servants to one operated by planters and their black slaves
revolutionized the social relations of production. Political conflict between groups of
whites diminished because there were fewer servants and ex-servants in the population,
and even poor whites sought to become slaveholders and thereby exploit the labor of
people they considered inferior. At the same time, however, the probability that poorer
whites would advance economically decreased because they did not have sufficient
capital to purchase a slave. By the early eighteenth century, an indigenous group of
slaveholders who inherited wealth and place had replaced the relatively egalitarian social
order of mid-seventeenth-century society with a hierarchical society.
The adoption of slave labor resulted from a series of related economic and
demographic events that stretched from the 1660s through the early decades of the
eighteenth century. A decline in English birthrates during the second third of the
seventeenth century, combined with rising real wages, had by the 1680s substantially
reduced the number of men at risk to come to the New World. The new colonies of
Pennsylvania and South Carolina, moreover, offered enticing opportunities. To attract
their share of the diminished group of migrants, the Chesapeake colonies needed to offer
opportunities for advancement that could compete with these new settlements.
But severe depression in the tobacco economy at the end of the seventeenth
century decreased relative opportunities in the Chesapeake colonies. Prices for the plant
dipped below a penny a pound during the 1680s and stayed nearly that low during most
years until 1715. Unable to absorb declining prices by increased output per hand,
planters could not make a profit until markets improved. Since Europeans were
unwilling to increase their consumption of tobacco even at these low prices and frequent
wars raised the consumer‘s cost far above farm prices, exports did not rise. These
conditions did not bode well for immigrants, who frequently decided they had better
chances elsewhere. The proportion of British immigrants who came to the Chesapeake
colonies, in fact, declined from a high of over two-fifths in the 1670s to just over a third
by the 1690s.

146

Chesapeake planters, however, still wanted servants, and some of them still had
capital to purchase labor. The long depression hit some planters more severely than
others. Farmers who grew tobacco on marginal land found they could no longer compete
and substituted grains and livestock farming for tobacco. But planters who lived on more
fertile lands, especially those who moved to new frontiers, often succeeded in improving
their condition despite the general depression. These relatively prosperous families,
unlike less fortunate farmers, could afford to buy servants.
These Chesapeake planters failed to entice a sufficient number of Englishmen to
meet their needs by coming to their depressed region. From 1680 to 1699 only about
thirty thousand whites migrated to Maryland and Virginia, about four-fifths the rate of the
previous three decades. Since the number of households had greatly increased, the
number of white laborers that planters could command drastically declined. The number
of servants and bachelors per household head in Middlesex County, Virginia, plummeted
from five in 1668 to just one by 1687. There were two servants for each household in
York County in the 1660s, fewer than two servants for every ten plantations by the
1690s, and during the same years the number of servants available to southern Maryland
planters declined from six to fewer than two for every four households.
Immigrant servants worked on tobacco plantations during their term, but many of
them left the region after they were freed, and others established households and
competed for scarce white labor themselves. About half the men who finished a term of
service in Charles County, Maryland, during the 1690s left the county in search of
employment, and more than three-quarters of those who stayed lived precariously as
laborers or tenants. In total, only nine thousand migrants stayed in the Chesapeake
colonies during the 1680s, and more people left the area than migrated to it during the
1690s.
The decline of the servant trade transformed the labor force of the Chesapeake
region. Planters preferred to employ English-speaking white servants rather than foreign
whites or black slaves, but as the Chesapeake population rose and the number of men
desiring white labor increased they employed more and more alien workers. When the
relative supply of servants began to decline in the 1670s and 1680s and they could no
longer procure white English men, they turned first to English women, and when the
supply of English women ran low, they purchased Irish men.
Once planters had exhausted the supply of white laborers, they turned reluctantly
to African slaves. The slave trade to the Chesapeake colonies began slowly in the third
quarter of the seventeenth century. In 1660 no more than seventeen hundred blacks lived
in Maryland and Virginia, and by 1680 their numbers had increased to about four
thousand. During the 1660s and 1670s most forced black migrants arrived in small
groups from the West Indies, but about three thousand black people, including many
Africans, were forced into slavery in the region between 1674 and 1695. Since the
supply of servants had declined, these few blacks made up an ever-increasing proportion
of unfree workers in the region in the late 1670s and 1680s. Only during the second half
of the 1690s—two decades after the servant trade began to diminish—did planters buy
substantial numbers of black slaves. They enslaved about three thousand Africans, as
many as had arrived in the previous twenty years between 1695 and 1700.
The racial composition of the Chesapeake labor force changed gradually during
the last third of the seventeenth century, but by 1700 most unfree laborers were black.

147

The transition occurred first in the wealthy sweet-scented tobacco counties along the
York River and then spread northward on the western shore of the bay to areas that
produced less profitable Orinoco tobaccos. Only a third of the unfree workers on
plantations in York County were black during the 1670s but the reduction in the number
of servants available to county planters in the 1680s led them to procure nearly all the
Africans who came into the region. As a result, four-fifths of the unfree workers on York
plantations were black by the 1680s, and slaves accounted for nineteen of every twenty
unfree laborers in the county during the 1690s. Planters who lived in Middlesex County,
Virginia, which grew sweet-scented tobacco but was settled after York, and those who
resided on Maryland‘s lower Western Shore, a poorer Orinoco area, began to invest in
slave labor a few years later. Only one in three unfree workers in these two areas was
black in the 1680s, despite the declining number of servants available to planters.
Nonetheless, from two-thirds to three-quarters of all unfree workers were slaves by the
1690s and early 1700s.
Although planters clung to their preference for white servants over slaves for
much of the late seventeenth century, they became reconciled, and even enthusiastic,
about black labor by the early eighteenth century. When the supply of servants began to
diminish during the 1670s and 1680s, the price of white men increased, both absolutely
and relative to the price of full field hands. Planters in southern Maryland could buy
three white men for the price of a single prime-age black male field hand in the early
1670s, but the same slaves was worth only two servants by the end of the decade. This
pattern strongly suggests that planters wanted servants more than slaves, for if they had
believed that slaves were more profitable, the relative price of servants would have
diminished. The ratio of servant to slave prices rose, however, over the 1690s and early
1700s and again reached nearly three servants per slave by the 1710s, despite the neartotal disappearance of servants. By that time, planters had learned that slaves could be as
productive as whites and sought them avidly every time a slave ship arrived.
The decline of white servitude and the adoption of slavery transformed the family
economy of white farmers. A short review of the argument suggests how slavery and
family economy were linked. For most of the seventeenth century, planters began their
Chesapeake careers as servants and established households and bought land and their
own servants after the completion of their term. As the number of immigrants declined,
the proportion of native-born adults in the white population rose. These natives, unlike
their immigrant parents, began adulthood unencumbered by indentured service and often
received inheritances from their parents. They therefore married at a young age and
accumulated property more rapidly than did their immigrant forebears.
These changes in the economic prospects of white families could not occur until
the white population as a whole had achieved natural increase, and natural increase could
not begin until native-born men and women dominated the adult population of the region.
The number of native-born adults apparently surpassed the number of immigrants
sometime in the 1690s in most of the Chesapeake region. In Charles County, Maryland,
the proportion of native-born white men rose from about a third in 1690 to three-fifths in
1705; and a similar pattern could be found in Middlesex County, where about threequarters of the entire white population (adults and children) in 1699 had been born in the
county.

148

The increase in the proportion of native-born white adults accentuated the
importance of the daughters of immigrants in determining the rate of population growth.
These native women had larger families because they married, on average, before age
twenty, or eight years younger than their mothers‘ generation. Despite these youthful
marriages, native-born women were still likely to bear only two more children in their
lifetime than immigrants did because only half of them lived through their childbearing
years. Many of their children died before they reached adulthood. Still, the early
marriages of first-generation women did lead to substantial natural increase, and rather
than children replacing only three-fifths of the population, as had been the case with
immigrants, the native-born women reproduced more than sufficiently to replace their
parents.
In the 1690s and 1700s, a large group of native-born women began bearing
children, and these births (combined with the growing percentage of native adults) finally
tipped the balance from natural decline to natural increase in much of the region. The
earlier an area had been settled, the earlier this baby boom appeared: it began by the early
1690s in York County, Virginia, which had been settled in the 1620s; in southern
Maryland, where settlement started in the 1640s, the boom began in the late 1690s; and
on the Eastern Shore, settled after 1660, the boom began in the early 1700s. There was
no surge of births in Middlesex County, where falciparum malaria, the most deadly form
of the disease, hit with particular virulence in the 1680s and 1690s, but even there the
number of births nearly equaled the number of deaths.
Planter adoption of slave labor and white natural increase together created new
social relations of production on Chesapeake tobacco farms. Even if seventeenth-century
planters believed that the white servants and hired hands they employed were poor men
who deserved little respect, they knew that many of them would eventually became
independent tobacco farmers themselves and therefore kept discipline within tight
bounds. Two kinds of plantations replaced these master-servant enterprises once slavery
was established. The vast majority of planters owned family farms and commanded the
labor of their children, a slave or two, and an occasional white hired hand. A minority of
white men, who owned the preponderance of slaves, operated large enterprises with many
slaves. They hired white youths from nearby smaller plantations to act as overseers and
instructed them to discipline slaves harshly if they dared to overstep the bounds of white
authority.
Although most white freedmen enjoyed similar opportunities for much of the
seventeenth century, subject only to the vagaries of the economy, the great costs that
slaves entailed placed a premium on inheritance as a means of wealth accumulation.
Native-born children of substantial planters enjoyed a great advantage over all other
whites, for they could count upon receiving numerous slaves on their marriage or on the
death of their fathers. Poorer men, in contrast, had to build upon small investment and
received little or no help from parents.
The Legacy of the Seventeenth Century
The social order of the seventeenth century had a very ambiguous impact upon
Chesapeake developments in the eighteenth century. The openness, opportunities, and
freedom white men enjoyed during the middle decades of the century never returned,

149

even in frontier areas, and the homogeneity of the population was forever severed after
Africans poured into the region in the 1690s. Conflict among whites eventually
diminished as most whites scrambled to ensure the security of their property. Eighteenthcentury social relations of production developed from the slave labor system: a class and
caste society, where the ownership of slaves determined the standing of whites and where
black people were a subservient class of slaves, replaced the conflict ridden free white
labor system.
Nonetheless, the social ideals of the founders of the colonies reappeared in the
context of slavery. Planters adapted to their slaves the negative imagery English
gentlemen used to describe poor whites, and they embellished that rhetoric with racist
ideas. Chesapeake gentlemen, moreover, imposed patriarchal family structures upon
their wives and children and demanded deference from yeomen and poor whites. The
hierarchical social order the Virginia Company and the Calverts wanted to establish
developed, ironically, within an alien system of slavery they could not have foreseen.
Source: Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, pp. 37-44.

150

Sources Cited in the American Odyssey
Andrews, Charles M., ed. Narratives of the Insurrections 1675-1690. New York, 1915;
reprint, Bowie, Maryland: Heritage Books, 1992.
Berlin, Ira. Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North
America. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1998.
Billings, Warren M., ed. The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary
History of Virginia, 1606-1689. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1975.
Brown, Kathleen M. Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender,
Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia. Chapel Hill and London: University of
North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture,
1996.
Bruce, Philip A. Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century: An Inquiry
into the Religious, Moral, Educational, Legal, Military, and Political Condition of
the People. Based on Original and Contemporaneous Sources. 2 vols. New
York: G. P. Putnam & Sons, 1910.
Donnan, Elizabeth, ed. Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to
America. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution, 1931.
Galenson, David W. ―Economic Aspects of the Growth of Slavery in the SeventeenthCentury Chesapeake,‖ in Barbara L. Solow, ed., Slavery and the Rise of the
Atlantic System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the W. E. B.
DuBois Institute for Afro-American Research, Harvard University, 1991, pp. 265292.
Greene, Evarts B. and Virginia D. Harrington. American Population Before the Federal
Census of 1790. New York: Columbia University Press, 1932.
Hecht, Irene W. D. ―The Virginia Muster of 1624/5 As a Source for Demographic
History.‖ William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XXX(1973):65-92.
Hening, William Waller, ed. The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of
Virginia, From the First Session of the Legislature, in 1619. 13 vols. Richmond,
New York, and Philadelphia, 1819-1823; reprint, Charlottesville: University
Press of Virginia for the Jamestown Foundation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, 1969.
Hotten, John Camden. The Original Lists of Persons of Quality. London, 1874; reprint,
Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1980.

151

Kulikoff, Allan. Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the
Chesapeake, 1680-1800. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the
Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1986.
McIlwaine, H. R., ed. Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia.
Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1924.
McIlwaine, H. R., et al., eds. Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 6
vols. Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1927-1966.
―Management of Slaves, 1672.‖ Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 7(18991900):314.
Mintz, Steven, ed. African American Voices: The Life Cycle of Slavery. St. James, New
York: Brandywine Press, 1993.
Morgan, Edmund S. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial
Virginia. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1975.
Morgan, Philip D. ―British Encounters with Africans and African-Americans, circa
1600-1780,‖ in Bernard Bailyn and Philip D. Morgan, eds., Strangers within the
Realm: Cultural Margins of the First British Empire. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture,
1991, pp. 157-219.
Morgan, Philip D. Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century
Chesapeake and Lowcountry. Chapel Hill and London: University of North
Carolina Press for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and
Culture, 1998.
Nugent, Nell Marion, et al., comps. Pioneers and Cavaliers. Abstracts of Virginia Land
Patents and Grants. 6 vols. Richmond: Virginia State Library and the Virginia
Genealogical Society, 1934-1998.
Parent, Anthony S. ―‘Either a Fool or a Fury‘: The Emergence of Paternalism in
Colonial Virginia Slave Society.‖ Ph.D. dissertation, Univeristy of California at
Los Angeles, 1982.
―Punishment For a Negro Rebel.‖ William and Mary Quarterly, 1st ser., X (19011902):177-178.
Rountree, Helen C. Pocahontas‘s People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia Through
Four Centuries. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990.
Tate, Thad W. The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg. Williamsburg, Virginia:
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1965.

152

Walsh, Lorena S. From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove: The History of a Virginia Slave
Community. Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1997.
Winfree, Waverly K., comp. The Laws of Virginia, Being a Supplement to Hening‘s The
Statutes at Large, 1700-1750. Richmond: The Virginia State Library, 1971.
York County Court Records.
APRIL 18, 1644—Native American Attack
According to Helen C. Rountree, it appears that the Native Americans did not kill any
Africans or descendants of Africans during their attack on the English on April 18, 1644.
Rountree notes that Opechancanough‘s followers did take several enslaved Africans as
prisoners.
On April 18, 1644, Opechancanough staged the second major attack on the English.
Because of the poor survival rate of Virginia records of the 1640s, we know little about
the initial assault on the English or its aftermath. By reconstruction, it seems that the
Weyanocks, Nansemonds, Pamunkeys, and Chickahominies were involved; the
participation of the Rappahannocks and other chiefdoms on the northern neck was
questionable. After killing about four hundred English people and taking many prisoners,
[including negro slaves], Indian warriors melted away into the woods and attempted no
follow-up attack, once again giving the English time to regroup.
Source: Rountree, Pocahontas‘s People, p. 84.

March 1655/6—ACT I. An Induction to the Acts concerning Indians
Colonial legislators created a distinction between Native Americans and Africans in this
statute.
If the Indians shall bring in any children as gages of their good and quiet intentions to us
and amity with us, then the parents of such children shall choose the persons to whom the
care of such children shall be intrusted and the countrey by us their representatives do
engage that wee will not use them as slaves, but do their best to bring them up in
Christianity, civillity and the knowledge of necessary trades; And on the report of the
commissioners of each respective country that those under whose tuition they are, do
really intend the bettering of the children in these particulars then a salary shall be
allowed to such men as shall deserve and require it.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1:396.
March 1661/2—ACT CXXXVIII. Concerning Indians

153

The legislators decided that Native American and English servants were to serve their
masters the same length of time.
And be it further enacted that what Englishman, trader, or other shall bring in any
Indians as servants and shall assigne them over to any other, shall not sell them for slaves
nor for any longer time than English of the like ages should serve by act of assembly.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:143.

March 1661/2—Freedom for Metappin
Members of the Assembly ruled that Metappin should be free. They noted that he spoke
perfect English and wanted to be baptized.
METAPPIN a Powhatan Indian being sold for life time to one Elizabeth Short by
the king of Wainoake Indians who had no power to sell him being of another nation, it is
ordered that the said Indian be free, he speaking perfectly the English tongue and
desiring baptism.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:155.

October 1670—ACT IV. Noe Negroes nor Indians to buy christian servants
The number of blacks and Native Americans in Tidewater Virginia was small when this
act was passed. The legislators knew that access to labor was necessary to succeed.
WHEREAS it hath beene questioned whither Indians or negroes manumited, or
otherwise free, could be capable of purchasing christian servants, It is enacted that noe
negroe or Indian though baptised and enjoyned their owne ffreedome shall be capable of
any such purchase of christians, but yet not debarred from buying any of their owne
nation.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:280-281.

October 1670—ACT XII. What tyme Indians to serve
This law created an additional distinction between African Americans and Native
Americans. It was an attempt to make lifetime servitude the normal condition for all
Africans imported into Virginia. The legislators repealed this statute in November 1682.

154

David Galenson places the act in the context of similar statutes in Barbados and
Maryland. He writes: ―In 1664, Charles Calvert had found that it was the high price of
slaves, rather than any skepticism about their capacity for labor, that prevented him and
his fellow planters from being able to guarantee a market for one shipload a year. In
1664, however, the unwillingness of some Chesapeake planters to meet that high price
might have resulted from uncertainty about their ability to hold the Africans in servitude
for life. No such uncertainty existed in Barbados, the major destination for Africans in
English America at the time, where thousands of slaves arrived annually to grow sugar on
great plantations. Nearly three decades earlier, in 1636, that colony‘s Council had
declared that ‗Negroes and Indians, that came here to be sold, should serve for Life,
unless a Contract was before made to the contrary,‘ and this act appears subsequently to
have been enforced without exceptions. Although Maryland‘s ‗Act Concerning Negroes
& Other Slaves‘ . . . . gave an assurance of this kind to that colony‘s planters in 1664, it
was not until 1670 that Virginia‘s legislature produced such a guarantee when it declared
that ‗all servants not being christians imported into this colony by shipping shalbe slaves
for their lives.‘ An important part of the answer to the question of why Chesapeake
planters hesitated to invest heavily in slaves during the 1660s may be that during that
decade they lacked the statutory assurance concerning the security of their investments
that their counterparts in Barbados had received thirty years earlier.‖
WHEREAS some dispute have arisen whither Indians taken in warr by any other
nation, and by that nation that taketh them sold to the English, are servants for life or
terme of yeares, It is resolved and enacted that all servants not being christians imported
into this colony by shipping shalbe slaves for their lives; but what shall come by land
shall serve, if boyes or girles, untill thirty yeares of age, if men or women twelve yeares
and no longer.
Source: Galenson, ―Economic Aspects of the Growth of Slavery,‖ pp. 272-273; Hening,
ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:283.

September 1672—ACT VIII. An act for the apprehension and suppression of
runawayes, negroes and slaves
The members of the General Assembly hoped to suppress the rebellious activities of
slaves throughout the colony. In addition, they wanted to keep servants and Native
Americans from joining the slaves in any unlawful activities. They decided that it was
legal to wound or kill an enslaved person who resisted arrest.
FORASMUCH as it hath beene manifested to this grand assembly that many
negroes have lately beene, and now are out in rebellion in sundry parts of this country,
and that noe meanes have yet beene found for the apprehension and suppression of them
from whome many mischeifes of very dangerous consequence may arise to the country if
either other negroes, Indians or servants should happen to fly forth and joyne with them;
for the prevention of which, be it enacted by the governour, councell and burgesses of
this grand assembly, and by the authority thereof, that if any negroe, molatto, Indian

155

slave, or servant for life, runaway and shalbe persued by the warrant or hue and crye, it
shall and may be lawfull for any person who shall endeavour to take them, upon the
resistance of such negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life, to kill or wound him
or them soe resisting; Provided alwayes, and it is the true intent and meaning hereof, that
such negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life, be named and described in the hue
and crye which is alsoe to be signed by the master or owner of the said runaway. And if
it happen that such negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life doe dye of any
wound in such their resistance received the master or owner of such shall receive
satisfaction from the publique for his negroe, molatto, Indian slave, or servant for life, soe
killed or dyeing of such wounds; and the person who shall kill or wound by virtue of any
such hugh and crye any such soe resisting in manner as aforesaid shall not be questioned
for the same, he forthwith giveing notice thereof and returning the hue and crye or
warrant to the master or owner of him or them soe killed or wounded or to the next
justice of peace. And it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid that all such negroes
and slaves shalbe valued at ffowre thousand five hundred pounds of tobacco and caske a
peece, and Indians at three thousand pounds of tobacco and caske a peice, And further if
it shall happen that any negroe, molatto, Indians slave or servant for life, in such their
resistance to receive any wound whereof they may not happen to dye, but shall lye any
considerable tyme sick and disabled, then alsoe the master or owner of the same soe sick
or disabled shall receive from the publique a reasonable satisfaction for such damages as
they shall make appeare they have susteyned thereby at the county court, who shall
thereupon grant the master or owner a certificate to the next assembly of what damages
they shall make appeare; And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians doe and
hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runawayes whatsoever that
shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace
whoe upon the receipt of such servants, slave, or slaves, from the Indians, shall pay unto
the said Indians for a recompence twenty armes length of Roanoake or the value thereof
in goods as the Indians shall like of, for which the said justice of peace shall receive from
the publique two hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco, and the said justice to proceed in
conveying the runaway to his master according to the law in such cases already provided;
This act to continue in force till the next assembly and noe longer unlesse it be thought
fitt to continue.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:299-300.

June 1676—ACT I. An act for carrying on a warre against the barbarous Indians
In 1676 many Virginians were alarmed by Governor Berkeley‘s poor leadership and
weak response in handling the Indian threat by merely suggesting a series of forts be built
along the frontier rather than dispatching troops. Nathaniel Bacon, a member of
England‘s gentry newly arrived in Virginia, became the military leader of a band of
Virginians who armed themselves against the Indians in defiance of the governor in the
spring of that year. Berkeley responded by unsuccessfully dispatching men to confront
Bacon and declared him a rebel.

156

Until Bacon‘s death from natural causes on October 26, 1676 he and Governor Berkeley
struggled to control Virginia militarily and politically, embroiling Virginians in civil war.
After the Assembly enacted many of Bacon‘s demands, Bacon with five hundred men
captured the government and demanded from Berkeley the power to fight the Indians.
That was granted on June 25 but later withdrawn. The governor, however, could not
raise loyal troops to assert his authority and was forced to retreat to the Eastern Shore.
Berkeley later returned to Jamestown to prepare for Bacon‘s attack but was forced to
return to the Eastern Shore while Bacon burned the capital. Virginians, hesitant to fight
one another, continued to vacillate in their support of Berkeley and Bacon in the everincreasing confusion. Bacon‘s men, however, now turned to plundering loyalist
plantations in Gloucester County and elsewhere. Bacon‘s sudden death left his men
without a strong leader, and in January 1677 Berkeley returned to power and sought
reparations for the loyalists.
During the Rebellion the Indians probably suffered the most. Many were killed and a
number of their villages were destroyed. In June of 1676 members of the Assembly
decided that Native Americans captured during the rebellion would become slaves for
life.
And bee it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all Indians taken in warr be
held and accounted slaves dureing life, and if any differences shall arise in cases about
plunder or slaves, the cheife commander of the party takeing such slaves or plunder is to
be the sole judge thereof to make equall division as hee shall see fit.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:346.

April 1679—ACT I. An act for the defence of the country against the incursions of the
Indian enemy
This statute reflected the bias against Native Americans in the years after Bacon‘s
Rebellion.
And for the better encouragement and more orderly government of the souldiers, that
what Indian prisoners or other plunder shalbe taken in warre, shalbe free purchase to the
souldier taking the same.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:440.

November 1682—ACT I. An act to repeale a former law making Indians and others
ffree
Two acts passed in November of 1682 joined Native Americans and Africans into one
racial category—―negroes and other slaves.‖

157

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that all servants except Turkes and
Moores, whilest in amity with his majesty which from and after publication of this act
shall be brought or imported into this country, either by sea or land, whether Negroes,
Moors, Mollattoes or Indians, who and whose parentage and native country are not
christian at the time of their first purchase of such servant by some christian, although
afterwards, and before such their importation and bringing into this country, they shall be
converted to the christian faith; and all Indians which shall hereafter be sold by our
neighbouring Indians, or any other trafiqueing with us as for slaves are hereby adjudged,
deemed and taken to be slaves to all intents and purposes, any law, usage or custome to
the countrary notwithstanding.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:491-492.

November 1682—ACT II. An act declaring Indian women servants tithables
WHEREAS it hath bin doubted whether Indian women servants sold to the
English above the age of sixteene yeares be tythable, Bee it enacted and declared, and it
is hereby enacted and declared by the governour, councill and burgesses of this generall
assembly and the authority thereof, that all Indian women are and shall be tythables, and
ought to pay levies in like manner as negroe women brought into this country doe, and
ought to pay.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:492.

October 1705—CHAP. VII. An act concerning Tithables
It is possible that the decision to exempt free black women from tithes was designed to
benefit white men who had such women as servants.
I. BE it enacted, by the Governor, Council, and Burgesses of this present general
assembly, and it is hereby enacted, by the authority of the same, That all male persons, of
the age of sixteen years, and upwards, and all negro, mulatto, and Indian women, of the
age of sixteen years, and upwards, not being free, shall be, and are hereby declared to be
tithable, or chargeable, for defraying the public, county, and parish charges, in this her
majesty‘s colony and dominion; excepting such only, as the county court, and vestry, for
reasons, in charity, made appear to them, shall think fit to excuse.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:258-259.

October 1705—CHAP. XXII. An act declaring the Negro, Mulatto, and Indian slaves
within this dominion, to be real estate

158

The legislators defined enslaved men, women, and children as real property in this act.
See also the 1669 statute entitled An act about the casuall killing of slaves for another
example of masters treating slaves as property.
I. FOR the better settling and preservation of estates within this dominion,
II. Be it enacted, by the governor, council and burgesses of this present general
assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That from and after the
passing of this act, all negro, mulatto, and Indian slaves, in all courts of judicature, and
other places, within this dominion, shall be held, taken, and adjudged, to be real estate
(and not chattels;) and shall descend unto the heirs and widows of persons departing this
life, according to the manner and custom of land of inheritance, held in fee simple.
III. Provided always, That nothing in this act contained, shall be taken to extend
to any merchant or factor, bringing any slaves into this dominion, or having any
consignments thereof, unto them, for sale: But that such slaves whilst they remain unsold,
in the possession of such merchant, or factor, or of their executors, administrators, or
assigns, shall, to all intents and purposes, be taken, held, and adjudged, to be personal
estate, in the same condition they should have been in, if this act had never been made.
IV. Provided also, That all such slaves shall be liable to the paiment of debts, and
may be taken by execution, for that end, as other chattels or personal estate may be.
V. Provided also, That no such slaves shall be liable to be escheated, by reason of
the decease of the proprietor of the same, without lawful heirs: But all such slaves shall,
in that case, be accounted and go as chattels, and other estate personal.
VI. Provided also, That no person, selling or alienating any such slave shall be
obliged to cause such sale or alienation to be recorded, as is required by law to be done,
upon the alienation of other real estate: But that the said sale or alienation may be made
in the same manner as might have been done before the making of this act.
VII. Provided also, That this act, or any thing therein contained, shall not extend,
nor be construed to extend, to give any person, being owner of any slave or slaves, and
not seized of other real estate, the right or privilege as a freeholder, meant, mentioned,
and intended, by one act of this present session of assembly, intituled, An act for
regulating the elections of Burgesses, for settling their privileges, and for ascertaining
their allowances.
VIII. Provided also, That it shall and may be lawful, for any person, to sue for,
and recover, any slave, or damage, for the detainer, trover, or conversion thereof, by
action personal, as might have been done if this act had never been made.
IX. Provided always, That where the nature of the case shall require it, any writ
De Partitione facienda, or of dower, may be sued forth and prosecuted, to recover the
right and possession of any such slave or slaves.
X. Provided, and be it enacted, That when any person dies intestate, leaving
several children, in that case all the slaves of such person, (except the widow‘s dower,
which is to be first set apart) shall be inventoried and appraised; and the value thereof
shall be equally divided amongst all the said children; and the several proportions,
according to such valuation and appraisement, shall be paid by the heir (to whom the said
slaves shall descend, by virtue of this act) unto all and every the other said children. And
thereupon, it shall and may be lawful for the said other children, and every of them, and
their executors or administrators, as the case shall be, to commence and prosecute an

159

action upon the case, at the common law, against such heir, his heirs, executors and
administrators, for the recovery of their said several proportions, respectively.
XI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any widow, seised
of any such slave or slaves, as aforesaid, as of the dower of her husband, shall send, or
voluntarily permit to be sent out of this colony and dominion, such slave or slaves, or any
of their increase, without the lawful consent of him or her in reversion, such widow shall
forfeit all and every such slave or slaves, and all other the dower which she holds of the
endowment of her husband‘s estate, unto the person or persons that shall have the
reversion thereof; any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. And if any
widow, seized as aforesaid, shall be married to an husband, who shall send, or voluntary
permit to be sent out of this colony and dominion, any such slave or slaves, or any of
their increase, without the consent of him or her in reversion; in such case, it shall be
lawful for him or her in reversion, to enter into, possess and enjoy all the estate which
such husband holdeth, in right of his wife‘s dower, for and during the life of the said
husband.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:333-335.

October 1705—CHAP. XXIV. An act for settling the Militia
The members of the General Assembly decided that a white overseer in charge of four or
more slaves, any imported servant, and all slaves were not to serve in the militia. This act
did not restrict the participation of free black men in the militia.
Provided nevertheless, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to give
any power or authority to any colonel or chief officer whatsoever, to list any person that
shall be, or shall have been of her majesty‘s councill in this colony, or any person that
shall be, or shall have been speaker of the house of burgesses, or any person that shall be,
or shall have been her majesty‘s attorney general, or any person that shall be, or shall
have been a justice of the peace within this colony, or any person that shall have born any
military commission within this colony as high as the commission of captain, or any
minister, or the clerk of the councill for the time being, or the clerk of the general court
for the time being, or any county court clerk during his being such, or any parish clerk or
school-master during his being such, or any overseer that hath four or more slaves under
his care, or any constable during his being such, or any miller who hath a mill in keeping,
or any servant by importation, or any slave, but that all and every such person or persons
be exempted from serving either in horse or foot. Any thing in this act heretofore to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:336.

Part VI—Conclusion

160

Edmund S. Morgan provides one of the classic explanations for the development of
slavery in seventeenth-century Virginia. In the following excerpts, Morgan discusses the
transition from indentured servitude to slavery, which he describes as a virtually seamless
shift in the labor force.
Slavery is a mode of compulsion that has often prevailed where land is abundant,
and Virginians had been drifting toward it from the time when they first found something
profitable to work at. Servitude in Virginia's tobacco fields approached closer to slavery
than anything known at the time in England. Men served longer, were subjected to more
rigorous punishments, were traded about as commodities already in the 1620s.
That Virginia's labor barons of the 1620s or her land and labor barons of the
1660s and 1670s did not transform their servants into slaves was probably not owing to
any moral squeamishness or to any failure to perceive the advantages of doing so.
Although slavery did not exist in England, Englishmen were not so unfamiliar with it that
they had to be told what it was. They knew that the Spaniards' gold and silver were dug
by slave labor, and they themselves had even toyed with temporary "slavery" as a
punishment for crime in the sixteenth century. But for Virginians to have pressed their
servants or their indigent neighbors into slavery might have been, initially at least, more
perilous than exploiting them in the ways that eventuated in the plundering parties of
Bacon's Rebellion. Slavery, once established, offered incomparable advantages in
keeping labor docile, but the transformation of free men into slaves would have been a
tricky business. It would have had to proceed by stages, each carefully calculated to stop
short of provoking rebellion. And if successful it would have reduced, if it did not end,
the flow of potential slaves from England and Europe. Moreover, it would have required
a conscious, deliberate, public decision. It would have had to be done, even if in stages,
by action of the assembly, and the English government would have had to approve it. If
it had been possible for the men at the top in Virginia to arrive at such a decision or series
of decisions, the home government would almost certainly have vetoed the move, for fear
of a rebellion or of an exodus from the colony that would prove costly to the crown's
tobacco revenues.
But to establish slavery in Virginia it was not necessary to enslave anyone.
Virginians had only to buy men who were already enslaved, after the initial risks of the
transformation had been sustained by others elsewhere. They converted to slavery
simply by buying slaves instead of servants. The process seems so simple, the
advantages of slave labor so obvious, and their system of production and attitude toward
workers so receptive that it seems surprising they did not convert sooner. African slaves
were present in Virginia, as we have seen, almost from the beginning (probably the first
known Negroes to arrive, in 1619, were slaves). The courts clearly recognized property
in men and women and their unborn progeny at least as early as the 1640s, and there was
no law to prevent any planter from bringing in as many as he wished. Why, then, did
Virginians not furnish themselves with slaves as soon as they began to grow tobacco?
Why did they wait so long?
The answer lies in the fact that slave labor, in spite of its seeming superiority, was
actually not as advantageous as indentured labor during the first half of the century.
Because of the high mortality among immigrants to Virginia, there could be no great
advantage in owning a man for a lifetime rather than a period of years, especially since a

161

slave cost roughly twice as much as an indentured servant. If the chances of a man's
dying during his first five years in Virginia were better than fifty-fifty--and it seems
apparent that they were--and if English servants could be made to work as hard as slaves,
English servants for a five-year term were the better buy.
...
Virginia had developed her plantation system without slaves, and slavery
introduced no novelties to methods of production. Though no seventeenth-century
plantation had a work force as large as that owned by some eighteenth-century planters,
the mode of operation was the same. The seventeenth-century plantation already had its
separate quartering house or houses for the servants. Their labor was already supervised
in groups of eight or ten by an overseer. They were already subject to "correction" by the
whip. They were already often underfed and underclothed. Their masters already lived
in fear of their rebelling. But no servant rebellion in Virginia ever got off the ground.
The plantation system operated by servants worked. It made many Virginians
rich and England's merchants and kings richer. But it had one insuperable disadvantage.
Every year it poured a host of new freemen into a society where the opportunities for
advancement were limited. The freedmen were Virginia's dangerous men. They erupted
in 1676 in the largest ever rebellion known in any American colony before the
Revolution, and in 1682 they carried even the plant-cutting rebellion further than any
servant rebellion had ever gone. The substitution of slaves for servants gradually eased
and eventually ended the threat that the freedmen posed: as the annual number of
imported servants dropped, so did the numbers of men turning free.
The planters who bought slaves instead of servants did not do so with any
apparent consciousness of the social stability to be gained thereby. Indeed, insofar as
Virginians expressed themselves on the subject of slavery, they feared that it would
magnify the danger of insurrection in the colony. They often blamed and pitied
themselves for taking into their families men and women who had every reason to hate
them. William Byrd told the Earl of Augment in July 1736, that "in case there should
arise a Man of desperate courage amongst us, exasperated by a desperate fortune, he
might with more advantage than Cataline kindle a Servile War," and make Virginia's
broad rivers run with blood. But the danger never materialized. From time to time the
planters were alarmed by the discovery of a conspiracy among the slaves; but, as had
happened earlier when servants plotted rebellion, some conspirator always leaked the
plan in time to spoil it. No white person was killed in a slave rebellion in colonial
Virginia. Slaves proved, in fact, less dangerous than free or semi-free laborers. They had
none of the rising expectations that have so often prompted rebellion in human history.
They were not armed and did not have to be armed. They were without hope and did not
have to be given hope. William Byrd himself probably did not take the danger from them
seriously. Only seven months before his letter to Augment, he assured Peter Beckford of
Jamaica that "our negroes are not so numerous or so enterprizeing as to give us any
apprehension or uneasiness."
With slavery Virginians could exceed all their previous efforts to maximize
productivity. In the first half of the century, as they sought to bring stability to their
volatile society, they had identified work as wealth, time as money, but there were limits

162

to the amount of both work and time that could be extracted from a servant. There was
no limit to the work or time that a master could command from his slaves, beyond his
need to allow them enough for eating and sleeping to enable them to keep working. Even
on that he might skimp. Robert Carter of Nomini Hall, accounted a humane man, made it
a policy to give his slaves less food then they needed and required them to fill out their
diet by keeping chickens and by working Sundays in small gardens attached to their
cabins. Their cabins, too, he made them build and repair on Sundays. Carter's uncle
Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, made his slaves buy part of their own clothes out of the
proceeds of what they grew in their gardens.
Demographically, too, the conversion to slavery enhanced Virginia's capacity for
maximum productivity. Earlier the heavy concentration in the population of men of
working age had been achieved by the small number of women and children among the
immigrants and by the heavy mortality. But with women outliving men, the segment of
women and their children grew; and as mortality declined the segment of men beyond
working age grew. There was, in other words, an increase in the non-productive
proportion of the population. Slavery made possible the restoration and maintenance of a
highly productive population. Masters had no hesitation about putting slave women to
work in the tobacco fields, although servant women were not normally so employed.
And they probably made slave children start work earlier than free children did. There
was no need to keep them from work for purposes of education. Nor was it necessary to
divert productive energy to the support of ministers for spiritual guidance to them and
their parents. The slave population could thus be more productive than a free population
with the same age and sex structure would have been. It could also be more reproductive
than a freed population that grew mainly from the importation of servants, because slave
traders generally carried about two women for every three men, a larger proportion of
women by far than had been the case with servants. Slave women while employed in
tobacco could still raise children and thus contribute to the growth of the productive
population. Moreover, the children became the property of the master. Thus slaves
offered the planter a way of disposing his profits that combined the advantages of cattle
and of servants, and these had always been the most attractive investments in Virginia.
The only obvious disadvantage that slavery presented to Virginia masters was a
simple one: slaves had no incentive to work. The difference, however, between the
incentive of a slave and that of a servant bound for a term of years was not great. The
servant had already received his reward in the form of the ocean passage which he, unlike
the slave, had been so eager to make that he was willing to bind his labor for a term of
years for it. Having received his payment in advance, he could not be compelled by
threats of withholding it. Virginia masters had accordingly been obliged to make freer
use of the lash than had been common in England. Before they obtained slaves, they had
already had practice in extracting work from the unwilling. Yet there was a difference.
If a servant failed to perform consistently or ran away, if he damaged his master's
property either by omission or commission, the master could get the courts to extend the
term of servitude. That recourse was not open to the slaveowner. If the servant had
received his reward in advance, the slave had received the ultimate punishment in
advance: his term had already been extended.
Masters therefore needed some substitute for the extended term, some sanction to
protect themselves against the stubbornness of those whom conventional "correction" did

163

not reach. . . . One way might have been to offer rewards, to hold out the carrot rather
than the stick. A few masters tried this in the early years, as we have seen, offering
slaves freedom in return for working hard for a few years, or assigning them plots of land
and allowing them time to grow tobacco or corn crops for themselves. But to offer
rewards of this kind was to lose the whole advantage of slavery. In the end, Virginians
had to face the fact that masters of slaves must inflict pain at a higher level than masters
of servants. Slaves could not be made to work for fear of losing liberty, so they had to be
made to fear for their lives. Not that any master wanted to lose his slave by killing him,
but in order to get an equal or greater amount of work, it was necessary to beat slaves
harder than servants, so hard, in fact, that there was a much larger chance of killing them
than had been the case with servants.
Source: Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, pp. 296-298, 308-312.

Allan Kulikoff, a professor of history at Northern Illinois University, is one of the
foremost social historians of colonial Virginia and Maryland. In his best-known work,
Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 16801800, Kulikoff builds on the exhaustive research of his dissertation on Prince George‘s
County in Maryland to present the most detailed statistical portrait available of the
Chesapeake‘s colonial-era society. As the work of a Marxist historian, Kulikoff‘s book is
most concerned with describing and analyzing the emerging class structure of the early
Chesapeake. Tobacco and Slaves does, however, also include a detailed consideration of
the advent of slavery and the initial development of the basic institutions of AfroAmerican life. While criticized from numerous quarters, Kulikoff‘s appraisal of the
economics behind the spread of slavery in Virginia and Maryland, as well as his
chronology of the stages of the evolution of Afro-American population, ethnicity, family
life, culture and religion, remain the standards for Chesapeake studies. The following
selections include Kulikoff‘s summaries of his conclusions regarding the shift from
indentured servants to slaves during the seventeenth century.
The Great Transformation: From Servants to Slaves
The dominance of small planters in Chesapeake society began to disintegrate in the 1680s
because the economic base that had supported their ascendancy crumbled. Ordinary
planters had relied upon the labor of servants and freedmen to increase their income, but
fewer servants came to the region in the 1680s and 1690s, and the servant trade nearly
disappeared after 1700. Ex-servants had accumulated capital to set up their own farms
when tobacco prices were high, but planters often made no profit in the decades between
1680 and 1720, and the rate of social mobility therefore greatly diminished.
The decline of the servant trade transformed the labor system of the region in two
ways. It forced planters to substitute African slaves for white servants, and it permitted
the whole white population to reproduce itself. Planters sought to retain a white labor
force, but they eventually replaced indentured servants with black slaves, and by 1700
slaves produced much of the region‘s tobacco. As the number of servants and other
white immigrants declined and the children of earlier immigrants reached maturity, the

164

proportion of native-born whites in the population rose. Native whites married at young
ages and had enough children to ensure a naturally increasing population.
The transformation of the Chesapeake labor force from one dominated by
immigrant planters and white servants to one operated by planters and their black slaves
revolutionized the social relations of production. Political conflict between groups of
whites diminished because there were fewer servants and ex-servants in the population,
and even poor whites sought to become slaveholders and thereby exploit the labor of
people they considered inferior. At the same time, however, the probability that poorer
whites would advance economically decreased because they did not have sufficient
capital to purchase a slave. By the early eighteenth century, an indigenous group of
slaveholders who inherited wealth and place had replaced the relatively egalitarian social
order of mid-seventeenth-century society with a hierarchical society.
The adoption of slave labor resulted from a series of related economic and
demographic events that stretched from the 1660s through the early decades of the
eighteenth century. A decline in English birthrates during the second third of the
seventeenth century, combined with rising real wages, had by the 1680s substantially
reduced the number of men at risk to come to the New World. The new colonies of
Pennsylvania and South Carolina, moreover, offered enticing opportunities. To attract
their share of the diminished group of migrants, the Chesapeake colonies needed to offer
opportunities for advancement that could compete with these new settlements.
But severe depression in the tobacco economy at the end of the seventeenth
century decreased relative opportunities in the Chesapeake colonies. Prices for the plant
dipped below a penny a pound during the 1680s and stayed nearly that low during most
years until 1715. Unable to absorb declining prices by increased output per hand,
planters could not make a profit until markets improved. Since Europeans were
unwilling to increase their consumption of tobacco even at these low prices and frequent
wars raised the consumer‘s cost far above farm prices, exports did not rise. These
conditions did not bode well for immigrants, who frequently decided they had better
chances elsewhere. The proportion of British immigrants who came to the Chesapeake
colonies, in fact, declined from a high of over two-fifths in the 1670s to just over a third
by the 1690s.
Chesapeake planters, however, still wanted servants, and some of them still had
capital to purchase labor. The long depression hit some planters more severely than
others. Farmers who grew tobacco on marginal land found they could no longer compete
and substituted grains and livestock farming for tobacco. But planters who lived on more
fertile lands, especially those who moved to new frontiers, often succeeded in improving
their condition despite the general depression. These relatively prosperous families,
unlike less fortunate farmers, could afford to buy servants.
These Chesapeake planters failed to entice a sufficient number of Englishmen to
meet their needs by coming to their depressed region. From 1680 to 1699 only about
thirty thousand whites migrated to Maryland and Virginia, about four-fifths the rate of the
previous three decades. Since the number of households had greatly increased, the
number of white laborers that planters could command drastically declined. The number
of servants and bachelors per household head in Middlesex County, Virginia, plummeted
from five in 1668 to just one by 1687. There were two servants for each household in
York County in the 1660s, fewer than two servants for every ten plantations by the

165

1690s, and during the same years the number of servants available to southern Maryland
planters declined from six to fewer than two for every four households.
Immigrant servants worked on tobacco plantations during their term, but many of
them left the region after they were freed, and others established households and
competed for scarce white labor themselves. About half the men who finished a term of
service in Charles County, Maryland, during the 1690s left the county in search of
employment, and more than three-quarters of those who stayed lived precariously as
laborers or tenants. In total, only nine thousand migrants stayed in the Chesapeake
colonies during the 1680s, and more people left the area than migrated to it during the
1690s.
The decline of the servant trade transformed the labor force of the Chesapeake
region. Planters preferred to employ English-speaking white servants rather than foreign
whites or black slaves, but as the Chesapeake population rose and the number of men
desiring white labor increased they employed more and more alien workers. When the
relative supply of servants began to decline in the 1670s and 1680s and they could no
longer procure white English men, they turned first to English women, and when the
supply of English women ran low, they purchased Irish men.
Once planters had exhausted the supply of white laborers, they turned reluctantly
to African slaves. The slave trade to the Chesapeake colonies began slowly in the third
quarter of the seventeenth century. In 1660 no more than seventeen hundred blacks lived
in Maryland and Virginia, and by 1680 their numbers had increased to about four
thousand. During the 1660s and 1670s most forced black migrants arrived in small
groups from the West Indies, but about three thousand black people, including many
Africans, were forced into slavery in the region between 1674 and 1695. Since the
supply of servants had declined, these few blacks made up an ever-increasing proportion
of unfree workers in the region in the late 1670s and 1680s. Only during the second half
of the 1690s—two decades after the servant trade began to diminish—did planters buy
substantial numbers of black slaves. They enslaved about three thousand Africans, as
many as had arrived in the previous twenty years between 1695 and 1700.
The racial composition of the Chesapeake labor force changed gradually during
the last third of the seventeenth century, but by 1700 most unfree laborers were black.
The transition occurred first in the wealthy sweet-scented tobacco counties along the
York River and then spread northward on the western shore of the bay to areas that
produced less profitable Orinoco tobaccos. Only a third of the unfree workers on
plantations in York County were black during the 1670s but the reduction in the number
of servants available to county planters in the 1680s led them to procure nearly all the
Africans who came into the region. As a result, four-fifths of the unfree workers on York
plantations were black by the 1680s, and slaves accounted for nineteen of every twenty
unfree laborers in the county during the 1690s. Planters who lived in Middlesex County,
Virginia, which grew sweet-scented tobacco but was settled after York, and those who
resided on Maryland‘s lower Western Shore, a poorer Orinoco area, began to invest in
slave labor a few years later. Only one in three unfree workers in these two areas was
black in the 1680s, despite the declining number of servants available to planters.
Nonetheless, from two-thirds to three-quarters of all unfree workers were slaves by the
1690s and early 1700s.

166

Although planters clung to their preference for white servants over slaves for
much of the late seventeenth century, they became reconciled, and even enthusiastic,
about black labor by the early eighteenth century. When the supply of servants began to
diminish during the 1670s and 1680s, the price of white men increased, both absolutely
and relative to the price of full field hands. Planters in southern Maryland could buy
three white men for the price of a single prime-age black male field hand in the early
1670s, but the same slaves was worth only two servants by the end of the decade. This
pattern strongly suggests that planters wanted servants more than slaves, for if they had
believed that slaves were more profitable, the relative price of servants would have
diminished. The ratio of servant to slave prices rose, however, over the 1690s and early
1700s and again reached nearly three servants per slave by the 1710s, despite the neartotal disappearance of servants. By that time, planters had learned that slaves could be as
productive as whites and sought them avidly every time a slave ship arrived.
The decline of white servitude and the adoption of slavery transformed the family
economy of white farmers. A short review of the argument suggests how slavery and
family economy were linked. For most of the seventeenth century, planters began their
Chesapeake careers as servants and established households and bought land and their
own servants after the completion of their term. As the number of immigrants declined,
the proportion of native-born adults in the white population rose. These natives, unlike
their immigrant parents, began adulthood unencumbered by indentured service and often
received inheritances from their parents. They therefore married at a young age and
accumulated property more rapidly than did their immigrant forebears.
These changes in the economic prospects of white families could not occur until
the white population as a whole had achieved natural increase, and natural increase could
not begin until native-born men and women dominated the adult population of the region.
The number of native-born adults apparently surpassed the number of immigrants
sometime in the 1690s in most of the Chesapeake region. In Charles County, Maryland,
the proportion of native-born white men rose from about a third in 1690 to three-fifths in
1705; and a similar pattern could be found in Middlesex County, where about threequarters of the entire white population (adults and children) in 1699 had been born in the
county.
The increase in the proportion of native-born white adults accentuated the
importance of the daughters of immigrants in determining the rate of population growth.
These native women had larger families because they married, on average, before age
twenty, or eight years younger than their mothers‘ generation. Despite these youthful
marriages, native-born women were still likely to bear only two more children in their
lifetime than immigrants did because only half of them lived through their childbearing
years. Many of their children died before they reached adulthood. Still, the early
marriages of first-generation women did lead to substantial natural increase, and rather
than children replacing only three-fifths of the population, as had been the case with
immigrants, the native-born women reproduced more than sufficiently to replace their
parents.
In the 1690s and 1700s, a large group of native-born women began bearing
children, and these births (combined with the growing percentage of native adults) finally
tipped the balance from natural decline to natural increase in much of the region. The
earlier an area had been settled, the earlier this baby boom appeared: it began by the early

167

1690s in York County, Virginia, which had been settled in the 1620s; in southern
Maryland, where settlement started in the 1640s, the boom began in the late 1690s; and
on the Eastern Shore, settled after 1660, the boom began in the early 1700s. There was
no surge of births in Middlesex County, where falciparum malaria, the most deadly form
of the disease, hit with particular virulence in the 1680s and 1690s, but even there the
number of births nearly equaled the number of deaths.
Planter adoption of slave labor and white natural increase together created new
social relations of production on Chesapeake tobacco farms. Even if seventeenth-century
planters believed that the white servants and hired hands they employed were poor men
who deserved little respect, they knew that many of them would eventually became
independent tobacco farmers themselves and therefore kept discipline within tight
bounds. Two kinds of plantations replaced these master-servant enterprises once slavery
was established. The vast majority of planters owned family farms and commanded the
labor of their children, a slave or two, and an occasional white hired hand. A minority of
white men, who owned the preponderance of slaves, operated large enterprises with many
slaves. They hired white youths from nearby smaller plantations to act as overseers and
instructed them to discipline slaves harshly if they dared to overstep the bounds of white
authority.
Although most white freedmen enjoyed similar opportunities for much of the
seventeenth century, subject only to the vagaries of the economy, the great costs that
slaves entailed placed a premium on inheritance as a means of wealth accumulation.
Native-born children of substantial planters enjoyed a great advantage over all other
whites, for they could count upon receiving numerous slaves on their marriage or on the
death of their fathers. Poorer men, in contrast, had to build upon small investment and
received little or no help from parents.
The Legacy of the Seventeenth Century
The social order of the seventeenth century had a very ambiguous impact upon
Chesapeake developments in the eighteenth century. The openness, opportunities, and
freedom white men enjoyed during the middle decades of the century never returned,
even in frontier areas, and the homogeneity of the population was forever severed after
Africans poured into the region in the 1690s. Conflict among whites eventually
diminished as most whites scrambled to ensure the security of their property. Eighteenthcentury social relations of production developed from the slave labor system: a class and
caste society, where the ownership of slaves determined the standing of whites and where
black people were a subservient class of slaves, replaced the conflict ridden free white
labor system.
Nonetheless, the social ideals of the founders of the colonies reappeared in the
context of slavery. Planters adapted to their slaves the negative imagery English
gentlemen used to describe poor whites, and they embellished that rhetoric with racist
ideas. Chesapeake gentlemen, moreover, imposed patriarchal family structures upon
their wives and children and demanded deference from yeomen and poor whites. The
hierarchical social order the Virginia Company and the Calverts wanted to establish
developed, ironically, within an alien system of slavery they could not have foreseen.

168

Source: Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, pp. 37-44.

169

Sources Cited in the American Odyssey
Andrews, Charles M., ed. Narratives of the Insurrections 1675-1690. New York, 1915;
reprint, Bowie, Maryland: Heritage Books, 1992.
Berlin, Ira. Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North
America. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1998.
Billings, Warren M., ed. The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary
History of Virginia, 1606-1689. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1975.
Brown, Kathleen M. Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender,
Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia. Chapel Hill and London: University of
North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture,
1996.
Bruce, Philip A. Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century: An Inquiry
into the Religious, Moral, Educational, Legal, Military, and Political Condition of
the People. Based on Original and Contemporaneous Sources. 2 vols. New
York: G. P. Putnam & Sons, 1910.
Donnan, Elizabeth, ed. Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to
America. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution, 1931.
Galenson, David W. ―Economic Aspects of the Growth of Slavery in the SeventeenthCentury Chesapeake,‖ in Barbara L. Solow, ed., Slavery and the Rise of the
Atlantic System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the W. E. B.
DuBois Institute for Afro-American Research, Harvard University, 1991, pp. 265292.
Greene, Evarts B. and Virginia D. Harrington. American Population Before the Federal
Census of 1790. New York: Columbia University Press, 1932.
Hecht, Irene W. D. ―The Virginia Muster of 1624/5 As a Source for Demographic
History.‖ William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XXX(1973):65-92.
Hening, William Waller, ed. The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of
Virginia, From the First Session of the Legislature, in 1619. 13 vols. Richmond,
New York, and Philadelphia, 1819-1823; reprint, Charlottesville: University
Press of Virginia for the Jamestown Foundation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, 1969.
Hotten, John Camden. The Original Lists of Persons of Quality. London, 1874; reprint,
Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1980.

170

Kulikoff, Allan. Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the
Chesapeake, 1680-1800. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the
Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1986.
McIlwaine, H. R., ed. Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia.
Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1924.
McIlwaine, H. R., et al., eds. Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 6
vols. Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1927-1966.
―Management of Slaves, 1672.‖ Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 7(18991900):314.
Mintz, Steven, ed. African American Voices: The Life Cycle of Slavery. St. James, New
York: Brandywine Press, 1993.
Morgan, Edmund S. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial
Virginia. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1975.
Morgan, Philip D. ―British Encounters with Africans and African-Americans, circa
1600-1780,‖ in Bernard Bailyn and Philip D. Morgan, eds., Strangers within the
Realm: Cultural Margins of the First British Empire. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture,
1991, pp. 157-219.
Morgan, Philip D. Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century
Chesapeake and Lowcountry. Chapel Hill and London: University of North
Carolina Press for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and
Culture, 1998.
Nugent, Nell Marion, et al., comps. Pioneers and Cavaliers. Abstracts of Virginia Land
Patents and Grants. 6 vols. Richmond: Virginia State Library and the Virginia
Genealogical Society, 1934-1998.
Parent, Anthony S. ―‘Either a Fool or a Fury‘: The Emergence of Paternalism in
Colonial Virginia Slave Society.‖ Ph.D. dissertation, Univeristy of California at
Los Angeles, 1982.
―Punishment For a Negro Rebel.‖ William and Mary Quarterly, 1st ser., X (19011902):177-178.
Rountree, Helen C. Pocahontas‘s People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia Through
Four Centuries. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990.
Tate, Thad W. The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg. Williamsburg, Virginia:
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1965.

171

Walsh, Lorena S. From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove: The History of a Virginia Slave
Community. Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1997.
Winfree, Waverly K., comp. The Laws of Virginia, Being a Supplement to Hening‘s The
Statutes at Large, 1700-1750. Richmond: The Virginia State Library, 1971.
York County Court Records.

172

AMERICAN DIVERSITY: CRUCIBLE OF CULTURES
Table of Contents
Part I—Introduction
Part II—Virginia’s Legislators Tighten Restrictions on Slaves and Free Blacks
1700 to 1730—Estimated Population of the Chesapeake Colonies (in Thousands)
October 1710—ACT XVI. An act to set free Will, a Negro belonging to Robert
Ruffin
October 26, 1710—First Speech of Governor Spotswood to the House of
Burgesses
October 25, to December 9, 1710—An Act for laying a Duty on Liquors and
Slaves
November 27, 1710—Governor Spotswood Protests a Bill to Place a Duty on
Liquors
and Slaves
September 1715—Governor Spotswood Pardons Two York County Slaves
1720s and 1730s—Changes in the Way in Which Virginia‘s Planters Treated
Their
Slaves
May 9, to June 20, 1723—An Act for laying a Duty on Liquors and Slaves
May 9, to June 20, 1723—An Act for the Transportation of Dick and other Negro Slaves

May 1723—ACT II. An Act for settling and better Regulation of the Militia
May 1723—ACT IV. An Act directing the trial of Slaves, committing capital
crimes; and
for the more effectual punishing conspiracies and insurrections of them;
and for
the better government of Negros, Mulattos, and Indians, bond or free
1723—Response of Richard West, the Lords Commissioners‘ Legal Council
1724—Questionnaire of Edmund Gibson

173

May 1726—ACT IV. An Act for amending the Act concerning Servants and
Slaves; and
for the further preventing the clandestine transportation of Persons out of
this
Colony
February 1727—ACT XI. An Act to explain and amend the Act, For declaring the
Negro,
Mulatto, and Indian Slaves, within this Dominion, to be Real Estate; and
part of
one other Act, intituled, An Act for the distribution of Intestates Estates,
declaring
Widows Rights to their deceased Husbands Estates; and for securing
Orphans
Estates
June 28, 1729—James Blair to Edmund Gibson
June 1729—Letter of Governor Gooch
1730s—Changes in the Slave Population in Virginia
July 20, 1730—James Blair to Edmund Gibson
May 28, 1731—Governor Gooch to Edmund Gibson

Part III—Planters Intensify the Work of Slaves and Legislators Continue to Restrict
the
Actions of Slaves and Free Blacks
May 1732—ACT VII. An Act for settling some doubts and differences of opinion,
in
relation to the benefit of Clergy; for allowing the same to Women; and taking
away of
Reading; and to disable certain Persons, therein mentioned, to be Witnesses
May 18, 1736—Governor Gooch Responds to the Lords Commissioners
July 17, 1736—William Byrd II to the Earl of Egmont
November 1738—ACT II. An Act, for the better Regulation of the Militia
1740 to 1750—Estimated Population of the Chesapeake Colonies (in Thousands)

174

October 1748—ACT XIV. An Act concerning Servants, and Slaves
October 1748—ACT XXXVIII. An Act directing the trial of Slaves committing
capital
crimes; and for the more effectual punishing conspiracies and
insurections of
them; and for the better government of negroes, mulattoes, and Indians,
bond or
free
1749—The Reverend Mr. William Willie to Dr. Cartwright of the Associates of
Dr. Bray
1750s—Masters and Slaves Struggle to Define Work Routines
1750s—Plantation Reorganization and Urbanization
March 20, 1752—Letter from ―Philo-Bombastia‖
April 10, 1752—The Speech of ―Peter Limits‖ to the Speaker of the House of
Burgesses
November 1753—ACT VII. An Act for the better government of servants and
slaves
February 1754—ACT II. An Act for amending the act, intituled, An act for the
better
regulation of the militia
August 1755—ACT II. An Act for the better regulating and training the Militia
March 30, 1757—Peter Fontaine to Moses Fontaine
April 1757—ACT III. An act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia
January 1759—George Washington Gains Possession of Slaves in York County
1760 to 1780—Estimated Population of the Chesapeake Colonies (in Thousands)
1760 to 1770—Generational Changes in Virginia‘s Slave Population
1760 to 1770—Letters from Virginia Ministers to the Associates of Dr. Bray
September 30, 1762—The Reverend William Yates and Robert Carter Nicholas to
the

175

Reverend John Waring

Part IV—Modifications in the Restrictions on Slaves and Free Blacks
October 1765—ACT XXIV. An act to prevent the practice of selling persons as
slaves
that are not so, and for other purposes therein mentioned
October 1765—ACT XXVI. An act for amending the act entitled An act directing
the
trial of slaves committing capital crimes; and for the more effectual
punishing
conspiracies and insurrections of them; and for the better government of
negroes, mulattoes, and indians, bond or free
November 1765—List of Children at the Bray School in Williamsburg
December 23, 1765—George Mason on Slavery as a "troublesom Estate"
July 2, 1766—George Washington Sells a Runaway Slave Named Tom to the
West
Indies
July 22, 1766—Nathaniel Littleton Savage to John Norton
March 19, 1767—Arthur Lee‘s Address on Slavery
[February 16, 1769]—Robert Carter Nicholas to the Reverend John Waring
November 1769—ACT XIX. An act to amend the Act, intituled an Act to amend
the Act
for the better government of Servants and Slaves
November 1769—ACT XXVII. An act for exempting free negro, mulatto, and
Indian
women, from the payment of levies
April 5, 1770—Williamsburg Considers the Establishment of a Night Watch
1772—The Somerset Decision
February 1772—ACT IX. An act for amending the acts concerning the trials and
outlawries of slaves

176

July 16, 1772—Establishment of a Watch in Williamsburg
February 2, 1774—Robert Pleasants to Anthony Benezet
June 30, 1774—News of the Somerset Decision Reaches Virginia Slaves
June 1774—The Prince George County Resolves Call for an End to the Slave
Trade
July 18, 1774—The Fairfax County Resolves Call for an End to the Slave Trade
1774—Thomas Jefferson Accuses Great Britain of Trying to Reduce the Colonies
to
Slavery
1774—List of Slaves Owned by Thomas Jefferson

Part V—Enslaved Virginians and the Impending Revolution
Spring and Summer 1775—Reaction to the Gunpowder Incident
April 1775—Slaves Create Disturbances in Williamsburg
April 21, 1775—Address of the Williamsburg Municipal Common Hall to
Governor
Dunmore
May 1, 1775—Governor Dunmore to Lord Dartmouth
May 3, 1775—Governor Dunmore‘s Responds to the House of Burgesses
May 4, 1775—Slave Unrest Continues in Williamsburg
June 14, 1775—Five Men Discuss the Gunpowder Incident with the Burgesses
June 16, 1775—Letter to Alexander Purdie
June 19, 1775—The Burgesses Address Governor Dunmore
1775—Phillis Wheatley Praises George Washington and Freedom
1775—British General Thomas Gage Uses the Slave Metaphor to Complain about
the
Treatment of Prisoners

177

1775—The Enlistment of Blacks During the Revolutionary War
November 16, 1775—Dunmore‘s Proclamation
November 30, 1775 and December 9, 1775—Virginians Use the Newspaper to
Discourage Slaves From Joining Dunmore
December 1775—ACT VII. An ordinance for establishing a mode of punishment
for the
enemies to America in this colony
1775—Lund Washington‘s Response to Dunmore‘s Proclamation
December 3, 1775—Letter from William Roscow Wilson Curle to the Elizabeth
City
County-Hampton Town Committee of Safety
December 5, 1775—Colonel William Woodford Describes the Battle of Great
Bridge
December 13 and 14, 1775—Delegates to the Fourth Virginia Convention Offer
to Pardon Slaves Who Abandon Dunmore
December 26, 1775—George Washington on Governor Dunmore
1775 to 1776—The Experiences of ―Lord Dunmore‘s Ethiopian Regiment‖

Part VI—Independence and Enslavement
March 29, 1776—Letter from ―An American‖ to Alexander Purdie
April 24, 1776—A Public Letter of Instructions from the Freeholders of James
City
County to Robert Carter Nicholas and William Norvell, Delegates to the
Fifth
Virginia Convention
May 15, 1776—The Virginia Resolves
May to June 1776—Slavery and the First Clause of the Virginia Declaration of
Rights.
1776—Samuel Hopkins's A Dialogue Concerning the Slavery of the Africans

178

1776—Thomas Jefferson Rebukes King George III over Slavery

179

Part I—Introduction

During the first half of the eighteenth century, Virginia legislators imposed
increasingly harsh restrictions on enslaved laborers, and further abridged many of the
civic rights previously accorded free blacks. Opportunities for black people to escape
slavery all but disappeared, and some whites hoped to reduce those who were free to a
lowly status equivalent to slavery. Slave owners attempted to strip the over 50,000
Africans transported to Virginia between 1700 and 1760 of their cultural identities, at the
same time putting most to work at repetitious and backbreaking agricultural labor. They
often used the newly arrived African‘s ignorance of English and their frequent passive
and occasionally violent resistance to enslavement as excuses for imposing harsher
plantation discipline and more stringent work rules. Justices of the peace applied a
separate criminal code to cases involving blacks, and handed down harsher punishments.
Informal plantation custom defined minimum levels of provisioning and work
requirements. However, the only effective restraint on owners‘ total power over their
human property was their self-interest.

Part II—Virginia’s Legislators Tighten Restrictions
on Slaves and Free Blacks

1700 to 1730—Estimated Population of the Chesapeake Colonies (in Thousands)
Total

Total

Total

Year

Maryland

Virginia

Whites

Blacks

Population

1700
1710
1720
1730

34.1
43.9
57.8
81.8

64.0
79.7
100.8
142.8

85.2
101.3
128.0
171.4

12.9
22.4
30.6
53.2

98.1
123.7
158.6
224.6

Source: McCusker and Menard, The Economy of British America, p. 136.

October 1710—ACT XVI. An act to set free Will, a Negro belonging to Robert Ruffin
When Alexander Spotswood arrived in Virginia in 1710, the colony was in a depression.
A number of Virginians were troubled by the growing number of slaves in the colony and
an insurrection that had been prevented that spring. These two concerns were connected.
Planters relied on a greater number of slaves in order to increase the amount of tobacco
raised on their plantations. The increased production resulted in lower prices for tobacco.
Several members of the General Assembly hoped to prohibit the importation of enslaved

180

laborers into the colony so as to improve tobacco prices and to decrease the possibility of
a slave revolt.
Spotswood learned of the details of the slave insurrection that Salvadore, a Native
American slave, an African-American slave named Scipio, and others planned for three
counties along the James River—Surry, Isle of Wight, and James City—on Easter
Sunday 1710. Will, a slave who belonged to Robert Ruffin, informed his master about
the revolt and thwarted the plans. Deciding to make an example of Salvadore and Scipio,
the Council had them beheaded, drawn, and quartered. Next, their bodies were put on
view in the counties where they had hoped to lead slaves in revolt against the white
planters. Residents of and visitors to Williamsburg could view Salvadore‘s head on a
picket. The Burgesses decided to manumit Will and move him to the Northern Neck,
thus indicating that it was possible for a slave to gain freedom through actions that
supported the slave society.
WHEREAS a Negro Slave, named Will, belonging to Robert Ruffin, of the county
of Surry, was signally serviceable in discovering a conspiracy of diverse negros in the
said county, for levying war in this colony, for a reward of his fidelity and for
encouragement of such services,
Be it enacted, by the Lieutenant-Governor, Council and Burgesses, of this
Generall Assembly, and it is hereby enacted, by the authority of the same, That the said
Negro Will, is and shall be forever hereafter free from his slavery, and shall be esteemed,
deemed and taken, and is hereby declared to be a free man, and shall enjoy and have all
the liberties, priviledges and immunitys of or to a free negro belonging, and shall inhabit,
continue and be within this colony and dominion of Virginia, if he think fit to continue
therein.
And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That the sum of forty pounds
sterling be paid and satisfyed to the said Robert Ruffin for the price of the said negro
Will, made free as above said.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:537-538.

October 26, 1710—First Speech of Governor Spotswood to the House of Burgesses
The governor addressed the colonists‘ fears about a slave insurrection in this speech.
Spotswood suggested that the legislators pass a bill to prevent meetings of slaves.
I Would Willingly Whisper to You The Strength of Your Country and The State
of Your Militia; Which on The foot it Now Stands is so Imaginary A Defence, That we
Cannot too Cautiously Conceal it from our Neighbours and our Slaves, nor too Earnestly
Pray That Neither The Lust of Dominion, nor the Desire of freedom May Stir those
people to any attempts The Latter Sort (I mean our Negro‘s) by Their Dayly Encrease
Seem to be The Most Dangerous; And the Tryals of Last Aprill Court may shew that we

181

are not to Depend on Either their Stupidity, or that Babel of Languages among ‘em;
freedom Wears a Cap which Can Without a Tongue, Call Togather all Those who Long
to Shake of the fetters of Slavery and as Such an Insurrection would surely be attended
with Most Dreadfull Consequences so I Think we Cannot be too Early in providing
Against it, both by putting our Selves in a better posture of Defence and by Making a
Law to prevent The Consultations of Those Negroes.
Source: McIlwaine et al., eds., Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1703-1712, p. 240.

October 25, to December 9, 1710—An Act for laying a Duty on Liquors and Slaves
The Burgesses debated a bill to prevent slaves from holding meetings and owning
firearms. The legislators amended the bill and postponed their decision to a later session.
This group passed the legislation in 1711, but the Council tabled the bill. The Burgesses
wanted to reduce the perceived threat from slaves by reducing the number of Africans
imported into the colony. Spotswood‘s instructions prevented him from assenting to a
bill that prohibited the slave trade. As a result, members of the assembly decided to
increase the duty from twenty shillings on each slave imported to the colony to £5 on all
slaves except infants who were duty free.
Thad Tate notes: ―The principal strategem which the leaders of the colony evolved for
discouraging too rapid an increase in the number of slaves was an import duty on African
slaves that could be disguised as a revenue measure. The long series of laws which
enacted these duties began as early as 1699, and, for the first few years, were honestly
intended to raise funds, rather than discourage trade. The initial act, for example, levied a
charge of twenty shillings for each Negro imported specifically for the construction of the
new Capitol at Williamsburg. With one renewal this duty continued in force until late
1703. After a three month interval in early 1704 during which no duty was in effect, the
impost was revived in April, 1704. From then until 1718 some form of duty was in force
without an important break. The tendency to make the duties prohibitory in character
also began to appear, for during these years the amount climbed as high as £5 per Negro.‖
The references to subsequent acts follow the citation for the legislation excerpted below.
Forasmuch as the late Impositions upon liquors and slaves imported into this Colony and Dominion have
proved very usefull and advantageous, and that no better Expedient can be found to lessen the Levy by the
Poll or defray the Charge of any Publick Design that Impositions of that nature.…

…And Be it further Enacted That the sume of Five hundred pounds [sic £5] shall
be paid for every Negro or other slave which, after the said Tenth day of December, shall
be Imported or brought into this Colony and Dominion from any port or place whatsoever
by the Importer or Importers of the same.
Source: Tate, The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg, pp. 17-18; Winfree,
comp., The Laws of Virginia, pp. 47, 50, 51; see also Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large,
3:482 (1710) and Winfree, comp., The Laws of Virginia, pp. 67 (1712), 130 (1714).

182

November 27, 1710—Governor Spotswood Protests a Bill to Place a Duty on Liquors
and Slaves
On November 27, 1710, the governor issued his protest against the bill. However,
Spotswood did accept it, and it remained in effect until 1714. He benefitted from the fact
that a portion of the revenue was allocated to finish construction of the home for the
governor. Four years later the assembly designated £200 out of the duty on slaves and
liquors for the construction of a brick magazine for the storage of powder.
Wherefore give me Leave to Tell you That I fear The high Duty Intended on Negro
slaves May be Interpreted as a prohibition of That Trade Which her Majesty is gratiously
pleased to Countenance, as you may perceive by such her Royal Instructions which I now
send you; and I hope it may not be yet too Late for you to make Some amendments That
may shew you bear a Just Deference to her Majestys Most Gracious Recommendations.
and The Distinction you Make in the aforesaid bill between Virginia and British owners,
is not to be Justifyed by any Parallel Instance in Great Brittain; where a Virginian pays
no higher Dutys Than a Native of That Kingdom and both persons Enjoy Equally The
same priviledges in all points. Besides her Majesty has been pleased Expressly to
Declare That one of ye Reasons for Repealing a Late Law, was Because by a Clause
Therein The Owners of Vessels of The Kingdom of Great Brittain Were to pay more
Than The Virginia Owners.
Source: McIlwaine, et al., eds., Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1703-1712, p. 281.

September 1715—Governor Spotswood Pardons Two York County Slaves
In September 1715, five of York County‘s justices of the peace tried three slaves on the
charge of burglary: Harry, a mulatto, who belonged to Mary Read of Yorkhampton
Parish; Sam who belonged to William Buckner; and Guy, the property of ordinary keeper
Edward Powers. The men admitted that they broke into the house of Richard Cary on
September 10, 1715 and stole ―224 ounces of silver coined money of the value of 70
pounds Currt money of Va Ten guinea peices of gold of the value of 13 pds Currt money
of Virga & one pair of linnen sheets of the value of 40 shills.‖ After admitting their guilt
they ―did thereupon put themselves upon our mercy.‖ After reviewing the case,
Spotswood decided to pardon Sam and Guy. The justices valued Harry at £40 and
ordered him to be executed.
Know ye therefore that we moved with compassion & hoping that the punishment of one
of the most notorious offender will be a sufficient example, & terror to the others, of our
special grace, certain knowledge, & meer motion have pardoned, remitted & released &
by these presents for us, our heirs & successors do pardon remitt & release to the sd Sam
& Guy late slaves of the sd Wm Buckner & Edward Powers or by what other name or
names or addition of name or names the sd Sam & Guy or either of them are called or
known, the burglary & felony aforesd.

183

Source: York County Deeds, Orders, and Wills (14) 453, September 19, 1715.

1720s and 1730s—Changes in the Way in Which Virginia’s Planters Treated Their
Slaves
The number of Africans imported to Virginia increased in the eighteenth century. The
Old Dominion gained almost 8,000 African slaves between 1700 and 1710. For a short
time, the Chesapeake, not Jamaica, was the most profitable slave market in British
America. During the 1730s Virginia‘s planters saw an average of over 2,000 Africans
arrive on slave ships. Sometimes the number of forced immigrants increased to more
than 4,000 in a year.
It is known that some Virginians had viewed African slaves in a different light than the
enslaved labors born in the colony since the late seventeenth century. Planters devised
harsher methods to deal with the African slaves during the first half of the eighteenth
century. In the following passage Ira Berlin examines the measures that Virginians used
to control their African slaves.
The trek across Africa and the Middle Passage left slaves not just physically weak
but also mentally drained. Planters were determined to break the spirit of the new
arrivals even further, by stripping Africans of ties to their homeland. Among the first
objects of the planters‘ assault were the names Africans carried to the New World, and
with them the lineage which structured much of African life. Writing to his overseer
from his plantation on the Rappahannock River in 1727, Robert ―King‖ Carter, perhaps
the richest of the Chesapeake‘s new grandees, explained the process by which he initiated
Africans into their American captivity. ―I name‘d them here & by their names we can
always know what sizes they are of & I am sure we repeated them so often to them that
every one knew their names & would readily answer to them.‖ Carter then forwarded his
slaves to a satellite plantation or ―quarter,‖ where his overseer repeated the process,
taking ―care that the negros both men & women I sent…always go by ye names we gave
them.‖ In the months that followed, the drill continued, with Carter again joining in the
process of stripping the newly arrived Africans of the signature of their identity and
inheritance. For the most part, Carter designated his new slaves with a variety of
common English diminutive and classical appellations, denying them access to the
integrative path that ―Antonio a Negro‖ had taken when he transformed himself into
Anthony Johnson. The names given African slaves embodied the distance between the
experience of the plantation generations and that of the charter generations. There would
be no Anthony Johnsons on Carter‘s plantation.
The loss of their names was only the first of the numerous indignities newly
arrived Africans suffered at the hands of Chesapeake planters. Generally, planter placed
little trust in Africans, with their strange tongues and alien customs. They condemned the
new arrivals for the ―gross bestiality and rudeness of their manners, the variety and

184

strangeness of their minds.‖ Whenever possible, planters put the newly arrived African
slaves to work at the most repetitive and backbreaking tasks in some upland quarter,
denying them access to positions of skill that Atlantic creoles frequently enjoyed.
Planters made but scant attempt to see that the new arrivals had adequate food, clothing,
or shelter, because the open slave trade made ―new Negroes‖ cheap, and the disease
environment in which they were set to work inflated their mortality rate no matter how
well they were tended. Residing in sex-segregated barracks, African slaves lived a lonely
existence, without families or ties of kin, and often separated by language from
supervisors and co-workers alike. Rude frontier conditions made these largely male
compounds desolate, unhealthy places that narrowed the vision of their residents. The
physical separation denied the new arrivals the opportunity to integrate themselves into
the mainstream of Chesapeake society, and prevented them from finding a well-placed
patron and enjoying the company of men and women of equal rank, as their predecessors
had done. The planter‘s strategy of stripping away all ties upon which the enslaved
persona rested—name, village, clan, household, and family—and leaving slaves totally
dependent upon their owners was nearly successful.
The ability of slaves to move unimpeded through the countryside had sustained
the Carter generations‘ broad view of the world, and had allowed them to interact openly
with planters and servants, Europeans and Indians. Their wide social networks promoted
a sense of self-confidence, even arrogance, which planters were determined to curb. In
1705 and 1723 new laws required slaves to carry a pass when they left the estate of their
owner even for the most routine business and denied them the right to meet in groups of
more than four, and then only for brief periods of time. Even more novel than the
legislation itself was the determination of planter-controlled courts to enforce it, as
county courts fined those planters who allowed their slaves ―to goe abrod.‖
But restrictions on movement were only one small indicator of the narrowing of
slaves‘ lives. Whereas members of the charter generations had slept and eaten under the
same roof and had worked in the same fields as their owners, the new arrivals lived in a
world apart. Even the ties between black slaves and white servants atrophied, as blacks
sank deeper into slavery while whites rose in aspiration if not in fact. The strivings of
white servants necessitated their distinguishing themselves from African slaves, who
were the recipients of harsh treatment that whites laborers would no longer accept. No
matter how low the status of white servants, their pale skin distinguished them from
society‘s designated mudsill, and this small difference became the foundation upon which
the entire social order rested. Nothing could be further from the ―drinkinge and
carrousinge‖ that had brought black slaves and white servants together for long bouts of
interracial conviviality than the physical and verbal isolation that confronted newly
arrived Africans. Whiteness and blackness took on new meanings.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, pp. 112-114; see also pp. 109-111.

May 9, to June 20, 1723—An Act for laying a Duty on Liquors and Slaves
The Burgesses noted their decision to reinstitute a duty on liquors and slaves in order to
raise additional money to support the militia. They wanted a strong militia to protect the

185

colonists against the threat of slave conspiracies and attacks from Indians. British
merchants protested against the duty and persuaded the King to repeal the 1723 law and
all other attempts on the part of the assembly to pass a duty during the next nine years.
Thad Tate notes: ―By a change of tactics that made a five percent ad valorem duty
payable by the prospective buyer rather than by the importer the General Assembly broke
the deadlock in 1732. Thereafter and until the outbreak of the Revolution an ad valorem
duty on slaves was in effect in Virginia, except for six months in 1751. The five percent
rate of 1732 was gradually increased, until it stood at twenty percent during the French
and Indian War.‖
We, your Majesties most Loial and dutiful Subjects, the Burgesses now assembled in
Virginia, having Seriously considered the present State of this your Majesty‘s great and
Ancient Colony and Dominion, And the dangers it is exposed and liable to by the present
unarmed Condition of Our Militia, as well in regard to the vast Numbers of Negro Slaves
which are daily imported and increased among us as, also, from the Neighboring Indians
and others which may possible become our Enemies, And being the more awakened
hereto by some late discovered Conspiracies among these Slaves wholly to destroy Your
Majesties good Subjects Inhabiting here, and having also taken into Our Consideration
the Several Ways and means to provide against these Mischiefs, And in Order thereto
having Endeavoured to find out proper Methods to defray the Extraordinary Charge
requisite sufficiently to Support us against those and other dangers which may and do
often attend this Colony, And having by many years Experience found that the only
Method easy to be born here in raising Funds is by laying Duties on Liquors and Slaves
imported, By which Duties we have been Enabled with Chearfulness not only to defray
the Expence of building a House of our Governor, A Noble Structure for the Supream
Court of Justice, A Magazine for the Arms and Ammunition of our Country, And a
public Goal for Debtors and Criminals, But also to perform many Necessary Services for
the Safety and Defence of Our Lives and of this your Majesties Great Dominon, And
these Funds being now exhausted, and we, considering it is our Duty to the utmost of our
Power fully to provide for the Safety of your Majesties Subjects and Dominion here, Do
in all humility beseech your Majesty, That in Order to lessen the Levy by the Poll and to
provide Arms and Ammunition for the Poorer Sort of Inhabitants, Your Majesties good
Subjects here, And in Order to Support and defray such other necessary Expences as shall
by the General Assembly be thought proper for the Defence and Service of this Colony, It
may be Enacted,…
…And Be it further Enacted That the Sum of Forty Shillings be paid for every Negro or
other Slave which after the said First day of April shall be imported or brought into this
Colony and Dominion from any port or place whatsoever by the Importer or Importers of
the Same.
…And be it further Enacted That this Act shall continue and be in Force for Three Years
from the said First day of April and no longer.
Source: Tate, The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg, p. 18; Winfree, comp.,
The Laws of Virginia, pp. 237-238, 241, 246. See also ibid., pp. 285, 290, 291 (1727/8);
Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 4:135 (1723); ibid., p. 182 (1727); ibid., pp. 317-322

186

(1732); ibid., p. 394 (1734); ibid., pp. 469-473 (1738); ibid., 5:92-93 (1740); ibid., 6:217221 (1752).

May 9, to June 20, 1723—An Act for the Transportation of Dick and other Negro Slaves
In 1722 and 1723 two groups of slaves were tried in the General Court for ―unlawfully
assembling meeting and Congregating themselves with other Slaves and Communicating
contriving and Conspiring among themselves and with the said other Slaves to kill
murder & destroy very many of the leige Subjects of our said Lord the King.‖ Sam, a
slave belonging to the estate of Nathaniel Burwell, was one of the slaves involved in the
alleged plot against whites. There was not enough evidence to convict the slaves;
however, the legislators decided to transport them out of the colony when they learned
that several of the slaves imprisoned in the Public Gaol threatened the lives of two
residents of Middlesex County.
Whereas very great and eminent Dangers have of late threatened his Majesties Subjects
in this Colony from the frequent disorderly Meetings of great Numbers of Slaves in a
riotous and tumultous manner, who by reason of their Secret Plotting and confederating
among themselves could not be convicted by such Evidence as the Laws now in force
require,
And Whereas divers of the Ringleaders of them are now in the Custody of the Law, upon
the Information of Sundry other Slaves, for conspiring and contriving to rise up in Arms
and to kill and destroy Several Persons in the County of Middlesex and elsewhere in the
Colony of Virginia, And for threatening the lives of other people concerned in the
discovery of their wicked designs, For preventing the dangers which might possibly
happen if the Said Slaves Should be discharge out of the Custody and Suffered to go at
large,
Be it Enacted by the Lieutenant Governor, Council, and Burgesses of this present General
Assembly, And it is hereby Enacted by the Authority of the Same, That the several
Slaves hereafter mentioned, having been concerned in the Said Conspiracy, (That is to
Say) Dick, a Negro Slave of Mathew Kemp, Gentleman, Tom, otherwise called Bambeo
Tom, Slave of Thomas Smith, Gentleman, Sanco, Isaac, and Jeffery, Slaves of Armistead
Churchil, Gentleman, Robin, Slave of John Rhodes, planter, Sam, a Negro Slave of
Elizabeth Burwell, Widdow of Nathaniel Burwell, Gentleman, deceased, And Sam, a
Negro Slave of Elizabeth Richardson, Widdow, be transported to the Island of
Barbadoes, Jamaica, or some other Island in the West Indies, to be there Sold for Slaves
during the Term of their respective Lives, and that if after such transportation, they the
said Dick, Tom, otherwise called Bambeo Tom, Sanco, Isaac, Jeffery, Robin, Sam, and Sam, or
either of them, shall return into this Colony of Virginia, he and they so returning shall suffer the paine of
Death,

Provided always, That if such Slave so transported shall be brought back into this Colony
against his Consent, That then and in such Case, It shall and may be lawful for the
Governor or Commander in Chief of this Dominion for the Time being to grant his
Majesties pardon to such Slave for his Offence of returning after such transportation,
Under the Condition of being again transported out of this Colony.
And Be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, And it is hereby Enacted, That

187

Archibald Blair and William Robertson of Williamsburgh, Gentlemen, be authorized and
impowered to cause the said Dick, Tom, alias Bambeo Tom, Sanco, Isaac, Jeffery, Robin,
Sam, and Sam to be transported to the said Islands of Barbadoes, Jamaica, or some other
Island in the West Indies, And to that End to agree with such Master and Masters of any
ship or Vessel as they, the said Archibald Blair and William Robertson, shall think fit for
carrying the said Slaves to the said Islands, or to some or one of them, and to send and
consign the said Slaves to such person or persons as they, the said Archibald Blair and
William Robertson, shall think proper, and that they, the said Archibald Blair and
William Robertson, their Executors, and Administrators shall render an Account of the
Net proceeds, arising by the Sale and Sales of the said Slaves, and of Each of them to the
General Assembly of this Dominion when they shall be thereto required.
And Be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, And it is hereby Enacted, That
there shall be paid to the Several Masters or Owners of the said Slaves for the Loss they
may sustain by reason of such transportation the following Sums, That is to Say, to the
said Mathew Kemp for the said Slave Dick Forty pounds, To the said Thomas Smith for
the said Slave Tom, alias Bambo Tom, Thirty Five pounds, To the said Armistead
Churchil for the said Slaves Sanco Twenty Pounds, Isaac Thirty pounds, and Jeffery
Thirty pounds, to the said John Rhoads for the said Slave Robin Fifty pounds, To the said
Elizabeth Burwell for the said Slave Sam Forty pounds, And to the said Elizabeth
Richardson for the said Slave Sam Forty pounds, And the Governor or Commander in
Chief of this Dominion is hereby impowered and desired to issue his Warrant on the
Treasurer of Virginia for the payment of the said several Sums of Money to the Several
respective Owners of the said Slaves.
Source: Winfree, comp., The Laws of Virginia, pp. 257-259.

May 1723—ACT II. An Act for settling and better Regulation of the Militia
In May 1723, Governor Drysdale addressed the Burgesses on the recent slave
insurrection. He noted that deficiencies in the colony‘s laws made it impossible to
convict the slaves. Drysdale stated ―The Surest Method to prevent any fatal
Consequences that may arise from their wicked Designs is to put your Militia in a better
posture of defence than at present they seem to be.‖ In the following statute the
legislators excluded free black men and Indians from the militia in order to reduce the
potential for armed resistance from the growing free black population.
V. Provided always, That such free Negros, Mulattos, or Indians, as are capable,
may be listed and emploied as drummers or trumpeters: And that upon any invasion,
insurrection, or rebellion, all free Negros, Mulattos, or Indians, shall be obliged to attend
and march with the militia, and to do the duty of pioneers, or such other servile labour as
they shall be directed to perform.
VI. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That if an exempted
overseer, or miller, or any free Negro, Mulatto, or Indian, other than as before excepted,
shall presume to appear at any muster whatsoever, the party so offending, shall for every
such offence, forfeit and pay one hundred pounds of tobacco, and shall immediately give

188

security to the said commanding officer, for paiment of the same: Which fine or fines
shall be disposed of in such manner, and to such uses as the other fines herein aftermentioned. And each person failing to pay, or give security, as aforesaid, shall, by order
of the said commanding officer, be tied neck and heels, and so remain for any time not
exceeding twenty minutes.
Source: McIlwaine, et al., Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726, p. 360;
Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 4:118-120. See also ibid., pp. 197-204 (1727); ibid.,
p. 323 (1732); ibid., p. 394 (1734); and ibid., 6:112-114 (1748).

May 1723—ACT IV. An Act directing the trial of Slaves, committing capital crimes; and
for the more effectual punishing conspiracies and insurrections of them; and for the
better government of Negros, Mulattos, and Indians, bond or free
The legislators listened to the speech of Governor Drysdale and the fears of Virginias
about slave rebellions and the growing free black population. They wrote a statute that
imposed new restrictions on the colony‘s enslaved blacks and took away the few
privileges that free men of color enjoyed. The law imposed a ban on all assemblies of
slaves that were not licensed by masters, prohibited all blacks—free and enslaved—and
Native Americans from providing testimony against white persons in court, imposed
punishment if a black person provided false testimony, and withdrew the privilege of
benefit of clergy for a slave convicted of plotting or attempting a rebellion. Punishments
for runaway slaves became harsher and included dismemberment. The law required a
master to prove that a slave had performed ―meritorius service‖ in order to manumit the
said slave.
The colonial leaders placed a financial burden on the free black population when they
decided that free women of color over the age of sixteen were tithable (as they had been
between 1668 and 1705). In addition, the wife of a free black or a Native American man
was tithable. The only free black men allowed to own guns were those who lived on the
frontier and who needed guns for protection. The legislators decided that all free children
of color were to serve longer terms of servitude than did white children.
The legislators made this statute an instrument to maintain social control and stability.
They required churchwardens to read it in April and October of each year and to enter a
copy in each parish register. The sheriff of each county had to post the law at the
courthouse in June or July.
Ira Berlin notes that Virginia‘s ―social order required raw power to sustain it; and during
the early years of the eighteenth century, planters mobilized the apparatus of coercion in
the service of their new regime. In the previous century, maimings, brandings, and
beatings had occurred commonly, but the level of violence increased dramatically as
planters transformed the society with slaves into a slave society. Chesapeake slaves
faced the pillory, whipping post, and gallows far more frequently and in far larger
numbers than ever before. Even as planters employed the rod, the lash, the branding iron,

189

and the first with increased regularity, they invented new punishments that would
humiliate and demoralize as well as correct.‖
I. WHEREAS the laws now in force, for the better ordering and governing of
slaves, and for the speedy trial of such of them as commit capital crimes, are found
insufficient to restrain their tumultuous and unlawful meetings, or to punish the secret
plots and conspiracies carried on amongst them, and known only to such, as by the laws
now established, are not accounted legal evidence: And it being found necessary, that
some further provision be made, for detecting and punishing all such dangerous
combinations for the future,
II. Be it enacted, by the Lieutenant-Governor, Council, and Burgesses, of this
present General Assembly, and it is hereby enacted, by the authority of the same, That if
any number of negros, or other slaves, exceeding five, shall at any time hereafter consult,
advise, or conspire, to rebel or make insurrection, or shall plot or conspire the murder of
any person or persons whatsoever, every such consulting, plotting, or conspiring, shall be
adjudged and deemed felony; and the slave or slaves convicted thereof, in manner herein
after directed, shall suffer death, and be utterly excluded the benefit of clergy, and of all
laws made concerning the same.
III. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every slave
committing such offence, as, by the laws, ought to be punished with death, or loss of
member, shall be forthwith committed to the common goal of the county, within which
the said offence shall be committed, there to be safely kept; and that the sheriff of such
county, upon such commitment, shall forthwith certify the same, with the cause thereof,
to the Governor or Commander in Chief of this His Majesty‘s Colony and Dominion, for
the time being, who is thereupon desired and impowered to issue a commission of Oyer
and Terminer, to such persons as he shall think fit: Which persons, forthwith after the
receipt of such commission, are impowered and required to cause the offender to be
publicly arraigned and tried, at the court-house of the said county, and to take for
evidence, the confession of the offender, the oath of one or more credible witnesses, or
such testimony of Negros, Mulattos, or Indians, bond or free, with pregnant
circumstances, as to them shall seem convincing, without the solemnity of a jury: And the
offender being by them found guilty, to pass such judgment upon such offender, as the
law directs, for the like crimes; and on such judgment, to award execution.
IV. And to the end, such Negros, Mulattos, or Indians, not being christians, as
shall hereafter be produced as evidences, on the trial of any slave for capital crimes, may
be under the greater obligation to declare the truth, Be it enacted, That where any such
Negro, Mulatto, or Indian, shall upon due proof made, or pregnant circumstances
appearing before any county court within this colony, be found to have given a false
testimony, every such offender shall, without further trial, be ordered by the said court to
have one ear nailed to the pillory, and there to stand for the space of one hour, and then
the said ear to be cut off; and thereafter, the other ear nailed in like manner, and cut off, at
the expiration of one other hour; and moreover, to order every such offender thirty-nine
lashes, well laid on, on his or her bare back, at the common whipping-post.
V. And be it further enacted, That at every such trial of slaves committing capital
offences, the person who shall be first named in the commission, sitting on such trial,
shall, before the examination of every Negro, Mulatto, or Indian, not being a christain,

190

charge such evidence to declare the truth; which charge shall be in the words following,
viz:
‗YOU are brought hither as a witness; and, by the direction of the law, I am to tell
you, before you give your evidence, that you must tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth; and that if it be found hereafter, that you tell a lie, and give false
testimony in this matter, you must, for so doing, have both your ears nailed to the pillory,
and cut off, and receive thirty-nine lashes on your bare back, well laid on, at the common
whipping-post.‘
VI. Provided always, and it is hereby intended, That the master or owner of any
slave, to be arraigned and tried, by virtue of this act, may appear at the trial, and make
what just defence he can for such slave, so that such defence do not relate to any
formality in the proceedings on the trial.
VII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby
enacted, That when any slave shall be convicted, by virtue of this act, the commissioners
that shall sit on trial, shall put a valuation in money, upon such slave so convicted, and
certify such valuation to the next assembly, that the said assembly may be enabled to
make a suitable allowance thereupon to the master or owner of such slave.
VIII. And whereas many inconveniences have arisen, by the meetings of great
numbers of negros and other slaves: For the prevention thereof, Be it enacted, by the
authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That from henceforth no meetings of
negros, or other slaves, be allowed, on any pretence whatsoever, (except as is hereafter
excepted.) And that every master, owner, or overseer of any plantation, who shall,
knowingly or willingly, permit any such meetings, or suffer more than five negros or
slaves, other than the negros or slaves belonging to his, her, or their plantations or
quarters, to be and remain upon any plantation or quarter, at any one time, shall forfeit
and pay the sum of five shillings, or fifty pounds of tobacco, for each negro or slave, over
and above such number, that shall at any time hereafter so unlawfully meet or assemble,
on his, her, or their plantation, to the informer: To be recovered, with costs, before any
justice of the peace of the county where such offence shall be committed.
IX. Provided always, That nothing herein contained, shall be construed to
restrain the negros, or other slaves, belonging to one and the same owner, and seated at
distinct quarters or plantations, to meet, by the license of such owner, or his or her
overseer, at any of the quarters or plantations to such owner belonging; nor to restrain the
meeting of any number of slaves, on their owner‘s or overseer‘s business, at any public
mill, so as such meeting be not in the night, or on a Sunday; nor to restrain their meeting
on any other lawful occasion, by the licence, in writing, of their master, mistress, or
overseers; nor to prohibit any slaves repairing to and meeting at church to attend divine
service, on the lord‘s day, or at any other time set apart by lawful authority, for public
worship: But that all and every such meetings, shall be accounted lawful meetings; any
thing in this act contained to the contrary thereo notwithstanding.
X. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That if any white person,
free negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time hereafter be found in company with any
such slaves, at any such unlawful meetings, as aforesaid, or harbor or entertain any negro,
or other slave whatsoever, without the consent of their owners, he, she, or they, so

191

offending, upon being thereof lawfully convicted, shall forfeit and pay the sum of fifteen
shillings, or one hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco, to the informer: To be recovered,
with costs, before any justice of the peace; and upon failure to make present paiment,
shall have and receive, on his, her, or their bare backs, for every such offence, twenty
lashes, well laid on. And every negro, mulatto, or indian slave, who shall come or
assemble to such unlawful meetings, shall, upon information thereof made to any justice
of the peace of the county where such offence shall be committed, for every such offence,
have and receive, on his or her bare back, any number of lashes, not exceeding thirtynine.
XI. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That every justice of the peace of any county wherein such unlawful meetings shall
happen, upon his own knowledge, or upon information thereof to him made, within ten
days after such offence committed, shall forthwith issue his warrant to apprehend all such
persons, who so met or assembled, and cause such offenders to be brought before him, or
some other justice of the peace of the said county:—And that every such justice, who
shall fail in his duty herein, shall forfeit and pay the sum of fifty shillings, or five hundred
pounds of tobacco, for every such offence.
XII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every sheriff,
under-sheriff, or constable, who, upon his or their own knowledge, or upon information
thereof to him or them made, of any such unlawful meetings, as aforesaid, shall fail
forthwith to endeavour to suppress and disperse the same, and to carry the offenders
before some justice of the peace, in order for the said offenders to receive due
punishment, the sheriff, for every offence by him committed, shall forfeit and pay the
sum of fifty shillings, or five hundred pounds of tobacco: Both which several fines, of
fifty shillings, or five hundred pounds of tobacco, herein before-mentioned, shall be to
the informer; and may be recovered, with costs, in any court or courts of record within
this colony and dominion, by action of debt, bill, plaint or information, wherein no
essoin, protection, or wager of law, shall be allowed, or any more than one imparlance.
And the under sheriff, or constable, failing to perform his or their duty herein, for every
offence by him or them committed, shall forfeit and pay twenty shillings, or two hundred
pounds of tobacco, to the informer: To be recovered, with costs, before any justice of the
peace of the county where such offence shall be committed.
XIII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That if any negro,
mulatto, or Indian slave, shall at any time hereafter presume to come and be upon the
plantation of any person or persons whatsoever, without the leave or consent, in writing,
or his or her master, owner, or overseer, and without the consent and approbation of the
owner of overseer of such plantation, it shall and may be lawful to and for the master,
owner, or overseer of any such plantation or quarter, to correct and give such slave or
slaves ten lashes, well laid on, on his or her bare back, for every such offence.
XIV. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That no negro,
mulatto, or Indian whatsoever; (except as is hereafter excepted,) shall hereafter presume
to keep, or carry any gun, powder, shot, or any club, or other weapon whatsoever,
offensive or defensive; but that every gun, and all powder and shot, and every such club
or weapon. as aforesaid, found or taken in the hands, custody, or possession of any such
negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall be taken away; and upon due proof thereof made, before
any justice of the peace of the county where such offence shall be committed, be forfeited

192

to the seisor and informer, and moreover, every such negro, mulatto, or Indian, in whose
hands, custody, or possession, the same shall be found, shall, by order of the said justice,
have and receive any number of lashes, not exceeding thirty-nine, well laid on, on his or
her bare back, for every such offence.
XV. Provided nevertheless, That every free negro, mulatto, or indian, being a
house-keeper, or listed in the militia, may be permitted to keep one gun, powder, and
shot; and that those who are not house-keepers, nor listed in the militia aforesaid, who are
now possessed of any gun, powder, shot, or any weapon, offensive or defensive, may sell
and dispose thereof, at any time before the last day of October next ensuing. And that all
negros, mullattos, or indians, bond or free, living at any frontier plantation, be permitted
to keep and use guns, powder, and shot, or other weapons, offensive or defensive; having
first obtained a licence for the same, from some justice of the peace of the county
wherein such plantations lie; the said licence to be had and obtained, upon the application
of such free negros, mullattos, or indians, or of the owner or owners of such as are slaves;
any thing herein contained to the contrary thereof, in any wise, notwithstanding.
XVI. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That if in dispersing of
any unlawful assemblies, pursuit of rebels or conspirators, or seizing the arms and
ammunition of such as are prohibited by this act, to keep the same, any slave shall happen
to be killed or destroied, the court of the county where such slave shall be killed, upon
application of the owner of such slave, and due proof thereof made, shall put a valuation
in money, upon such slave so killed, and certify such valuation to the next session of
assembly, that the said assembly may be enabled to make a suitable allowance thereupon
to the master or owner of such slave,
XVII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That no negro,
mullatto, or indian slaves, shall be set free, upon any pretence whatsoever, except for
some meritorious services, to be adjudged and allowed by the governor and council, for
the time being, and a licence thereupon first had and obtained.—And that, where any
slave shall be set free by his master or owner, otherwise than is herein before directed, it
shall and may be lawful for the churchwardens of the parish, wherein such negro,
mullatto, or indian, shall reside for the space of one month, next after his or her being set
free, and they are hereby authorized and required, to take up, and sell the said negro,
mullatto, or indian, as slaves, at the next court held for the said county, by public outcry;
and that the monies arising by such sale, shall be applied to the use of the said parish, by
the vestry thereof.
XVIII. And forasmuch, as the act passed in the fourth year of the reign of her late
Majesty Queen Anne, intituled, An act concerning servants and slaves, whereby power is
given to the county court, to order the dismembring of incorrigible runaways and other
slaves, hath not had the intended effect, by reason of some misconstructions of the
powers thereby granted, Be it enacted, That where any slaves shall hereafter be found
notoriously guilty of going abroad in the night, or running away, and lying out, and
cannot be reclaimed from such disorderly courses, by the common methods of
punishment, it shall and may be lawful, to and for the court of the county, upon complaint
and proof thereof to them made, by the owner of such slave, to order and direct every
such slave to be punished, by dismembring, or any other way, not touching life, as the
said county court shall think fit.

193

XIX. And, for preventing all doubts which may arise, upon the construction of
this, or any other act of assembly of this colony, touching the death of slaves under
correction, or lawful punishment, Be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That if any
slave shall happen to die by means of such dismembring, by order of the county court, or
for or by reason of any stroke or blow given, during his or her correction; by his or her
owner, for any offence by such slave committed, or for or by reason of any accidental
blow whatsoever, given by such owner; no person concerned in such dismembring
correction, or accidental homicide, shall undergo any prosecution or punishment for the
same; unless upon examination before the county court, it shall be proved, by the oath of
one lawful and credible witness, at the least, that such slave was killed wilfully,
maliciously, or designedly; neither shall any person whatsoever, who shall be indicted for
the murder of any slave, and upon trail, shall be found guilty only of manslaughter, incur
any forfeiture or punishment for such offence or misfortune.
XX. Provided always, That nothing herein contained, shall be construed, deemed,
or taken, to defeat or barr the action of any person or persons, whose slave or slaves shall
happen to be killed by any other person whatsoever, or whose slaves shall happen to die
thro‘ the negligence of any surgeon, or other person, undertaking the dismembring or
cure of such slave, liable to such punishment by this act: But that all and every owner or
owners of such slave or slaves, shall and may bring his or her action, for recovery of
damages for such slave or slaves so killed or dying, as if this act had never been made.
XXI. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That all free negros,
mullattos, or indians, (except tributary indians to this government) male and female,
above the age of sixteen years, and all wives of such negros, mullattos, or indians,
(except before excepted) shall be deemed and accounted tithables; any law, custom, or
usage, to the contrary, in any wise, notwithstanding.
XXII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That where any
female mullatto, or indian, by law obliged to serve ‘till the age of thirty or thirty-one
years, shall during the time of her servitude, have any child born of her body, every such
child shall serve the master or mistress of such mullatto or indian, until it shall attain the
same age the mother of such child was obliged by law to serve unto.
XXIII. And be if further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby
enacted and declared, That no free negro, mullatto, or indian whatsoever, shall hereafter
have any vote at the election of burgesses, or any other election whatsoever.
XXIV. And be it further enacted, That the churchwardens of each parish, within
this his Majesty‘s colony and dominion, at the charge of their parish, shall provide a true
copy of this act, and cause entry thereof to be made in the register book of each parish;
and shall, on some Sunday in the months of April and October, yearly, after divine
service ended, at the door of every church and chapel in their parish, publicly read the
same. And the sheriff of each county shall, at the court held for the county, in the months
of June or July, yearly, publish this act, at the door of the courthouse of the said county.
And every churchwarden and sheriff making default herein, shall, for each time so
offending, forfeit and pay five hundred pounds of tobacco, to the informer: To be
recovered, with costs, by action of debt, in any court or courts of record within this
colony and dominion. And the minister or reader making default herein, shall, for each
time so offending, forfeit and pay two hundred pounds of tobacco, to the informer: To be

194

recovered, with costs, before any justice of the peace of the county wherein such default
shall happen.
XXV. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby
enacted, That the act of assembly, made in the fourth year of the reign of our late
sovereign lady Queen Anne, intituled, An act for the speedy and easy prosecution of
Slaves committing capital crimes, be from henceforth repealed and made void, to all
intents, constructions, and purposes.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, p. 115; Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large,
4:126-134. See also ibid., 6:40-42 (1748) and ibid., 7:519-520 (1762).
1723—Response of Richard West, the Lords Commissioners‘ Legal Council
Kathleen Brown summarizes Richard West‘s reaction to the 1723 statute that placed
numerous restrictions on Virginia‘s slave and free black populations.
Although all of these laws departed from English legal precedent to some degree,
the disenfranchisement of free men under the clause, ―No free negro, mulatto or indian
shall vote at any election,‖ constituted the 1723 Assembly‘s boldest legal innovation.
Reviewing the law soon after its passage, the Lords Commissioners‘ legal council
Richard West found the abridgment of rights unacceptable. ―Altho I agree that Slaves are
to be treated in such a manner as the proprietors of them (having a regard to their
number) may think necessary for their security,‖ wrote West, ―Yet I cannot see why one
freeman should be used worse than another meerly upon account of his Complexion.‖
West‘s main objection to the clause concerned the potential injustice to free men
of the propertyholding class. ―To vote at Elections of Officers…is incident to every
freeman who is possessed of a Certain proportion of property,‖ insisted West. ―When
severall Negroes have merited their Freedom and obtained it and by their industry have
acquired that proportion of property so that the above mentioned incedentall Rights of
liberty are actually vested in them,‖ West argued, there was no legal ground for excluding
them from political rights.
West‘s articulation of this objection revealed the degree to which Virginia‘s
planters had departed from English tradition to embrace race, rather than class, as the
mainspring of social control. In a strongly worded statement, West condemned the
statute:
For my own part I am perswaded that it cannot be just by a generall Law without
any allegation of Crime or other demerit whatsoever to strip all free persons of
black Complexion (some of whom may perhaps be of Considerable substance)
from those Rights which are so justly valuable to every Freeman.
The Lords Commissioners failed to take immediate action upon West‘s arguments,
however, and, in the absence of any dissent in Virginia, the law remained unchallenged
for another twelve years.

195

Source: Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs, pp. 219-220.

1724—Questionnaire of Edmund Gibson
Slave owners in colonial Virginia had mixed feelings about introducing Christianity to
their slaves: many feared that the egalitarian message of the Bible would make their
workers unruly; others were indifferent to the spiritual needs of African-Americans; still
others saw to it that their slaves received religious instruction. Slaves‘ reaction to
Christianity also varied. Many were baptized and instructed in the Anglican way; others
were unmoved by the formality of the Anglican church or unable to reconcile the
Christian message with slavery.
Edmund Gibson, the Bishop of London, took an active role in the Anglican Church‘s
missionary efforts. One of the inquiries in his 1724 questionnaire to Virginia clergy was
―Are there any Infidels, bond or free, within your Parish; and what means are used for
their conversion?‖ Only one or two ministers who responded to the questionnaire told
Gibson that they did not try to convert the slaves owned by their parishoners.
John Warden of Lawns Creek, Surry County: "some masters will have their slaves
baptised and others will not, by reason that they will not be sureties for them in Baptism.
If the slaves live not afar off, they come to Church and Chappel."
Bartholomew Yates, Middlesex County: "some few [slaves] that have been born here
when of teachable disposition and their Masters allowing them time to come to me, upon
instruction and examination, have been publicly baptised and also some children of such
who have had baptism some also every Sunday attend at Church."
John Cargill, Southwark Parish, Surry County: "As to the negro Slaves there are some of
their Masters on whom I do prevail to have them baptised and taught, but not many."
Alexander Scott, Stafford County: "the Children of [Negro Slaves] and those of them that
can speak and understand the English Language we instruct and baptise if permitted by
their Masters."
James Blair, Bruton Parish: "I encourage the baptising & catechising of such of them as
understand English [older children, adults?], and exhort their Masters to bring them to
Church and baptise the infant slaves when the Master or mistress become sureties."
Source: Perry, Historical Collections Relating to the American Colonial Church, 1:261318.

May 1726—ACT IV. An Act for amending the Act concerning Servants and Slaves; and
for the further preventing the clandestine transportation of Persons out of this Colony

196

The legislators amended the provisions for taking up runaway slaves who would not or
could not state the name of their owner. A runaway who would not provide a master‘s
name was to be held for two months in the jail in the county in which he or she was
captured. If an owner did not claim a slave within two months, the enslaved person was
to be taken to the Public Goal in Williamsburg. The public gaoler could hire out these
slaves with the permission of the General Court or the nearest county court. The money
from any hired slave would be used to pay for the costs of imprisonment.
III. Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor, Council, and Burgesses, of this
present General Assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That
from and after the publication of this act, all and every negro, or other person, who shall
be taken up, and brought before any justice of the peace, and cannot speak English, or
through obstinacy, will not declare the name of his or her owner, such justice shall, in
such case, and he is hereby required, by warrant under his hand, to commit the said
negro, slave, or runaway, to the goal of the county wherein he or she shall be taken up;
any former act, usage, or custom, to the contrary, in any wise, notwithstanding.
IV. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That the sheriff, or
under-sheriff of the county, to whose custody the said runaway shall be committed, shall
forthwith cause notice in writing of such commitment, to be set upon the courthouse door
of the said county, and there continued, during the space of two months; in which notice,
a full description of such ranaway, and his cloathing, shall be particularly set down; and
shall cause a copy of such notice to be sent to the clerk or reader of each church or chapel
within his county: Every which said clerk or reader is hereby required to make
publication thereof, by setting up the same in some open and convenient place near the
said church or chapel, on every Lord‘s day, during the space of two months from the date
thereof. And every sheriff failing to give such notice as herein is directed, shall forfeit
and pay five hundred pounds of tobacco. And every clerk or reader failing to publish
such notice as is before directed, shall for every such offence, forfeit and pay two
hundred pounds of tobacco: Which said several forfeitures shall and may be recovered,
with costs, in any court or courts of record in this dominion, by action of debt, bill, plaint,
or information; where no essoin, privilege, or protection, shall be allowed: The one
moiety whereof shall go to our sovereign lord the king, his heirs and successors, for and
towards the better support of this government, and the contingent charges thereof; and the
other moiety to the person who shall sue for the same.
V. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That if within the space
of two months, the owner of any such negro, slave, or runaway, cannot be known, or doth
not claim the same, that the sheriff of the said county, to whose custody such runaway
shall be committed, shall cause the said runaway to be delivered to the next constable, to
be by him conveyed to the next constable, and so from constable to constable, to the
public goal of this colony, after such manner, and to receive such punishment, as in the
said first recited act, is mentioned and directed.
VIII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That when any negro,
or runaway, as aforesaid, shall be delivered to the keeper of the public goal of this
country, by virtue of this act, and his master or owner cannot be known, it shall and may
be lawful for the keeper of the said goal, upon his application to the general court, or the

197

nearest county court to the said goal, with the consent of either of the said courts, to let
the said negro or runaway to hire to any person or persons whom they shall approve of;
for such sum or sums of money, or quantity of tobacco, and for such term or time as they
shall direct; and that out of the money or tobacco arising by such hire, all fees relating to
the taking up, imprisonment, and conveying to goal, and charges of maintaining such
negro or runaway, shall be first paid and discharged, and the overplus (if any shall be)
disposed of, as such court or courts (who shall order the said negro or runaway to be let
out to hire ) shall direct.
IX. Provided always, That when the owner of such runaway shall demand the
same, the person to whom such negro or runaway shall be let out to hire, shall forthwith
deliver the same into custody of the keeper of the public goal; and shall then also pay the
hire, in proportion to the time the said runaway hath served: And the keeper of the said
goal shall deliver the said runaway to his master or owner, he or she paying down all fees
and charges of taking up, imprisonment, conveying to goal, and maintaining such
runaway, in case the hire received for the service of the said runaway be not sufficient to
satisfy the same.
X. Provided also, That when the keeper of the said public goal shall, by the
direction of such court or courts, as aforesaid, let out any such negro or runaway to hire
to any person or persons whatsoever, the said keeper shall, at the time of his delivery,
cause a strong iron collar to be put on the neck of such negro or runaway, with the letters
(P. G.) stamped thereon; and that thereafter, the said keeper shall not be answerable for
any escape of the said negro or runaway.
XII. Be it enacted, That from and after the publication of this act, the fees and
allowances of the said sherifs and goalers, be as follow, that is to say: For the
commitment of every such negro, or runaway, to any county goal, the sheriff shall be
paid for his fee, the sum of one shilling, current money, or ten pounds of tobacco; and for
the keeping and maintaining him or her in goal for every twenty-four hours, the sum of
six pence, or five pounds of tobacco; and for his or her releasement, one shilling, or ten
pounds of tobacco:—And that the keeper of the public goal, for the commitment of every
such negro or runaway, shall be paid the sum of two shillings, current money, or twenty
pounds of tobacco; and for his or her keeping and maintaining in goal, for every twentyfour hours, the sum of six pence of like money, or five pounds of tobacco; and for his or
her releasement, the sum of two shillings of like money, or twenty pounds of tobacco,
and no more. And if any sheriff, in any county of this dominion, or the keeper of the
public goal, shall demand and take any greater fee or allowance, than is hereby before
appointed and allowed, for the services and maintenance aforesaid, or any of them, he or
they so offending, shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay to the party agrieved, the
sum of twenty shillings; and shall also refund and pay back to such party, all and every
sum of money or tobacco which such sheriff or goaler shall receive and take, over and
above the fees and allowances herein before appointed: Which said forfeiture of twenty
shillings, shall and may be recovered before any justice of the peace of the county where
such offence shall be committed.
XVI. And be it further enacted, That where any such negro or runaway shall be
committed to the public goal of the country, by virtue of this act, whose owners cannot be

198

known, as aforesaid, and shall happen to die there; in such case, all charges of the taking
up, keeping, and maintaining the said negro or runaway in goal, and all other charges
relating thereto, shall be defraied by the public.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 4:168-173. See also ibid., 6:44-48.

February 1727—ACT XI. An Act to explain and amend the Act, For declaring the Negro,
Mulatto, and Indian Slaves, within this Dominion, to be Real Estate; and part of one
other Act, intituled, An Act for the distribution of Intestates Estates, declaring Widows
Rights to their deceased Husbands Estates; and for securing Orphans Estates
This act clarified several provisions in the 1705 statute that declared slaves to be real
estate. A widow had nine months to renounce her husband‘s will if she was not satisfied
with her legacy. Also, a widow would receive her dower in her husband‘s slaves after
she gave up her claim to the rest of his estate.
I. WHEREAS the act, made in the fourth year of the reign of the late queen Anne,
declaring the Negro, Mulatto, and Indian Slaves, within this Dominion, to be Real Estate,
hath been found by experience very beneficial for the preservation and improvement of
estates in this colony, yet many mischiefs have arisen, from the various constructions,
and contrary judgments and opinions, which have been made and given thereupon,
whereby many people have been involved in law suits and controversies, which are still
like to increase: For remedy whereof, and to the end, the said act may be fully and clearly
explained and amended,
XI. And whereas, the true design of the said act, and the policy thereof, was and
is, to preserve slaves for the use and benefit of such persons to whom lands and
tenements shall descend, be given, or devised, for the better improvement of the same;
which cannot be done, according to the custom and method of improving estates in this
colony, without slaves; and therefore it may be very advantageous to estates, to establish
a method for settling slaves, and their increase, so as they may go and descend with lands
and tenements: to which end,
XII. Be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be
lawful for any person or persons whatsoever, by deed executed in his or their life times,
or by his or their last will and testament, wherein any lands and tenements shall hereafter
be settled, conveied, or devised, in fee tail, or for life or lives, to settle, convey, or devise
any slave or slaves; and in such deed or last will, to declare that such slave or slaves, and
their increase, so long as any of them shall be living, shall descend, pass, and go, as part
of the freehold to such person or persons to whom such lands and tenements shall be so
conveied or devised, and to whom the same shall from time to time descend and come;
and such declaration shall be good and effectual in law, to annex such slave or slaves to
the freehold and inheritance of such lands and tenements, and they, and their increase, so
long as any of them shall be living, shall descend, pass, and go, in possession, reversion,
and remainder, with such lands and tenements: Or where any person shall, by his deed
executed in his life time, or by his last will and testament in writing, settle, convey, or

199

devise any lands and tenements in fee tail, or for life or lives; and shall, in the same deed
or will, settle, convey, or devise any slave or slaves, with the same limitation or
limitations with which such lands and tenements shall be so settled, conveied, and
devised, such limitation or limitations shall amount to a declaration of the intent of the
party settling, conveying, or devising the same, that the same should be annexed to such
lands and tenements, and shall descend, pass, and go therewith, from time to time, as
aforesaid.
XIII. And where any person or persons now are, or hereafter shall be, seised of
lands or tenements in fee tail, it shall and may be lawful for such person or persons, by
deed executed in his or their life times, or by his or their last will and testament, to annex
to the same lands and tenements, all or any slave or slaves which such tenant in tail shall
during such his estate, purchase, acquire, or be possessed of; and to declare, that such
slave or slaves, and their increase, so long as any of them shall be living, shall descend,
pass, and go, in possession, reversion, or remainder, as part of the freehold, under the like
limitation or limitations with which such lands and tenements are or have been settled,
conveied, or devised: And such declaration shall be as effectual to annex the said slave or
slaves, and their increase, to such lands and tenements, as if the same had been settled,
conveied, or devised, by the same deed or will, whereby the estate in the said lands and
tenements was at first made and created.
XIV. But forasmuch as the greatest part of the visible estates of the inhabitants of
this colony, doth generally consist of slaves, and it may happen in future time, after
several descents of slaves so annexed to lands, as aforesaid, that many people may not be
acquainted with such settlements, and so creditors may be deceived and hindred in the
recovery of just debts: And moreover, to bind the property of slaves, so as they may not
be liable to the paiment of debts, must lessen, and in process of time, may destroy the
credit of the country.
XV. It is hereby provided and enacted, That notwithstanding any slave or slaves
shall be annexed, as aforesaid, to any lands and tenements settled, conveied, or devised,
in fee tail in possession or remainder, as aforesaid, such slave, or slaves, or their increase,
shall be liable to be taken in execution, and sold for the satisfying and paying the just
debts of the tenant in tail, for the time being. And such sale shall be good and effectual
against him or her, and his or her issue, and all other persons whatsoever, claiming under
such settlement.
XVI. Provided nevertheless, That if any person shall be hereafter possessed of
any slave or slaves, in right of his wife, which shall be so annexed to lands, as aforesaid,
such slave or slaves shall not be liable to be taken in execution, and sold for the satisfying
any debt of such husband, so as to bar the wife of any right which she may claim under
any settlement, made in pursuance of this act, after his death
XXI. Be it further declared and enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That when
any widow shall not be satisfied with the provision made for her by her husband‘s will, it
shall and may be lawful for such widow, within nine months after her husband‘s death,
before the court where such will shall be proved, or by deed executed in the presence of
two or more witnesses, to declare, that she will not accept, receive, or take the legacy or
legacies to her given and bequeathed, or any part thereof, and will renounce all benefit
and advantage which she might claim by such last will: And after such declaration, to

200

demand and recover her dower of all the slaves whereof her husband died possessed;
which she shall enjoy during her natural life: And after her death, or other determination
of that estate, the same shall go to the person or persons in whom the property thereof
would have vested, in case the dower had not been demanded: And moreover, such
widow shall have such share of the personal estate of her husband, as by the said act is
directed. But if such declaration be not made within the time before limited, she shall be
forever barr‘d to claim any other part of her husband‘s estate, than shall be given or
bequeathed by such last will.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 4:222-228; see also ibid., 4:281-287.

June 28, 1729—James Blair to Edmund Gibson
The Bishop of London, Edmund Gibson, learned that ministers tended to concentrate
their attention on the bond laborers born in Virginia or those individuals who were
imported to the colony at a young age. James Blair‘s June 28, 1729 letter to Gibson
indicates the process that an adult slave went through before he or she was baptized.
Your Lo'ps Letter concerning the Instruction of the Negroes has had this good effect, that
it has put several Masters and Mistresses upon the Instruction of them. And the Negroes
themselves in our Neighbourhood are very desirous to become Christians; and in order to
it come and give an Account of the Lords prayer, and the Creed and ten Commandments,
and so are baptized and frequent the Church; and the Negro children are now commonly
baptized. I doubt not some of the Negroes are sincere Converts; but the far greater part of
them little mind the serious part, only are in hopes that they shall meet with so much the
more respect, and that some time or other Christianity will help them to their freedom.
But I hope their very coming to church will in time infuse into them some better
principles than they have had.
Source: James Blair to the Bishop of London in Tate, The Negro in Eighteenth-Century
Williamsburg, pp. 73-74.

June 1729—Letter of Governor Gooch
Gooch apprised his superiors of the efforts of a group of slaves to form a runaway colony
in the mountains of western Virginia. Although they were captured, these slaves briefly
succeeded in taking advantage of the movement of westward settlement. The governor
also informed colonial authorities that he had purchased and freed an elderly slave in
return for disclosure of his treatment for venereal disease. Gooch sought to justify his
expenditure by underscoring that the remedy would ultimately contribute to the viability
of slavery by curing affected slaves.
Sometime after my Last a number of Negroes, about fifteen, belonging to a new
Plantation on the head of James River formed a Design to withdraw from their Master

201

and to fix themselves in the fastnesses of the neighbouring Mountains: They had found
means to get in their possession some Arms & Ammunition, and they took along with
them some provisions, their Cloaths, bedding and working Tools; but the Gentleman to
whom they belonged with a Party of Men made such a diligent pursuit after them that he
soon found them out in their new Settlement, a very obscure place among the Mountains,
where they had already begun to clear the Ground, and obliged them after exchanging a
shot or two by which one of the Slaves was wounded, to surrender and return back, and
so prevented for this time a design which might have proved dangerous to this Country,
as is that of the Negroes in Jamaica to the Inhabitants of that Island, Tho' this attempt has
happily been defeated, it ought nevertheless to awaken in us some effectual measures for
preventing the like hereafter, it being certain that a very small number of Negroes once
settled in those Parts, would very soon be encreas'd by the Accession of other Runaways
and prove dangerous Neighbours to our Frontier Inhabitants. To prevent this and many
other mischiefs I am training and exercising the Militia in the several Counties as the best
means to deter our Slaves from endeavouring to make their Escape, and to suppress them
if they should.
...
What I have to add I hope will not be unacceptable, since 'tis to inform your
Lordships that upon the Bruit of many wonderful Cures performed by a Negro Slave in
the most inveterate Venerial Distempers, I thought it might be of use to mankind, if by
any fair Method I could prevail upon him to discover to me the Means by which such
Cures were effected, which the Negro had for many years practiced in this Country, but
kept as a most profound Secrett; as the Fellow is very old, my endeavours were quicken'd
lest the Secrett should dye with him: therefore I immediately sent for him, and by good
words and a promise of setting him free, he has made an ample discovery of the whole,
which is not other than a Decoction of the Root and Barks I have sent over to a Phisitian,
that the Colledge may have the opportunity what effect it will have in England; and I
flatter myself, by the Ingenuity of the Learned in that Profession, it may be reduced into a
better draught than he makes of it, which they tell me is nauseous enough. the difference
of Climate may probably cause a difference in its operation; but there is not room to
doubt of its being a certain Remedy here, and of singular use among the Negroe's who are
frequently tainted with that Disease, (for I made a tryal of the things by the hands of a
Surgeon here, before I purchased his freedom, the whole charge of which costs the
Government about L60 ster) and is well worth the Price that has been paid for it, since we
know how to cure Slaves without the aid of Mercury, who were often ruined by the
unskillfulness of the Practitioners this Country affords. At the worst my Lords I hope it
will be deemed a laudable Attempt, and be an encouragement for one of Dr. Ratcliffe's
travelling Phisitians to take a tour into this part of the World, where there are many
valuable discoveries to be made, not to be mett with in France or Italy.
Source: Letter of William Gooch reprinted in Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 28 (1920): 299-300, 306.

202

1730s—Changes in the Slave Population in Virginia
Ira Berlin discusses the transformations that took place in Virginia‘s slave population
during the 1730s as the number of forced immigrants from Africa increased.
The transformation sped forward with increasing velocity in the 1730s. During
that decade, the number of forced immigrants averaged over 2,000 per year and
sometimes rose to twice that number, as slaves replaced indentured servants not only on
large plantations but on smaller units as well. Men and women with filed teeth, plaited
hair, and ritual scarification (which slaveowners called ―country markings‖ or ―negro
markings‖) were everywhere to be seen. Their music—particularly their drums—filled
the air with sounds that frightened European and European-American settlers, and their
pots, pipes, and other material effects left a distinctive mark on the landscape. An
Anglican missionary stationed in Delaware found ―difficulty of conversing with the
Majority of Negroes themselves,‖ because they have ―a language peculiar to themselves,
a wild and confused medley of Negro and corrupt English, which makes them very
unintelligible except to those who have conversed with them for many years.‖ The
language of black America turned from the creole lingua franca of the Atlantic world to
the languages of the African interior—most probably various dialects of Igbo. Whereas
Atlantic creoles had beaten on the door of the established churches to gain a modicum of
recognition, the new arrivals showed neither interest in nor knowledge of Christianity.
Their religious practices—probably polytheistic although sometimes Islamic—were
dismissed as idolatry and devil worship by the established clergy, who placed them
outside the pale of civilization as most white men and women understood it. Europeans
and European-Americans found the manner in which the new arrivals spoke, prayed,
married, and buried their dead to be foreign in ways the charter generations were not.
Africa had come to the Chesapeake.
The Africanization of slavery marked a sharp deterioration in the conditions of
slave life. With an eye for a quick profit, Chesapeake planters imported males and
females disproportionately, at a ratio of more than two to one, and by the end of the
seventeenth century this sharply skewed sex ratio manifested itself in the plantation
population. Such a sexual imbalance made it difficult for the newly arrived to establish
families, let alone maintain the deep lineages that had framed so much of their African
life. Since planters employed slave women much as they used slave men—dividing the
labor force by age and physical ability but rarely by sex—the special needs of women
during pregnancy went unaddressed, and this neglect undermined the ability of the slave
population to reproduce itself. Moreover, just as direct importation drove birth rates
down, it pushed mortality rates up, for the transatlantic journey left transplanted Africans
vulnerable to New World diseases. As long as the main source of slaves was the African
trade, fertility remained low and mortality high in the Chesapeake. Whereas Anthony
and Mary Johnson, like other members of the charter generations, had lived to see their
grandchildren, few of the newly arrived Africans would reproduce themselves. Indeed,
within a year of their arrival, one-quarter of all ―new Negroes,‖ as they were called,
would be dead.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, pp. 110-112.

203

July 20, 1730—James Blair to Edmund Gibson
Blair commented on the knowledge that some Williamsburg-area slaves had of the
catechism.
There is a very great number of Negroes lately instructed in the Church-catechism; at
least in the Lords prayer, the Apostles Creed and the ten Commandments, and baptized,
and great numbers of them frequent the Church. Some allege it makes them prouder, and
inspires them with thoughts of freedom; but I take this to be rather a common prejudice
than anything else.
Source: James Blair to the Bishop of London in Tate, The Negro in Eighteenth-Century
Williamsburg, p. 74.

May 28, 1731—Governor Gooch to Edmund Gibson
Gooch informed the Bishop of London about the unrest in Virginia the previous year.
The unrest grew out of a rumor that former Governor Spotswood had brought an order
from the Crown that would free all Christian slaves. Members of the militia imprisoned
the suspected leaders and helped to restore order. However, six weeks later, about 200
enslaved laborers from Norfolk and Princess Anne counties gathered at church and
elected officers to lead a rebellion. The four leaders were arrested and executed.
The governor also discussed a court case that involved Mary Aggy, an enslaved
woman owned by Ann Marot Sullivant of Williamburg. The York County Court
found Mary Aggy guilty of stealing from her master and sentenced her to hang.
When the justices asked her ―why sentence of death should not pass agt her for
the felony whereof she is found guilty, she thereupon prayed the benefit of the
Statute made in the third and fourth years of King William and Queen Mary to her
to be allowed; Whereupon the Court being in doubt what Judgmt to render in the
premises It is considered that the Indictment agt the prisoner at the Bar, and all
the proceedings therein be adjourned into and certified to the Honble the General
Court, to the end such Judmt may be given therein, as to the Judges of the sd
Court shall seem meet and that in the meantime the prisoner be remanded back to
the Goal.‖ Gooch became interested in her case and entered an application for
benefit of clergy for Mary Aggy.
The News in the Papers concerning the Negros was only from common Report,
for my Letters were lost in the Gooch frigate which sailed hence in September last, and
have not since been heard of. Numbers of these poor Creatures were taken up in all parts
of the Country for their unlawful Meetings and Examined, but no discovery could be
made of any formed Design of their Rising, only loose Discourses that an order from His
Majesty was brought in by Mr Spotswood to sett all those slaves free that were

204

Christians, and that the order was Suppressed. A Notion, in their Circumstances,
sufficient to incite them to Rebellion, were they Masters of a more peaceable Disposition
than generally they have: who the first Author of this Report was, I could never learn,
and the wickedness of it will not give me leave to Guess. However, keeping the Militia
to their Duty, by Imprisonment and severe whipping of the most Suspected, this
Disturbance was very soon Quashed, and until about six weeks afterwards we were easy;
when in the Countys of Norfolk & Princess Anne, the Negros, about two hundred of
them, had the assurance to assemble on a Sunday whilst the People were at Church, and
to chuse from among themselves officers to Command their intended Insurrection, which
was to have been put in Execution very soon after; But this Plot being happily
discovered, the Ringleaders were brought to a Tryal and four of them, on clear Evidence
Convicted, were Executed. By this means they are again very Quiet and Submissive, and
I hope convinced that their best way is to rest contented with their condition. But as we
could not be too much on our Guard against such desperate Combinations, I ordered the
Militia to carry their Arms to Church on Sundays, lest, the same mutinous Spirit
returning, they should be siezed by these poor wretches; and this they continued to do for
some time, but soon weary of well doing, it is now intirely dropt. What your Lordship
observes is of some Masters very true, they use their Negros no better than their Cattle,
and I can see no help for it: tho‘ far the greater Number, having kind masters, live much
better than our poor labouring Men in England.
If I am not mistaken, and many others who think as I do are not in the wrong, the
following story will Suprize your Lordship, to whose great judgment I submit myself.
But before I tell it, I must acquaint your Lordship that our Courts of Justice are, first the
General Court, held twice a year, in April & October, in which I and the council sitt
judges. Then the County Courts held in each County every Moneth, in which the Justices
of the respective Countys are the Judges. In these last Courts by a special Commission of
Oyer and Terminer directed to the Justices, all Negros Accused of criminal matters are
tried; and by a Law of the Country, not by Jurys, but according to Evidence, the Bench,
by putting the Question, finds them guilty or not Guilty.
In one of these Courts, in January last, a Negro woman Slave was tried for
stealing; and as I knew her to be a Christian (for not long before she had, upon some
pretence, I forget what, sued for her Freedom in the General Court, where she was
examined touching her Faith of which she have a tolerable account) I desired a Lawyer to
attend to the Tryal, and in case she was found Guilty to inform the Justices that
notwithstanding she was a Slave, it was my opinion, as a christian, she was Intitled to the
benefit of the Clergy; upon which after some little debate, for it was never Inquired into
before, the Question was put, and the judges were divided, so it was agreed to be deferr‘d
until another and a fuller Court. When a report was made to me of their Proceedings, and
fearing it might go against her if I left to be determined there, I advised with our ablest
Lawyers, and from the county court had it Adjourned into the General Court, resolving to
have this Matter argued in the most public manner by our best Lawyers, as a thing of
great consequence, by which all the courts in the country for the future should govern
themselves, and not doubting but it would be carried in favour of the Christian though a
black one; But when the Day of hearing came, notwithstanding four out of five of the
Gentlemen learned in the Law, of which number the King‘s Attorney General was one,
gave it as their opinion, supported by proper Arguments, that she had a Right to plead the

205

benefit of that statute, when I put the Question, we were divided here too, six and six; and
now it rests to be determined by the opinion of the Sollicitor & Attorney General in
England, which I shall send for as soon as our lawyers have drawn up a State of the Case
as they have directions to do, with the sense of the Laws of this Country, and political
reasons for and against it. But I can assure your Lordship that there is no Law against it,
if there is, I think it ought to be repealed: and for political reasons, they are of equal force
against white as black People being Christians. I shant trouble your Lordship with
particulars, but thought it my Duty to acquaint your Lordship with it, not knowing
whether Mr Commissary will do so or not, who was one of the judges.
Source: York County Orders and Wills (17) 113, (November 7, 1730), 114 (November
16, 1730), 123-124 (November 28, 1730); Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
32 (1924): 322-325.

Part III—Planters Intensify the Work of Slaves and
Legislators Continue to Restrict the Actions of Slaves and Free Blacks

Confined to the plantation, African slaves faced a new harsh work regimen as
planters escalated the demands they placed on those who worked the tobacco fields.
With the decline of white servitude, slaves could no longer take refuge in the standards
established for English servants. During the eighteenth century, slaves worked more days
and longer hours, under closer supervision and with greater regimentation, than servants
ever had in the seventeenth. Although the process of production changed but little during
the first third of the eighteenth century, slaveholders reduced the number of holidays to
three: Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide. Saturday became a full workday, and many
slaves worked Sunday as well. Planters shortened or eliminated the slaves‘ mid-day
break. In many places, planters extended the workday into the evening, requiring that
slaves grind corn and chop wood for their masters on their own time. Winter, previously
a slack season, became filled with an array of tasks, including grubbing stumps, cleaning
pastures, and repairing buildings. Shorter winter days did not save slaves from the new
regimen, as some planters required that they work at night, often by firelight.
Although they worked harder and longer than had English servants, African
slaves rarely received equivalent food, shelter, and medical attention. The customary
rights accorded English workers lost their meaning as the field force became increasingly
African. Slaves might protest, but their appeals stopped at the plantation‘s borders.
Whereas slaveholders in the seventeenth century had petitioned the courts to discipline
unruly slaves, in the eighteenth century they assumed near sovereignty over their
plantations. The masters‘ authority was rarely questioned, and, unlike white servants,
African slaves had no court of last resort.
…
As planters consolidated their power, they no longer looked at themselves as mere
patrons of their slaves and other subordinates, whose favors might be extended in return

206

for loyalty and labor. From their new place atop Chesapeake society, planters began to
spin out a vision of social relations that emphasized deference and authority. The
creation of the plantation regime transformed patronage into paternalism, and a new
sense of mastership emerged. The weight of tending numerous dependents reshaped the
planter‘s self-image as the metaphorical fathers, whose benevolence could elevate those
who accepted their rule and whose harsh retribution would humble those who challenged
it. ―I must take care to keep all my people to their Duty, to see all the Springs in motion
and make everyone draw his equal Share to carry the Machine forward,‖ wrote William
Byrd in 1726. The vision of themselves as prime movers, fathers writ large, became the
foundation of the planters‘ world.
The growth of the paternalist ideology meant many things for slaves, but its first
meaning was work. Regimented labor was all-encompassing. During the seventeenth
century, few planters had owned more than one or two laborers, and most had worked in
the field alongside their slaves and servants in a manner that necessarily promoted close
interactions. African importation and the general increase in the size of holdings
permitted planters—along with their wives and children—to withdraw from the fields.
They hired overseers to supervise their slaves and sometimes employed stewards to
supervise their overseers, dividing their workforce by age, sex, and ability. There were
few economies of scale in tobacco culture, and planters – believing close supervision
increased production—kept work units small by dividing their holdings into ―quarters.‖
But the small units rarely meant slaves worked alongside their owners. To squeeze more
labor from their workers, planters also reorganized their workforce into squads or gangs,
often placing agile young workers at the head of each gang. Rather than work at their
own pace, slaves found their toil subject to minute inspection, as planters or their minions
monitored the numerous tasks that tobacco cultivation necessitated. The demands placed
on slaves to work longer and harder grew steadily throughout the eighteenth century as
planters—particularly in the older, settled areas—encountered diminishing yields and
rising production costs. Slaves suffered as planters prospered from the increased
productivity, and the size of slave-grown crops far exceeded those previously brought to
market.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, pp. 116-117, 118-119.

May 1732—ACT VII. An Act for settling some doubts and differences of opinion, in
relation to the benefit of Clergy; for allowing the same to Women; and taking away of
Reading; and to disable certain Persons, therein mentioned, to be Witnesses
This statute extended the privilege of benefit of clergy to women and, with some
limitations, to slaves. At the same time, the legislation placed a further restriction on all
people of color—a black or Native American, whether free or enslaved, could only
provide testimony in the case of a slave accused of a capital offense.
IV. And whereas a question hath lately arisen, touching the right of negros, to the
benefit of clergy: For the determination thereof, Be it further enacted, That when any
negro, mulatto, or Indian whatsoever, shall be convicted of any offence within the benefit

207

of clergy, judgment of death shall not be given against him or her, upon such conviction;
but he or she, shall be burnt in the hand in open court, by the jailor, and suffer such other
corporal punishment, as the court shall think fit to inflict; except where such negro,
mulatto, or Indian shall be convicted of manslaughter, or the felonious breaking and
entring in the day-time any house, and taking from thence any goods or chattels
whatsoever, to the value of five shillings sterling; and where he or she hath once had the
benefit of this act; and in those cases, such negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall suffer death,
and be excluded from the benefit of this act.
V. And whereas negros, mulattos, and Indians, have lately been frequently
allowed to give testimony as lawful witnesses in the general court, and other courts of
this colony, when they have professed themselves to be christians, and been able to give
some account of the principles of the christian religion: But forasmuch as they are people
of such base and corrupt natures, that the credit of their testimony cannot be certainly
depended upon, and some juries have altogether rejected their evidence, and others have
given full credit thereto: For preventing the mischiefs that may possibly happen by
admitting such precarious evidence,
VI. Be it further enacted, That no negro, mulatto, or indian, either a slave or free,
shall hereafter be admitted in any court of this colony, to be sworn as a witness, or give
evidence in any cause whatsoever, except upon the trial of a slave, for a capital offence;
in which case they shall be allowed to give evidence, in the manner directed by one act of
assembly, made in the ninth year of the reign of the late king George, intituled, An Act
directing the trial of Slaves committing Capital Crimes; and for the more effectual
punishing Conspiracies and Insurrections of them; and for the better government of
Negros, Mulattos, and Indians, bond or free.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 4:326-327.

May 18, 1736—Governor Gooch Responds to the Lords Commissioners
After a belated review of Richard West‘s objections to the restrictions placed on free
blacks in 1723, the Lords Commissioners asked Gooch for an explanation of the
legislation. Kathleen Brown discusses Gooch‘s reply in the following selection.
Gooch explained that ―free Negroes and Mulattoes were much suspected‖ to have been
involved in the 1722 conspiracy, noting that this ―will for ever be the case.‖ He admitted,
however, that ―there could be no legal Proof, so as to Convict them.‖ Instead, he found
justification for the law in the presumptions of free black people to equality with white
freemen:
Such was the Insolence of the Free Negros at that time, that the next Assembly
thought it necessary, not only to make the meetings of slaves very Penal, but to
fix a perpetual Brand upon Free Negros and Mulattos by excluding them from
that great Priviledge of a Freeman.

208

He also observed a central assumption of the legal restrictions, that free blacks and
mulattoes ―always did, and ever will adhere to and favour the slaves.‖
Gooch then offered a stunning summary of white attitudes toward free black
people in which class, illegitimate birth, and the taint of slavery all factored in their
inferior status:
[The] design, which I must think a good one, [is] to make the free Negros
sensible that a distinction ought to be made between their offspring and the
Descendants of an Englishman, with whom they never were to be accounted
Equal. This, I confess, may seem to carry an air of Severity to such as are
unacquainted with the Nature of Negros, and the Pride of a manumitted slave,
who looks on himself imediately on his acquiring his freedom to be as good a
man as the best of his Neighbours, but especially if he is descended of a white
Father or Mother, lett them be of what mean Condition soever; and as most of
them are the Bastards of some of the worst of our imported servants and convicts,
it seems no ways Impolitick, as such for discouraging that kind of Copulation, as
to preserve a decent Distinction between them and their Betters, to leave this mark
on them, until time and Education has changed the Indication of their spurious
Extraction, and made some Alteration in their morals.
Source: Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs, p. 221.

July 17, 1736—William Byrd II to the Earl of Egmont
Byrd II informed the Earl of Egmont that he supported an end to the importation of slaves
into Virginia. Byrd‘s reasons for his decision include the negative influence of slavery
on whites and the possibility of slave uprisings. The tone of this letter is in contrast to the
letter Byrd wrote to the Earl of Arrery in 1726 that appears in the ―Daily Life‖ section of
this resource book.
Byrd II did not mention that he owned enough slaves to tend the fields on his plantation,
and did not need to import additional laborers. Byrd II left the majority of his estate to
his son, William Byrd III, when he died in August 1744. Entries that Byrd III made in
his 1757-1758 Memorandum Book indicate that he had 605 slaves: seventy slaves at
Westover, 272 at Roanoke, and 263 at the Falls Plantation.
Your Lord‘ps opinion concerning Rum and Negros is certainly very just, and your
excludeing both of them from Your Colony of Georgia will be very happy . . . .
I wish my Lord we coud be blesst with the same Prohibition. They import so
many Negros hither, that I fear this Colony will some time or other be confirmd by the
Name of New Guinea. I am sensible of many bad consequences of multiplying these
Ethiopians amongst us. They blow up the pride, and ruin the Industry of our White
People, who seing a Rank of poor Creatures below them, detest work for fear it shoud
make them look like Slaves. Then that poverty which will ever attend upon Idleness,

209

disposes them as much to pilfer as it dos the Portuguese, who account it much more like a
Gentleman to steal, than to dirty their hands with Labour of any kind.
Another unhappy Effect of Many Negros is the necessity of being severe.
Numbers make them insolent, and then foul Means must do what fair will not. We have
however nothing like the Inhumanity here that is practiced in the Islands, and God forbid
we ever shoud. But these base Tempers require to be rid with a tort Rein, or they will be
apt to throw their Rider. Yet even this is terrible to a good naturd Man, who must submit
to be either a Fool or a Fury. And this will be more our unhappy case, the more Negros
are increast amongst us.
But these private mischeifs are nothing if compard to the publick danger. We
have already at least 10,000 Men of these descendants of Ham fit to bear Arms, and their
Numbers increase every day as well by birth as Importation. And in case there shoud
arise a Man of desperate courage amongst us, exasperated by a desperate fortune, he
might with more advantage than Cataline kindle a Servile War. Such a man might be
dreadfully mischeivous before any opposition could be formd against him, and tinge our
Rivers as wide as they are with blood, besides the Calamity which woud be brought upon
us by such an Attempt, it woud cost our Mother Country many a fair Million to make us
as profitable as we are at present.
It were therefore worth the consideration of a British Parliament, My Lord, to put
an end to this unchristian Traffick of makeing Merchandize of Our Fellow Creatures. At
least the farther Importation of them in Our Colonys shoud be prohibited lest they prove
as troublesome and dangerous everywhere, as they have been lately in Jamaica, where
besides a vast expence of Mony, they have cost the lives of many of his Majesty‘s
Subjects. We have mountains in Virginia too, to which they may retire as safely, and do
as much mischeif as they do in Jamaica. All these matters duly considerd, I wonder the
Legislature will Indulge a few ravenous Traders to the danger of the Publick safety, and
such Traders as woud freely sell their Fathers, their Elder Brothers, and even the Wives
of their bosomes, if they coud black their faces and get anything by them.
Source: William Byrd III Memorandum Book, 1757-1758 (CWF Microfilm M-97);
Donnan, ed., Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America, 4:131132.

November 1738—ACT II. An Act, for the better Regulation of the Militia
Governor Gooch‘s August 1736 address to the Burgesses reflects the uneasiness that
lingered in Virginia after the 1730 slave unrest and rebellion. Gooch told the Burgesses
that he believed that the militia needed to have stronger regulations. More stringent rules
would ―render it more powerful for Preventing Insurrections of Slaves; and also, the
making of some Provision for the Ease of poor House-keepers, who are unable to
purchase Arms for themselves. Such a Bill deserves your Attention, when so many
Negros are brought into the Country; and I earnestly offer it to your Consideration.‖ The
November 1738 statute established a system of slave patrols.

210

VIII. And further, it shall and may be lawful, for the chief officer of the militia, in
every county, to order all persons listed therein, to go armed to their respective parish
churches; and some time before the tenth of June yearly, to appoint an officer, and four
men, of the militia, at such times and seasons as he shall think proper, to patrol, and visit
all negro quarters, and other places suspected of entertaining unlawful assemblies of
slaves, servants, or other disorderly persons. And such patrollers shall have full power
and authority, to take up any such slaves, servants, or disorderly persons, so as aforesaid
unlawfully assembled, or any other, strolling about from one plantation to another,
without a pass from his or her master, mistress, or overseer, and to carry them before the
next justice of the peace; who is to order every such slave, servant, stroller, or other
disorderly person, as aforesaid, to receive any number of lashes, not exceeding twenty, on
his or her bare back, well laid on: And in case one company of patrollers shall not be
sufficient, to order more companies, consisting of the same number. And such patrollers
shall be exempted from attendance at private musters, and from the paiment of all public,
county, and parish levies, for their own persons, for those years in which they shall be
emploied in that service.
Source: McIlwaine, et al., eds., Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1727-1740, p. 243;
Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 5:16-17, 19, 22-23. See also McIlwaine, et al., eds.,
Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, 4:383, 470-471 (Gooch‘s
proclamation of October 29, 1736—―A Proclamation for the more effectual putting in
Execution the Laws concerning the Militia: And for preventing the unlawful Concourse
of Negroes, and other slaves‖).

1740 to 1750—Estimated Population of the Chesapeake Colonies (in Thousands)
Total

Total

Total

Year

Maryland

Virginia

Whites

Blacks

Population

1740
1750

116.1
141.1

180.4
236.7

212.5
227.2

84.0
150.6

296.5
377.8

Source: McCusker and Menard, The Economy of British America, p. 136.

October 1748—ACT XIV. An Act concerning Servants, and Slaves
The colonial leaders consolidated all of the eighteenth-century legislation that focused on
runaway servants and slaves in this statute. They included a new requirement—the
keeper of the Public Gaol had to place an advertisement that described a runaway slave
(and his or her clothes) in the Virginia Gazette. The legislators also proscribed

211

punishment for a white person who purchased goods from a slave without the permission
of his or her master.
The King disallowed this statute in 1752.
X. And that no person whatsoever shall buy, sell, or receive of, to or from any
servant, or slave, any coin or commodity whatsoever, without the leave or consent of the
master or owner of such servant, or slave: And if any person shall presume to deal with
any servant, or slave, without such leave or consent, he or she so offending, shall be
imprisoned one calendar month, without bail or mainprize, and then remain in prison,
until he or she give sufficient security, in the sum of ten pounds current money, for the
good behaviour for one year following, wherein a second offence shall be a breach of the
bond; and moreover, such offender shall forfeit and pay four times the value of the thing
so bought, sold, or received, to the master or owner of such servant, or slave; to be
recovered with costs by action upon the case, in any county court of this dominion: And
when any person, convict as aforesaid, shall not immediately give such security, for the
good behavior, the court shall order thirty nine lashes, well laid on, upon the bare back of
such offender, at the common whipping post, and he or she to be thereupon discharged of
giving such bond and security.
XIV. And to encourage all persons to take up runaways, Be it further enacted, by
the authority aforesaid, That for every runaway servant, or slave, taken up ten miles, or
more, from his or her usual place of abode, the taker up shall be entitled to a reward of
two hundred pounds of tobacco; but if under ten, and above five miles, one hundred
pounds of tobacco; which shall be paid by the public, in the county where such taker up
resides, and be levied by the public upon the master or owner of the runaway: But the
taker up shall forthwith bring such runaway before a justice of peace, of the county where
he or she shall be taken, to be examined; and if thereupon such servant, or slave, appears
to be run away, the justice shall grant the taker up a certificate reciting his or her proper
name and surname, the county of his or her residence, the name of the runaway, the
proper name and surname of his or her owner, and the county wherein he or she resides,
the time and place when and where the runaway was taken, and the distance of miles, in
the judgment of the justice, from the house or quarter where the runaway was usually
kept; and such justice shall also issue his warrant to the next constable, requiring him to
receive such runaway, and give him or her such a number of lashes as the said justice
shall think fit to direct, not exceeding thirty nine, and then him or her to convey and
deliver to the next constable, and so from constable to constable, until the runaway be
delivered to his or her owner or overseer: And every constable to whom such runaway
and warrant shall be produced, shall execute the same, and give a receipt upon delivery of
the runaway to him, under penalty of forfeiting and paying two hundred pounds of
tobacco, to the churchwardens of the parish wherein such constable lives, recoverable
with costs, by action of debt, in any county court, to the use of such parish: But the
corporal punishment, herein before directed to be given to runaways, shall not deprive the
master or owner of any servant, from the satisfaction by this act required to be made by
servants for running away.

212

XV. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every negroe, or
other person, taken up and brought before a justice of peace, and who cannot, or will not,
declare the name of his or her owner, shall be committed to the goal of the county where
taken, by warrant under the hand of such justice; and the sheriff or goaler, to whose
custody such runaway shall be committed, shall forthwith cause notice thereof, and a
description of such runaway, and his or her cloathing, to be publickly affixed at the door
of the court-house, and there continued two months, if no owner appears within that time:
and shall also send a copy thereof to the clerk or reader of every church within his
county, to be by him published, and affixed in some open and convenient place near his
church, every Sunday during two months after the date thereof, unless the owner appear
sooner, under penalty of five hundred pounds of tobacco, on every sheriff or goaler, and
two hundred pounds of tobacco on every clerk or reader failing, one moiety to the king,
his heirs and successors, for the better support of this government and the contingent
charges thereof, the other moiety to the informer, recoverable with costs, by action of
debt, or information, in any county court: But such runaway shall be delivered to his or
her owner when demanded, he or she satisfying the sheriff‘s fees, and also two hundred
pounds of tobacco, or twenty shillings for the taking up: And that if within two months
after such commitment, no owner appears or claims, the sheriff shall deliver such
runaway to the next constable, to be conveyed from one constable to another, ‘til brought
to the public goal of this colony, and delivered to the keeper thereof, by such warrant, and
to receive such punishment as is herein before directed; and the said keeper is hereby
required to receive such runaway into his safe custody, and give a receipt, and shall also
publish advertisement, and a description of the person and cloaths, in the Virginia
Gazette, and continue the same three months, if no owner appears; and it shall be lawful
for the said keeper, upon application to the nearest county court to the said goal, with
consent of the said court, to let such runaway to hire, to any person by them approved of,
for money or tobacco, and for such term as shall be by them directed, and out of the hire
arising thereby, all charges for taking up, imprisonment, conveying to goal, maintaining,
and releasing such runaway, shall be first paid, and the overplus disposed of as such court
shall direct; bu the said keeper shall cause a strong iron collar, with the letters P. G.
stamped thereon, to be put on the neck of every runaway so hired out, at the time of
delivering him or her to the person hiring, which shall indemnify him from any escape
afterwards: and for every runaway so hired out, the keeper of the said public goal shall be
allowed one fee for commitment, and the same for releasement, and no more: and if any
such runaway shall happen to die in goal, the reward for taking up, and all other fees
incident, shall be defrayed by the public. Provided always, That when the owner of such
runaway shall demand him or her, the person of whom he or she was hired shall forthwith
deliver the same, in to the custody of the keeper of the public goal, and shall then also
pay the hire, in proportion to the time the runaway hath served; and if that be not
sufficient to satisfy all charges, the owner paying down the residue, shall have him or her
delivered.
XVI. But whereas the continuance of runaway slaves some time in the public
goal, may induce dishonest persons to pretend themselves owners, and thereby obtain
possession to the prejudice of the true owner, Be it therefore enacted, by the authority
aforesaid, That before any such slave shall be delivered by the keeper of the public goal,
the person claiming such slave, shall first apply to the court of the county where he

213

resides, and make proof of his having lost a slave, answering the description published by
the said keeper in the Gazette, and obtain certificate thereof, and also there give security
to answer all damages if it shall thereafter appear, that the slave he shall thereupon
receive from the said keeper, doth really belong to some other person: And on producing
such certificate to the keeper aforesaid, and making oath before the mayor, or some other
magistrate of Williamsburg, that the slave who shall be there present, is his, or the slave
of
for whom he appears, it shall be lawful for the said keeper, to
deliver the slave so described and sworn to, and not otherwise.
XVII. And if no owner shall appear to claim such runaway, the county court
shall, after the charges aforesaid are paid and satisfied, cause such runaway to be sold at
public auction, by the sheriff, and the money arising by the sale shall be paid to the
treasurer of this colony, and applied by him for the use of the public; but in case the
owner shall, at any time afterwards, prove his property in the said runaway, the said
treasurer shall repay him or her, the money so received, and be allowed the same in his
account.
XX. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every sheriff,
constable, or other officer, charged with conducting runaways, shall be, and is hereby
impowered to impress men and horses, where necessary, for the safe conveying the
person or persons wherewith he stands charged: And if such officer shall suffer such
runaway to escape, he shall be liable to the party grieved, for recovery of damages and
costs, at the common law.
XXI. And that the keeper of the public goal may demand and take, for the
commitment of every runaway, two shillings current money, or twenty pounds of
tobacco, and the same for releasement, and for every twenty four hours keeping him or
her in goal, six pence or five pounds of tobacco, and no more: And if he, or any sheriff,
or goaler, shall demand and take any other or greater fee, than is, or shall be by law
allowed for runaways, he or they so offending shall, for every such offence, forfeit and
pay twenty shillings to the party grieved, and shall also refund and pay back all money or
tobacco received over and above the legal fees, recoverable with costs before any justice
of peace, of the county where such offence shall be committed.
XXVII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That this act shall
commence and be in force from and immediately after the tenth day of June, which shall
be in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and fifty one.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 5:547-548, 550, 552-558.

October 1748—ACT XXXVIII. An Act directing the trial of Slaves committing capital
crimes; and for the more effectual punishing conspiracies and insurections of them; and
for the better government of negroes, mulattoes, and Indians, bond or free
This act represents the second time that the legislators consolidated legislation
concerning slaves and free blacks in the eighteenth century. They focused their attention
on slaves who prepared medicines without the permission of their masters. The colonial

214

leaders also increased the penalty for blacks who provided false testimony and decided to
allow a free black to testify against any person of color if the witness was a Christian.
III. And whereas many negroes, under pretence of practising physic, have
prepared and exhibited poisonous medicines, by which many persons have been
murdered, and others have languished under long and tedious indispositions, and it will
be difficult to detect such pernicious and dangerous practices, if they should be permitted
to exhibit any sort of medicine, Be it therefore further enacted, by the authority
aforesaid, That if any negroe, or other slave, shall prepare, exhibit, or administer any
medicine whatsoever, he, or she so offending, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and
suffer death without benefit of clergy.
IV. Provided always, That if it shall appear to the court before which such slave
shall be tried, that the medicine was not prepared, exhibited, or administered, with an ill
intent, nor attended with any bad consequences, such slave shall have the benefit of
clergy.
V. Provided also, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to extend to
any slave or slaves administering medicines, by his, or her master‘s or mistress‘s order, in
his, or her family, or the family of another, with the mutual consent of the owner of such
slave, and the master or mistress of such family.
VII. Provided always, That if at such trial the court be divided in opinion, whether
the accused be guilty, or not guilty, in that case, he, she, or they, shall be acquitted.
Provided also, That when judgment of death shall be passed upon any such offender,
there shall be ten days, at least, between the time of passing judgment, and the day of
execution, except in cases of conspiracy, insurrection, or rebellion.
IX. And to the end such negroes, mulattoes, or Indians, not being christians, as
shall be produced as evidences, on the trial of any slave for a capital crime, may be under
the greater obligation to declare the truth, It is hereby further enacted, That where any
such negroe, mulattoe, or Indian, shall be found, upon due proof made, or pregnant
circumstances appearing to any county court of this colony, to have given a false
testimony, every such offender shall, without further trial, be ordered by the said court to
have one ear nailed to the pillory, and there to stand for the space of one hour, and then
the said ear to be cut off, and thereafter the other ear nailed in like manner, and cut off at
the expiration of one other hour, and moreover, to receive thirty nine lashes on his, or her
bare back, well laid on, at the public whipping post; and at every such trial of slaves for
capital offences, the person first named in the commission, then sitting, shall, before the
examination of any negro, mulattoe, or Indian, not being a christian, charge such
evidence to declare the truth; which charge shall be in the words following, to wit.
You are brought hither as a witness, and by the direction of the law I am to tell
you, before you give your evidence, that you must tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth; and that if it be found hereafter, that you tell a lie, and give false
testimony in this matter, you must for so doing, have both your ears nailed to the pillory,
and cut off, and receive thirty nine lashes on your bare back, well laid on, at the common
whipping post.

215

XI. And for preventing the mischiefs that may happen by the corrupt and
precarious evidence of negroes, mulattoes, and indians, if they should be admitted as
lawful witnesses in courts of justice, It is hereby further enacted, That no negroe,
mulattoe, or indian, whether a slave, or free, shall be admitted in any court of record, or
before any magistrate of this colony, to be sworn as a witness, or give evidence in any
cause whatsoever, except upon the trial of a slave for a capital offence.
XII. Provided nevertheless, That any free negroe, mulattoe, or Indian, being a
christian, shall be admitted in any court, or before a justice of peace, to be sworn as a
witness, and give evidence, against or between any other negroes, mulattoes, or indians,
slave or free, in any cause, civil or criminal.
XVI. And that every justice of peace within this colony, upon his own knowledge
of such unlawful meeting, or information thereof to him made, within ten days after, shall
forthwith issue his warrant, to apprehend the persons so met, or assembled, and cause
them to be brought before himself, or any other justice of his county, to be dealt with as
this act directs; and every justice failing herein, shall forfeit and pay fifty shillings, or five
hundred pounds of tobacco, for every such failure; and every sheriff who shall fail, upon
knowledge, or information of such meeting, to endeavour to suppress the same, and bring
the offenders before some justice of peace, to receive due punishment, shall be liable to
the like penalty of fifty shillings, or five hundred pounds of tobacco; both which penalties
shall be to the informer, and recoverable with costs, by action of debt, in any county
court; and every under sheriff, or constable, who, upon knowledge, or information of
such meeting, shall fail to perform his duty in suppressing the same, and apprehending
the persons so assembled, shall forfeit and pay two hundred pounds of tobacco for every
such failure, to the informer, recoverable with costs, before any justice of the county
wherein such failure shall be.
XVIII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That no slave shall
go from the plantation, or seat of land whereon he, or she, is appointed to live, without a
certificate of leave, in writing, from his or her owner, or overseer, or by their express
order . . . .
XXI. And whereas many times slaves run away, and lie out hid, and lurking in
swamps, woods, and other obscure places, killing hogs, and committing other injuries, to
the inhabitants of this colony, Be it therefore further enacted, by the authority aforesaid,
That in all such cases, upon intelligence given of any slave‘s lying out, as aforesaid, any
two justices of the peace, one being the quorum, of the county wherein such slave is
supposed to lurk, or do mischief, shall be, and are impowered and required, to issue
proclamation against all such slaves, reciting their names, and owners names, if known,
and thereby requiring them, and every of them forthwith to surrender themselves; and
also impowering the sheriff of the said county, to take such power with him, as he shall
think fit, and necessary, for the effectual apprehending such out-lying slave, or slaves,
and go in search of them: Which proclamation shall be published on two sabbath days, at
the door of every church in the said county, by the clerk, or reader, immediately after
divine service; and in case any slave, against whom proclamation hath been thus issued,

216

and twice published at any church, as aforesaid, stay out, and do not immediately return
home, it shall be lawful for any person, or persons whatsoever, to kill and destroy such
slaves, by any ways or means, without accusation, or impeachment of any crime for the
same.
XXII. And that if any slave shall happen to be killed, in executing such
proclamation, as aforesaid, or in dispersing unlawful assemblies, pursuit of rebels, or
conspirators, or seizing the arms, or ammunition, of such as by this act are prohibited to
keep the same, the court of the county where such slave shall be so killed, upon
application of the owner, and due proof before them made, shall value the slave so killed,
and certify such valuation to the next session of Assembly, that a suitable allowance may
be made to the owner.
XXIII. And that where any slave shall happen to die, by reason of any stroke, or
blow given, during his, or her correction, by his, or her owner, or by reason of any
accidental blow whatsoever, given by such owner, no person concerned in such
correction, or accidental homocide, shall be liable to any prosecution, or punishment for
the same, unless upon examination before the county court, it shall be proved, by the oath
of at least one lawful and credible witness, that such slave was killed wilfully,
maliciously, or designedly; and no person indicted for murder of a slave, and upon trial
found guilty of manslaughter only, shall incur any forfeiture, or punishment, for such
offence, or misfortune.
XXIV. And that where any slave shall be notoriously guilty of going abroad in the
night, or running away, and laying out, and cannot be reclaimed from such disorderly
courses, by the common methods of punishment, it shall be lawful for the county court,
upon complaint, and proof thereof to them made, by the owner of such slave, to order and
direct such punishment, by dismembering, or any other way, not touching life, as such
court shall think fit: And if such slave shall die by means of such dismembering, no
forfeiture, or punishment, shall be thereby incurred.
XXVIII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That this act shall
commence and be in force from and immediately after the tenth day of June, which shall
be in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and fifty one.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 5:104-112.

1749—The Reverend William Willie to Dr. Cartwright of the Associates of Dr. Bray
The Reverend William Willie was the rector of Albemarle parish from 1738 until his
death in 1776. He also served as the acting commissary of the Bishop of London after
the death of James Horrocks in 1771. Willie‘s letter reflects his concerns over the
spiritual welfare of his parishioners‘ slaves.
…As for the Negro Children, them I baptize after the Congregation is dismiss‘d
(that I may give no offence). . . .
I take some pains to compare their State and Condition, in their native Country,
with that here, in the clearest Terms I can; & determine in favour of the latter; their

217

perpetual Bondage I likewise put the best face upon. –But you know, Sir, that he who
loses his Liberty, loses half his Virtue. Some time ago I brought back to the Church two
Anabaptists; & last Winter I baptiz‘d one man and two women, who had been brought up
Quakers. I am, Sir, a true and strict son of the Church of England; but I should think
myself much happier in convincing an Infidel, or reclaiming one notorious Sinner, than in
reconciling to our Church all the Sectaries in the Christian World.
I make no doubt, but that the Distribution and Reading of these books and tracts
from the Society will be attended with the Divine Blessing. This I can say, that those I
have given, with what I say upon giving, have had that happy Effect, as to encrease the
number of Communicants at several of the Churches in my Parish (and there are four)
from thirty (the number that us‘d to be, when I came into the Parish) to one hundred and
twenty, and one hundred and thirty at a time. And that God will be pleas‘d to give a
Blessing to the good Work, we are all engaged in, of promoting true Religion and Piety in
the World, is the Hearty Prayer of him who is, with humble Duty to the Society,
Source: Library of Congress, Dawson Papers, Miscellaneous Manuscripts.

1750s—Masters and Slaves Stuggle to Define Work Routines
During the first half of the eighteenth century slaves pushed their masters to acknowledge
the work routines that had been customary for enslaved men and women at the end of the
seventeenth century.
Initially, slaves secured some substantial gains. Slaves stabilized the workday,
which planters had stretched substantially beyond what had been customary during the
early years of the eighteenth century, and began the process of rolling back the number of
hours they were expected to labor. The planters‘ effort to counter their trend by
lengthening the number of hours spent in the fields or speeding the pace of labor elicited
immediate protests—sometimes in the form of shoddy work, broken tools, or increased
truancy. ―The Negroes are very unwilling to give up the principles they were allowed in
Wingfield‘s time,‖ reported the manager of a Virginia estate upon the appointment of a
new overseer. Slaves conspired to frustrate the new man, and finally determined to have
him ―turned off.‖ When the manager dismissed their complaints, they sent a delegation
directly to the master, so that eventually all conceded that the new man had to go. Such
small victories gave slaves a bit more control over their lives, and chastened those who
desired to increase plantation productivity.
During the middle years of the eighteenth century, slaves recovered some of the
prerogatives that members of the charter generations had taken for granted. The free
Sunday had become an entitlement rather than a privilege, so almost all Chesapeake
slaves had Sundays to themselves. According to a historian of eighteenth-century
Chesapeake agriculture, ―slaves had converted that practice into a right that could not be
violated arbitrarily.‖ Occasionally, slaves enjoyed part of Saturday as well. When
owners impinged upon the slaves‘ free days, they generally compensated them in time or
money.

218

Still, planters resisted, refusing to surrender the very essence of slavery‘s value.
To prevent slaves from elevating customary practices into entitlements and from
manufacturing yet additional rights, slaveholders sought to confine the slaves‘ economy.
They were especially adamant about the independent trading, as they understood how the
slaves‘ entry into the marketplace enlarged their understanding of the value of their own
labor and sharpened their appreciation of the planter‘s usurpation. Moreover, planters
were not above countering with new demands of their own—for example, requiring
slaves to process as well as grow tobacco and to manufacture candles and other
necessities for the Great House. The maturation of tobacco culture did not end the
contrast between master and slave; it only moved the struggle to new ground.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, pp. 133-134.

1750s—Plantation Reorganization and Urbanization
Ira Berlin dicusses changes in plantation organization, the growth of an artisan class,
urbanization, and slave hiring in the following selections from his book entitled Many
Thousands Gone.
The new terrain was defined by three related changes in Chesapeake society
during the middle years of the eighteenth century: the declining productivity of the older
tobacco regions, the rise of small grain production, and the growth of towns. Each of
these set in motion a series of other changes—the reorganization of plantations, the
growth of an artisan class, and the spread of slave hiring—that sometimes strengthened
the slaves‘ hand at the expense of their owners and sometimes strengthened the owners‘
hand at the expense of the slaves. Whatever the balance of power, the struggle between
masters and slaves—the continual renegotiation and contestation of the terms of life and
labor—both sped the transition of African to creole and opened new avenues of
resistance.
The same crisis that drove planters to the fresh tobacco lands of the piedmont also
encouraged them to experiment with other crops. In many parts of the Chesapeake,
tobacco—the universal staple in the seventeenth century—gave way to mixed cultivation
that combined tobacco with a variety of small grains, corn, forest products, and livestock.
The most dynamic element in the mix was wheat, which became increasingly attractive
as a series of European crop failures swelled demand for American foodstuffs. During
the 1720s planters—particularly those in the marginal tobacco areas—turned from
tobacco to cereal production. In some parts of the Chesapeake region, most notably the
eastern shore of Maryland and Virginia, planters eliminated tobacco from their repertoire
altogether. As demand for rye, oats, and especially wheat spiraled upward throughout the
Atlantic world, changes in the character of the Chesapeake‘s economy that had begun in
a few marginal tobacco areas during the third and fourth decades of the eighteenth
century became general. On the eve of the American Revolution, the value of cereal
production exceeded that of tobacco in many parts of the region.
The cultivation of wheat and other small grains transformed the nature of
agricultural labor and, with it, slavery. Whereas tobacco farming required season-long

219

labor, cereal agriculture employed workers steadily only during planting and harvesting.
Laborers had little to do with the crop the remainder of the year. They were hardly idle,
however, as grain cultivation also required a large, diverse, and skilled labor force to
transport the grain, market it, store it, mill it, and reship it as bulk grain, flour, or bread.
The wagons in which were shipped and the draft animals that pulled the wagons all
required maintenance. the presence of draft animals and other stock, in turn, produced
new tasks, as their hides could be tanned and fashioned into harnesses, bridles, saddles,
and shoes. Plantations dedicated to grain production not only fielded corps of wagoners
but also blacksmiths, saddlers, harness makers, tanners, and shoemakers. Artisans also
found employment in flour mills, iron foundries, weaving houses, and other
nonagricultural ventures.
…
Changes in the structure of the labor force resonated outside of the plantation.
Although many of the new enterprises that employed slave artisans were incorporated
into plantation life, particularly on the great estates, others were located in towns. The
Chesapeake, for the first time, developed a cadre of cities. Older administrative centers
like Annapolis and Williamsburg became home—or, sometimes, a second home—to an
increasingly affluent planter class. The newer cities depended on commerce to sustain
them. The first of these, Norfolk on the western shore of the Chesapeake and
Chestertown on the eastern shore, were centers of the grain trade, as were upstart towns
like Alexandria and Baltimore. With urbanization and the concomitant growth of
manufacturing, the demand for artisans and laborers outstripped the number of available
white men, many of whom saw opportunities in westward migration. The requirements
of urban employers drew additional slaves into the urban atmosphere.
The need for urban labor also created a market for hirelings, and the advent of
mixed agriculture with its peculiar seasonal rhythms encouraged rural slaveholders to
rent their slaves during slack time. Unlike those confined to the plantation, hired slaves
generally worked independently, outside the direction of an owner or overseer. Control
over their time also allowed hired slaves expanded opportunities to pursue their own
interests. Some hired themselves to do odd jobs, earning cash or receiving payment for
―overwork.‖ The general acceptance of jobbing opened the door for slaves to travel
freely, live on their own, and enjoy a measure of independence not possible in the rural
plantation regime.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, pp. 134-135, 136; see also ―1782 to 1810—
Slaves for Hire in Elizabeth City County‖ in the American Paradox section.
March 20, 1752—Letter from ―Philo-Bombastia‖
The unidentifed author of this letter advocated the end of slavery in Virginia, a position
that differed from that of most Virginians in the eighteenth century.

220

Thus I have shewn you that extensive Toleration, which is destin‘d to make us
wiser than our Mother County,—which will make England a Land of Slavery in
Comparison of Virginia for Liberty.—Liberty!—O charming Liberty! Sing Io Triumphe
to Liberty. Do not, pray Gentlemen, put such a Disgrace upon the Goddess, as to make
her come in at the Back-door, and then banish her behind the Mountain-Springs, which
send forth irriguous Streams from the Foot of the American Alps, as my Precursor so
sublimely proposes. No, let the Fore-door be thrown open to welcome her and her
Attendant Anarchy, and her Votaries of all Sorts;—make the Capes wider if possible, that
their Entrance may be render‘d as august as can be imagined, and a Fig for such narrow
Limits as the Lands of Missisippi;—let them revel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific,
and that you may be true Worshippers of Liberty make your Negroes as free as
yourselves. Then shall you be delivered from useless Lumber and publick Nuisances,—
Then shall you out-do Philadelphia for Variety of Peculiarities, and grow as rich as
Pennsylvania herself, without planting that sovereign Weed, which was never yet planted
in Pennsylvania.
It is therefore humbly submitted to the Legislature, whether the passing an Act to
admit all Persons of all Nations and Opinions, from all Parts of the World, to be
naturalized and tolerated, and to enjoy any Office in Church, or State, throughout the
Colony of Virginia, and to set all Slaves free in this Country of Liberty, would not be for
the publick Utility?—‘Tis probable some Petitions may be presented for this Purpose,
and this is only intended to introduce them.
Source: Virginia Gazette, March 20, 1752.
April 10, 1752—The Speech of ―Peter Limits‖ to the Speaker of the House of Burgesses
―Peter Limits‖ reflected the belief of some Virginians when he noted that slavery was evil
and that the institution had a bad influence on owners. This unidentified author did not
call for an end to slavery as ―Philo-Bombastia‖ did.
I AGREE with Mr. Telltruthia in his Reasoning on the Negroes, and Sectaries. They are
each of them, separately, Disease enough in any Government; but together, would
invigorate, and complete the Malignity of each other. Slaves are very capable, in Case of
War with a foreign Enemy, of being excited to revolt against their Masters; of which
Instances both ancient, and modern, if necessary, might be produced: They occasion
Habits of Pride, and Cruelty in their Owners; so that we seem to want nothing, but
religious Differences, and the mad Freaks of Enthusiasm, to divide us, to sharpen our
Spirits, to throw us into Confusion, to make us fall on, and tear one another to Pieces with
a most savage Fury; and finally to render us an easy Prey to any rival Power, who shall
either think us a Prize, or a fit Object to exercise their Resentment.
Source: Virginia Gazette, April 10, 1752.

November 1753—ACT VII. An Act for the better government of servants and slaves

221

This statute is similar to the 1748 legislation that King George II disallowed in 1752.
The colonial leaders also clarified the terms of an indenture for Christian servants.
I. BE it enacted, by the Lieutenant-Governor, Council, and Burgesses, of this
present General Assembly, and it is hereby enacted, by the authority of the same, That all
servants, except convicts, imported into this colony without indenture, if they be
christians, of christian parentage, and above nineteen years of age, shall serve but five
years; and if they be under nineteen, ‘til they become twenty four years of age and no
longer: but every such servant, under nineteen, shall be brought, within six months after
his, or her importation, before the court of the county where the master lives, and his, or
her age adjudged by the court, otherwise shall be a servant no longer than the
accustomary five years, although under age of nineteen; and the age of such servant, so
adjudged and recorded, shall be accounted his, or her true age, in respect to the time of
service.
XIII. That if any woman servant shall be delivered of a bastard child, within the
time of her service aforesaid, Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby
enacted by the authority of the same, That in recompense of the loss and trouble
occasioned her master or mistress thereby, she shall, for every such offence, serve her
said master or owner one whole year after her time, by indenture, custom, and former
order of court shall be expired, or pay her said master or owner, one thousand pounds of
tobacco, and the reputed father, if free, shall give security to the church-wardens of the
parish where the child shall be to maintain the child, and keep the parish indemnified, or
be compelled thereto by order of the county court, upon the said church-wardens
complaint: But if a servant, he shall make satisfaction to the parish for keeping the said
child, after his time by indenture, custom, or order of court, to his then present master or
owner shall be expired, or be compelled thereto by the order of the county court, upon
complaint of the church-wardens of the said parish for the time being: And if any woman
servant shall be got with child by her master, neither the said master, nor his executors,
administrators, nor assigns, shall have any claim of service against her, for, or by reason
of such child, but she shall, when her time due to her said master, by indenture, custom,
or order of court, shall be expired, be sold by the church wardens for the time being, of
the parish wherein such child shall be born, for one year, or pay one thousand pounds of
tobacco; and the said one thousand pounds of tobacco, or whatever she shall be sold for,
shall be employed by the vestry, to the use of the said parish. And if any woman servant
shall have a bastard child by a negroe or mulattoe, over and above the year‘s service due
her master or owner, she shall immediately upon the expiration of her time, to her then
present master, or owner, pay down to the church-wardens of the parish wherein such
child shall be born, for the use of the said parish, fifteen pounds current money of
Virginia, or be by them sold for five years to the use aforesaid; and if a free christian
white woman shall have such bastard child by a negroe, or mulattoe, for every such
offence, she shall, within one month after her delivery of such bastard child, pay to the
church-wardens for the time being, of the parish wherein such child shall be born, for the
use of the said parish, fifteen pounds current money of Virginia, or be by them sold for

222

five years to the use aforesaid; and in both the said cases, the church-wardens shall bind
the said child to be a servant until it shall be of thirty one years of age.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 6:356-369. See also ibid., 8:135-137 (1765).

February 1754—ACT II. An Act for amending the act, intituled, An act for the better
regulation of the militia.
This statute required the slave patrol to visit, at least once a month, all slave quarters and
other places where enslaved persons might gather.
I. FOR establishing a better method of appointing patrollers, and for declaring
their duty, Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor, Council, and Burgesses, of this
present General Assembly, and it is hereby enacted, by the authority of the same, That it
shall and may be lawful for the chief officer of the militia, residing in every county, and
he is hereby required, some time before the tenth of June yearly, to appoint an officer,
and so many men of the militia as to him shall appear to be necessary, not exceeding
four, once in every month, or oftener if thereunto required by such chief officer, to patrol
and visit all negroe quarters, and other places suspected of entertaining unlawful
assemblies of slaves, servants, or other disorderly persons, and such patrolers shall have
power and authority to take up any such slaves, servants, or disorderly persons, as
aforesaid, unlawfully assembled, or any other strolling about from one plantation to
another, without a pass from his or her master, mistress, or overseer, and to carry them
before the next justice of the peace, who if he shall see cause, is to order every such
slave, servant, stroller, or other disorderly person as aforesaid, to receive any number of
lashes, not exceeding twenty, on his or her bare back well laid on: And in case one
company of patrolers shall not be sufficient, to order more companies for the same
service: And after every patrol the officer of each party, shall return to the captain of the
company whereunto he belongs, a report in writing, upon oath, (which oath such captain
is hereby impowered to administer) of the names of those of his party who are upon duty,
and of the proceedings in such patrol; and each captain shall once in every month, deliver
such patrol returns to the county lieutenant, or chief commanding officer resident in his
county, by whom they shall be certified and delivered to the next court martial; and if
they shall adjudge the patrollers to have performed their duty according to law, the chief
officer shall certify the same to the county court, who upon such certificate, are hereby
impowered and required, at the laying of their county levy, to allow to, and levy for every
one of the patrollers, ten pounds of tobacco for every twenty four hours they shall so
patrole; and moreover such patrollers shall be exempt from attendance at private musters,
and from the payment of public, county, and parish levies for their own persons, for those
years in which they shall be employed in that service.
II. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That if the chief officer of
the militia, residing in any county, shall fail to appoint patrollers, according to the
directions of this act, such officer shall forfeit and pay the sum of five pounds; and every
person appointed to patrol in pursuance of this act, failing to do his duty therein, shall pay
the sum of five shillings for every failure, which fines shall be laid by the court martial of

223

the county, and shall be collected, levied, accounted for, and appropriated, as by an act of
Assembly made in the twelfth year of the reign of his present majesty, intituled, An act
for the better regulation of the militia, is directed for the fines imposed by the said act.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 6:421-422.

August 1755—ACT II. An Act for the better regulating and training the Militia
In this statute the city of Williamsburg and the borough of Norfolk gained the authority to
establish a slave patrol. There is no evidence that Williamsburg had a slave patrol until
July 1772.
IV. Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to compel
any persons hereafter mentioned, to muster, that is to say, such as are members of the
council, speaker of the house of Burgesses, receiver general, auditor, secretary, attorney
general, clerk of the council, clerk of the secretary‘s office, ministers of the church of
England, the president, masters or professors, and students of William and Mary college,
the mayor, recorder, and Aldermen of the city of Williamsburg, and borough of Norfolk,
the keeper of the public goal, any person being bona fide, an overseer over four servants
or slaves, and actually residing on the plantation where they work, and receiving a share
of the crop or wages, for his care and pains, in looking after such servants and slaves:
Any miller having the charge and keeping of any mill, and founders, keepers, or other
persons employed in or about any copper, iron or lead mine, who are all hereby
exempted, from being inlisted, or any way concerned in the militia, during the time they
shall continue in any such station or capacity.
XXVII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That if the chief
officer of the militia in any county shall fail to appoint patrollers, according to the
directions of this act, such officer shall forfeit and pay the sum of five pounds, and every
person appoint to patrol, in pursuance of this act, failing to do his duty therein, shall pay
the sum of five shillings for every failure; which fines shall be laid by the court martial of
the county, and shall be collected, levied, accounted for, and appropriated, as is herein
before directed, for the collecting, levying, accounting for, and appropriating, the several
fines and penalties herein before laid: And in like manner the chief officer of the militia,
in the aforesaid city of Williamsburg, or borough of Norfolk, shall appoint all the persons
of their militia, to patrol within the said city and borough, or within half a mile of the
limits thereof by turns, in such numbers, and at such times, as they shall think necessary;
which officers and patrollers shall be subject to the same fines and penalties, and to be
recovered and appropriated in the same manner, as is herein before directed, in the case
of patrollers in the counties.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 6:530-533, 538-539, 541-544; see ibid.,
8:195-197 (1766).

224

March 30, 1757—Peter Fontaine to Moses Fontaine
In this letter to his brother Moses, Peter Fontaine, the rector of Westover Parish,
discusses the fact that Virginians wanted to blame someone for slavery.
Like Adam we are all apt to shift off the blame from ourselves and lay it upon others,
how justly in our case you may judge. The negroes are enslaved by the negroes
themselves before they are purchased by the masters of the ships who bring them here. It
is to be sure at our choice whether we buy them or not, so this then is our crime, folly, or
whatever you will please to call it. But, our Assembly, foreseeing the ill consequences of
importing such numbers amongst us, hath often attempted to lay a duty upon them which
would amount to a prohibition, such as ten or twenty pounds a head, but no Governor
dare pass such a law, having instructions to the contrary from the Board of Trade at
home, By this means they are forced upon us, whether we will or will not. This plainly
shows the African Company hath the advantage of the colonies, and may do as it pleases
with the Ministry.
Indeed, since we have been exhausted of our little stock of cash by the war, the
importation has stopped; our poverty then is our best security. There is no more picking
for their ravenous jaws upon bare bones, but should we begin to thrive they will be at the
same again. All our taxes are now laid upon slaves and on Shippers of tobacco, which
they wink at while we are in danger of being torn from them, but we durst not do it in
time of peace, it being looked upon as the highest presumption to lay any burden upon
trade. This is our part of the grievance, but to live in Virginia without slaves is morally
impossible. Before our troubles you could not hire a servant or slave for love or money,
so that unless robust enough to cut wood, to go to mill, to work at the hoe, etc. you must
starve, or board in some family where they both fleece and half starve you. There is no
set price upon corn, wheat and provisions, so they take advantage of the necessities of
strangers, who are thus obliged to purchase some slaves and land. This of course draws
us all into the original sin and curse of the country of purchasing slaves, and this is the
reason we have no merchants, traders, or artificers of any sort but what become planters
in a short time.
A common laborer, white or black, if you can be so much favored as to hire one,
is a shilling sterling or fifteen pence currency per day; a bungling carpenter two shillings
or two shillings and six pence per day; besides diet and lodging. That is, for a lazy fellow
to get wood and water, £ 19, 16. 3. current per annum; add to this seven or eight pounds
more and you have a slave for life.
Source: Donnan, ed., Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade, 4:142143.

January 1759—George Washington Gains Possession of Slaves in York County
When George Washington married the widow Martha Custis in 1759, he gained
control of the slaves that her first husband, Daniel Parke Custis, had on his York County
plantation (and other plantations in Virginia). The following inventory of Custis‘

225

property in York County indicates that he made his fortune by exploiting slave labor (as
did Washington and other members of Virginia‘s gentry). The Custis slaves accounted
for over three-quarters of the value of their master‘s York County estate.
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.

2 Sows and two Barrows 36/ 20 Shoats and Pigs 60/ 4.16.
6 Calves 48/. 15 Steers £30
24 Cows £30.12. 1 Bull 20/. 15 young Cattle £12
2 Sows and 5 Shoats 31/. 15 Steers £30
21 Cows £33.12 2 Bulls 40/. 23 young Cattle £20
12 Steers £24.19 Cows £30.8s
13 young Cattle £9/15s. 2 Bulls 40/
40 Calves £15. 10 draught Steers $20
35.
13 Steers £26.30 young Cattle £19.110.
25 Cows £41.5 1 Bull 20/. 8 Steers £16
13 young Cattle 10.8. 46 Cows & Steers £73.12
1 Bull 20/. 8 Steers £16. 19 Cows & Steers £30.8
2 Bulls 40/. 4 young Cattle $3.12.
1 Cart & Furniture £11. 1 large grindste 12/
A parcel of old Iron & Harrows 40/. 9 large Hogs
4 Sows, 1 boar £4. 20 young hogs £10
10 Shoats 50/. 12 Pigs 12/
1 Cart harness & 3 horses £15. 1 horse £7
1 young bay horse £20. 1 pr. Stilliards 6/
3 Currying Knives 20/. 3 butter pots 9/
7 Cyder Ggds 20/. 300 Barls Corn @ 6/ £90
2 doz. Milk pans 15/. 1 mill spindle & horns 20/
a parcel of Carpenters Toos £7.10. Irn Wedgs 12
A Sett of Cart wheel hoops 12/. 2 brd hoes 6/
24 M 6d Nails £4.16. a parcel old Nails 15/

Old Johny £ 15
Ockney 40
Joe 60
Cupid 50
young Ned 50
Crispin 40
Peter 40
Danl Twine 10
Ned 50
Old Captain 15
Isaac 50
Old Jager 15
Eugene 45
Mill Betty 50
Frank& Chd Judith 50

Evelin 15
Sall 16
Moll 50
Pegg 50
Caesar 25
Lucy 15
Amey 10
Roger 25
Arlington 35
Grace 40
Old Chance 20
Orange 40
Miller Jemmy 60
Jupiter 50
Tobey 40

32.8.
52.12.
31.11.
55.12.
54.8
11.15
45.10.
58.5.
84.
47.8.
5.12.
11.12.
13.14.
14.
3.2
22.
20.6
1.9
91.
1.15
8.2.
.8.
5.11.
£712.6.

Alice 40
Hannah 40
Tom 20
Lydia 26
Grace & Chd 50
Old Nanny 25
Betty 40
Eulin & Chd Phil 50
Acre 40
Hannah 25
Sukey 25
Doll 15
Alice 16
Daphne & Chd Jemy 55
Pegg 25

226

Jack 35
Sam 50
Ockney 23
York 50
Moll & Chd Brunswk 50
Muccon 50
Fanny 40
Peter 70
Dinah & Chd Jenny 50
Will 50
Beck 50
Bachus 40
Cornelia 40
Be (?) 50
Arber 15
Ph (?) 40
Patt 15
Arlington 5
John Blair Junr}
Matthew Shields } Appraisers
William Graves}

Danl 20
Nelly 15
George 30
Betty 35
Daphne 25
Fabbey 45
Ned 35

Negroes £2501.
{Total £3213.6)

Source: Fields, comp., ―Worthy Partner‖, pp. 72-73.

1760 to 1780—Estimated Population of the Chesapeake Colonies (in Thousands)
Total

Total

Total

Year

Maryland

Virginia

Whites

Blacks

Population

1760
1770
1780

162.3
202.6
248.0

339.7
447.0
538.0

312.4
398.2
482.4

189.6
251.4
303.6

502.0
649.6
786.0

Source: McCusker and Menard, The Economy of British America, p. 136.

1750s—Masters and Slaves Stuggle to Define Work Routines
During the first half of the eighteenth century slaves pushed their masters to acknowledge
the work routines that had been customary for enslaved men and women at the end of the
seventeenth century.
Initially, slaves secured some substantial gains. Slaves stabilized the workday,
which planters had stretched substantially beyond what had been customary during the
early years of the eighteenth century, and began the process of rolling back the number of
hours they were expected to labor. The planters‘ effort to counter their trend by
lengthening the number of hours spent in the fields or speeding the pace of labor elicited
immediate protests—sometimes in the form of shoddy work, broken tools, or increased
truancy. ―The Negroes are very unwilling to give up the principles they were allowed in
Wingfield‘s time,‖ reported the manager of a Virginia estate upon the appointment of a
new overseer. Slaves conspired to frustrate the new man, and finally determined to have

227

him ―turned off.‖ When the manager dismissed their complaints, they sent a delegation
directly to the master, so that eventually all conceded that the new man had to go. Such
small victories gave slaves a bit more control over their lives, and chastened those who
desired to increase plantation productivity.
During the middle years of the eighteenth century, slaves recovered some of the
prerogatives that members of the charter generations had taken for granted. The free
Sunday had become an entitlement rather than a privilege, so almost all Chesapeake
slaves had Sundays to themselves. According to a historian of eighteenth-century
Chesapeake agriculture, ―slaves had converted that practice into a right that could not be
violated arbitrarily.‖ Occasionally, slaves enjoyed part of Saturday as well. When
owners impinged upon the slaves‘ free days, they generally compensated them in time or
money.
Still, planters resisted, refusing to surrender the very essence of slavery‘s value.
To prevent slaves from elevating customary practices into entitlements and from
manufacturing yet additional rights, slaveholders sought to confine the slaves‘ economy.
They were especially adamant about the independent trading, as they understood how the
slaves‘ entry into the marketplace enlarged their understanding of the value of their own
labor and sharpened their appreciation of the planter‘s usurpation. Moreover, planters
were not above countering with new demands of their own—for example, requiring
slaves to process as well as grow tobacco and to manufacture candles and other
necessities for the Great House. The maturation of tobacco culture did not end the
contrast between master and slave; it only moved the struggle to new ground.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, pp. 133-134.

1750s—Plantation Reorganization and Urbanization
Ira Berlin dicusses changes in plantation organization, the growth of an artisan class,
urbanization, and slave hiring in the following selections from his book entitled Many
Thousands Gone.
The new terrain was defined by three related changes in Chesapeake society
during the middle years of the eighteenth century: the declining productivity of the older
tobacco regions, the rise of small grain production, and the growth of towns. Each of
these set in motion a series of other changes—the reorganization of plantations, the
growth of an artisan class, and the spread of slave hiring—that sometimes strengthened
the slaves‘ hand at the expense of their owners and sometimes strengthened the owners‘
hand at the expense of the slaves. Whatever the balance of power, the struggle between
masters and slaves—the continual renegotiation and contestation of the terms of life and
labor—both sped the transition of African to creole and opened new avenues of
resistance.
The same crisis that drove planters to the fresh tobacco lands of the piedmont also
encouraged them to experiment with other crops. In many parts of the Chesapeake,
tobacco—the universal staple in the seventeenth century—gave way to mixed cultivation
that combined tobacco with a variety of small grains, corn, forest products, and livestock.

228

The most dynamic element in the mix was wheat, which became increasingly attractive
as a series of European crop failures swelled demand for American foodstuffs. During
the 1720s planters—particularly those in the marginal tobacco areas—turned from
tobacco to cereal production. In some parts of the Chesapeake region, most notably the
eastern shore of Maryland and Virginia, planters eliminated tobacco from their repertoire
altogether. As demand for rye, oats, and especially wheat spiraled upward throughout the
Atlantic world, changes in the character of the Chesapeake‘s economy that had begun in
a few marginal tobacco areas during the third and fourth decades of the eighteenth
century became general. On the eve of the American Revolution, the value of cereal
production exceeded that of tobacco in many parts of the region.
The cultivation of wheat and other small grains transformed the nature of
agricultural labor and, with it, slavery. Whereas tobacco farming required season-long
labor, cereal agriculture employed workers steadily only during planting and harvesting.
Laborers had little to do with the crop the remainder of the year. They were hardly idle,
however, as grain cultivation also required a large, diverse, and skilled labor force to
transport the grain, market it, store it, mill it, and reship it as bulk grain, flour, or bread.
The wagons in which were shipped and the draft animals that pulled the wagons all
required maintenance. the presence of draft animals and other stock, in turn, produced
new tasks, as their hides could be tanned and fashioned into harnesses, bridles, saddles,
and shoes. Plantations dedicated to grain production not only fielded corps of wagoners
but also blacksmiths, saddlers, harness makers, tanners, and shoemakers. Artisans also
found employment in flour mills, iron foundries, weaving houses, and other
nonagricultural ventures.
…
Changes in the structure of the labor force resonated outside of the plantation.
Although many of the new enterprises that employed slave artisans were incorporated
into plantation life, particularly on the great estates, others were located in towns. The
Chesapeake, for the first time, developed a cadre of cities. Older administrative centers
like Annapolis and Williamsburg became home—or, sometimes, a second home—to an
increasingly affluent planter class. The newer cities depended on commerce to sustain
them. The first of these, Norfolk on the western shore of the Chesapeake and
Chestertown on the eastern shore, were centers of the grain trade, as were upstart towns
like Alexandria and Baltimore. With urbanization and the concomitant growth of
manufacturing, the demand for artisans and laborers outstripped the number of available
white men, many of whom saw opportunities in westward migration. The requirements
of urban employers drew additional slaves into the urban atmosphere.
The need for urban labor also created a market for hirelings, and the advent of
mixed agriculture with its peculiar seasonal rhythms encouraged rural slaveholders to
rent their slaves during slack time. Unlike those confined to the plantation, hired slaves
generally worked independently, outside the direction of an owner or overseer. Control
over their time also allowed hired slaves expanded opportunities to pursue their own
interests. Some hired themselves to do odd jobs, earning cash or receiving payment for
―overwork.‖ The general acceptance of jobbing opened the door for slaves to travel

229

freely, live on their own, and enjoy a measure of independence not possible in the rural
plantation regime.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, pp. 134-135, 136; see also ―1782 to 1810—
Slaves for Hire in Elizabeth City County‖ in the American Paradox section.

1760 to 1770—Letters from Virginia Ministers to the Associates of Dr. Bray
In letters to the Associates of Dr. Bray, four ministers—James Marye Junior, Alexander
Rhonnald, Jonathan Boucher, and Thomas Baker—discuss the challenges and successes
of their work to Christianize slaves.
1760—The Reverend James Marye Junior of Orange County: ―I have great Quantities of
Negroes in my Parish, who all bring their Children to be baptised, & many of the Adults
likewise are desirous of Baptism, which I perform after Divine Service.‖
1762—The Reverend Alexander Rhonnald of Elizabeth River Parish, Norfolk County:
―They use Me with the most invidous Terms of Ill nature for my pains, & because I
baptise more Negroes than other Brethren here & instruct them, from the Pulpit, out of
common road, & encourage the Good among them to come to the Communion, after a
due Sense of the matter, I am vilified & branded by such as a Negro Parson.‖
1762—The Reverend Jonathan Boucher of King George County: ―I have baptiz'd
upwards of 100 Negro Children, & betwixt 30 & 40 Adults in less than 6 months that I
have been here.‖
April 28, 1764—The Reverend Jonathan Boucher: ―I have employ‘d a very sensible,
well-dispos‘d Negro belonging to a Gentleman who lives about a Mile from Me, to
endeavour at instructing his poor fellow Slaves in Reading & some of the first Principles
of Religion, with which, I have taken Care, that He should not be totally unacquainted.
Saturday‘s & Sunday‘s Afternoons He employs to this Purpose; and He has, I believe, at
this Time betwixt Twenty & Thirty who constantly attend Him. And that He maybe the
better qualified for his Office, I oblige Him to visit me two or three Times every Week,
when either Myself or Some young Gentlemen who live with Me, as Pupils, give Him
Lessons: and Once at least in every month He brings his Scholars before Me that I may
examine what Progress They have made… I find Them in Books, & endeavour too to
encourage the industrious by allotting Them some small Rewards for Extraordinary
Diligence, as well as to their Master.‖
March 9, 1767—The Reverend Jonathan Boucher: ―The Box of Books You shipp‘d for
Me in 1765, came into Potomac, & by that Means were difficultly heard of or come at.
Yet, at length, I received Them all safe, & agreeable to your List: for which I again
return You & The Associates my sincerest Thanks. I have already distributed many of

230

Them amongst the poor Slaves who are very numerous in this Parish. In many of my
former letters I have told You of the Difficulties Ministers are under to reconcile the
Owners of Slaves to their being instructed….The Method I take I hope They will think is
not misapplying it: I generally find out an old Negro, or a conscientious Overseer, able to
read, to whom I give Books, with an Injunction to Them to instruct such & such Slaves in
their respective Neighbourhoods. This, I own, coinsides not exactly with your Plans; but
as I am convinc‘d it is the only practicable Method of accomplishing the End You have in
View, in parishes where there are no Towns, I hope You will excuse Me for presuming to
Judge for You.‖
1770—The Reverend Thomas Baker of Kingston Glebe, Gloucester County: ―Many
masters are not only averse to learning their Slave to read, but...I've heard some of them
say (& blessed be God convinced some of them of their Error) That since we got to
baptizing them they are become insolent & Idle, Runaways &c.; that they were never so
till Baptism came in Fashion amongst 'em. However never a Sunday passes, but I have
many at both my Churches, Infant & adult Negroes too. I've baptiz'd some upwards of 60
Years old, who have with Tears runing down their Cheeks, repeated the Lord's Prayer &
Creed, & behav'd in such a Manner as would have pleas'd you & every good Christian.‖
Source: Van Horne, ed., Religious Philanthropy and Colonial Slavery, pp. 149, 182,
196, 206, 255, 289.

September 30, 1762—The Reverend William Yates and Robert Carter Nicholas to the
Reverend John Waring
The Associates of Dr. Thomas Bray decided to establish a school for black children, free
and enslaved, in Williamsburg in 1760. Two years later, the Reverend William Yates
and Robert Carter Nicholas report on the Bray School to the Reverend John Waring.
They also enclose a list of the school‘s regulations and students on September 30, 1762.
The Bray School was not the first school for black children in Williamsburg. On
December 22, 1743, the Reverend William Dawson wrote England in order to get a copy
of school rules ―which, with some little Alteration, will suit a Negro School in our
Metropolis, when we shall have the Pleasure of seeing One established.‖ In 1750,
Dawson told the Bishop of London that ―There are three such schools in my parish, these
I sometimes visit.‖ Four years later, Elizabeth Wyatt charged Reverend Dawson‘s estate
the sum of £1.6 for teaching his slave girl, Jenny, for one year.
Sir,
Agreeable to your Request, we send you inclosed a List of the Negro Children
now at the School under our Direction in this City, with an Account of their Ages as
nearly as they can be judged of; but it is not in our Power to determine exactly. The
Dates of their Admission into the School are various, some of them having been there
ever since it was first opened & others admitted just as Vacancies have happened. The
Mistress has not been so exact as to keep any Account of the Times of the Entrance, so

231

that it is impossible for us to give the desired Satisfaction in this Point. You may from
hence easily judge how difficult it must be for us to inform you particularly of the
Progress each Child has made. We can only say in general that at a late Visitation of the
School we were pretty much pleased with the Scholars' Performances, as they rather
exceeded our Expectations. The Children, we believe, have all been regularly baptized;
indeed we think it is a pretty general Practice all over Virginia for Negro Parents to have
their Children christened, where they live tolerably convenient to the Church or Minister,
& some Times a great Number of Adults are baptized together in different Parts of the
Country. We would not have you think, from what was wrote to you last Fall, that we
had the least Inclination to discourage so good & pious an Institution; we were indeed &
still are apprised of many Difficulties, which we shall have to struggle with, & were
willing to prepare you for a Disappointment, in Case the Undertaking should not answer
your Expectations. From the small View we have had of the Associates' extensive
Charity, we flatter ourselves that we see the Situation of our poor Slaves, with Request to
their spiritual Concerns, with the same piteous Eyes that they do, & should think
ourselves extremely fortunate if any Endeavours of ours could contribute towards their
Happiness. You no Doubt are already apprised that the Slaves in this & the neighbouring
Colonies are the chief Instruments of Labour & we fear that they are treated by too many
of their Owners as so many Beasts of Burthen, so little do they consider them as entitled
to any of the Privileges of human Nature; & indeed many Owners of Slaves, 'tho they
may view them in a different Light & treat them with a great Degree of Tenderness,
concern themselves very little or not at all with their Morals, much less do they trouble
themselves with their religious Concerns, so far from it, that we don't think ourselves the
lest uncharitable in saying that we fear the Negroes are often corrupted & rendered more
abandoned by the ill Examples that are set them by many white People in the Country &
no inconsiderable Number of these themselves Masters of Slaves. This Observation may
be justified by a Comparison of new Negroes when they are first imported with those
who have resided amongst us for some Years; for 'tho' the former, no Doubt, bring with
them vicious Inclinations & a Number of ill Customs, yet we may venture to say that they
contract new Vices, which they were Strangers to in their native Country. From this
cursory View of the Situation of our Slaves, you may easily judge how extremely
difficult it would be, if not morally impossible, to work any Thing like a thorough
Reformation amongst them, unless some of their Masters & the Generality of white
People were first reformed, we had almost said new moulded. We would not have it
infered from hence that we intend any particular pointed Reflections upon the People of
the Country; on the contrary we believe them as good as their Neighbours & think they
are much of the same Complexion as the Inhabitants of other Countries. And 'tho' we
almost despair of an entire Reformation, yet we have our Hopes that a Scheme like yours
properly conducted, if it could meet with due Encouragement, might have a good Effect.
We find that many People in this City, upon the first opening of your School, were well
enough inclined towards it &, if the Fund allotted was sufficient, we believe that double
the Number of Scholars might easily be procured; but at the same Time we fear that
many People who have sent or would send their little Negroes to School, would not do it
upon the principles which they ought; we mean purely with a View to have them
instructed in the Principles of Religion, & enabled to instruct their Fellow Slaves at
Home. Some People we fear send their Children more to keep them out of Mischief,

232

others to improve them in Hopes of their being made a little more sensible, that they may
be more handy & useful in their Families; We form this Opinion from observing that
several, who put their Negroes to School, have taken them Home again so soon as they
began to read, but before they had received any real Benefit or it could be supposed that
they were made acquainted with the Principles of Christianity. This is one great
Impediment which we are apprehensive will obstruct the Success of our Endeavours. We
shall strive to guard against it, 'tho' 'twill be with great Difficulty that we shall be able to
accomplish our Purpose. Few People have more Negroes than they can employ, & 'tho',
when they are very young & useless, they may be willing to send them to School, yet
when they grow up a little & become able to tend their Owners Children or do any other
little Offices in their Families, they chuse & will take them Home. Another Difficulty
which arises on the Part of the Owners is that an Opinion prevails amongst many of them,
that it might be dangerous & impolitick to enlarge the Understandings of the Negroes, as
they would probably by this Means become more impatient of their Slavery & at some
future Day be more likely to rebel; they urge farther from Experience, that it is generally
observable that the most sensible of our Slaves are the most wicked & ungovernable;
these Observations, we think, are illy founded when used as Objections to your Scheme,
which is by no Means calculated to instruct the Slaves in dangerous Principles, but on the
contrary has a probable & direct Tendency to reform their Manners; & by making them
good Christians they would necessarily become better Servants. We shall not fail
endeavouring to remove Scruples of this & every other Sort, but finding they have taken
deep Root in many Minds, we are apprehensive of great Difficulties in overcoming them.
There is still one greater Discouragement which we fear we shall labour under. 'Tho' the
Owners of the Negro Children should chearfully close with our Proposals & submit them
entirely to our Government; 'tho the Mistress of the School should be ever so diligent in
her Duty, & 'tho the Scholars should make as great a Progress as could be wished, yet we
fear that, notwithstanding all our Endeavours to prevent it, any good Impressions which
may be made on the Children's Minds at School will be easily effaced by their mixing
with other Slaves, who are mostly abandoned to every Kind of Wickedness. If evil
Communications have a general Tendency to corrupt good Manners, the Observation is
never more likely to be verified than in Instances of this Sort, where the very Parents of
the Children will probably much oftner, from their Intimacy, set them bad Examples than
any others. Notwithstanding these & many other Difficulties, which the narrow Limits of
a Letter will not permit us to particularize, stare us fully in the Face, we are resolved not
to be discouraged; but hope, by the Blessing of God upon your Charity & our
Endeavours, that the Undertaking will greatly prosper. The late Reverent Mr. Dawson &
Mr. Hunter, we believe, had it in their Intention to form Rules for the better Government
of the School but were prevented by Death; we have hitherto contented ourselves with
permiting the Mistress to carry on the School in the Way it was begun; but, being
sensible that Nothing of the Sort can be properly conducted without certain uniform
Regulations, by which all Parties concerned may know how to govern themselves, we
have drawn up such a Set of Rules as appear to us properly adapted & send you a Copy
of them inclosed for your & the rest of the Associates' Approbation & should be glad to
know your Sentiments; we shall be willing to add or diminish any Thing as you may
advise. We probably shall have Occation for a few Testaments Psalters & spelling Books
& perhaps a Number of Mr. Bacon's Sermons, recommending the Instruction of Negroes

233

in the Christian Faith, properly dispersed over the Country might have a good Influence.
We would not put you to the Expence of any other Books at present. We will not
conclude without offering our best Respects to you & the rest of the worthy Associates;
Believe us, Sir, we cannot enough admire a Set of Gentlemen, who at the same Time that
they are employed in exercising every Act of Benevolence at Home, have so far enlarged
their Charity as to extend it to the most distant Colonies. We are, Sir, with the greatest
Exteem Your most obedient humble Servants
William Yates
Ro. C. Nicholas
[The Associates in London] Agreed that 25 Spelling Books 25 Psalters 20 Testaments &
25 Bacons Sermons be Sent for the Use of the Negroe School at Williamsburgh.

List of Negro Children at the Bray School
[Williamsburg, 30 September 1762]
A List of Negro Children at the School established by the Associates of the late Reverend
Doctor Bray in the City of Williamsburg, Mrs. Anne Wager, School Mistress.
Names of the
Children
1 John
2 Anne
3 Dick
Davenport
4 London
5 Aggy
6 Shropshire
7 Aberdeen
8 Mary
9 Harry
10 George
11 Bristol
12 Mary Anne
13 Aggy
Esqr.
14 Roger
15 Mary
16 Rippon
17 Robert
18 Lucy
19 Elizabeth
20 George
21 Locust

their Ages as nearly
as can be judged of
8 Years
6
3

Owners Names
Mrs. Davenport
Ditto
Mr. George

7
6
6
5
7
5
8
7
7
7

Mrs. Campbell
Ditto
Ditto
Mr. Alexr. Craig
Mr. Thomas Everard
Ditto
Mr. Gilmer
Ditto
a free Negro
Peyton Randolph

7
8
3
6
5
10
6
8

Ditto
Mr. Thomas Hornsby
Mr. Anthony Hay
John Randolph Esqr.
Ditto
Mrs. Dawson
Dr. James Carter
Mrs. Armistead

234

22 Sarah
23 Hannah
24 Mary Jones
25 John
26 Jane
27 Doll
28 Elisha Jones
29 John
30 Phoebe
Williamsburgh 30th.

7
7
7
9
7
3
3
September 1762

Mrs. Page
Ro: C: Nicholas
a free Negro
John Blair Esqr.
Ditto
Ditto
free
Mr. Hugh Orr
Mr. Wm. Trebell

Bray School Regulations
The Associates of the late Reverend Doctor Bray, residing in England, having
established Schools in several of the Northern Colonies for the Education of Negroes in
the Principles of the Christian Religion, teaching them to read & at the same Time
rendering the Females more useful to their Owners by instructing them in sewing knitting
&c; encouraged by the Success of these their pious Endeavours & being sollicitous to
make this Kind of Charity as extensive as possible, they some Time ago came to a
Resolution of establishing a School in the City of Williamsburg for the same Purpose &
have thought fit to recommend it to the immediate Care & Government of the Reverend
Mr. William Yates & Mr. Robert Carter Nicholas; who have chearfully undertaken the
Trust reposed in them & hope that all good Christians will cooperate with them in their
Endeavours to promote the Success of so laudable & pious an Institution.
The Associates having engaged in so many Works of this Kind, which will
require a very considerable Sum of Money to defray the Expence of, have limited the
Number of Scholars to thirty, but as there may be many more Negro Children in this City,
equally objects of such a Charity, The Trustees will thankfully accept of any
Contributions, which may be offered, towards augmenting the Number & thereby
rendering the Scheme more generally beneficial. If the Scholars should increase, so as to
make it necessary, they propose to employ another Mistress; And, for the Satisfaction of
their Benefactors, they will be at all Times ready to give an Account of their Proceedings.
The Trustees, for the better Government of the School & to render it more truly
beneficial, have thought fit to establish certain Regulations, relating as well to the
Owners of Slaves as to the Teacher or Mistress, which they are resolved to have strictly
observed & put in Execution, unless they should at any Time hereafter be induced by
good Reasons to alter or relax them.
With Respect to the Owners
The School being at present full with the Number of Scholars proposed to be
educated at the Expence of the Associates, such Masters or Mistresses, who may incline
hereafter to send their Negro Children to the School, are desired to signify the same to the

235

Trustees as they would choose hereafter that all Vacancies should be filled up by an equal
Number from each Family as near as may be.
As it will [be] needless & by no Means answer the Design of the Institution for
the Children to be put to School & taken away in a short Time before they have received
any real Benefit from it, Every Owner, before a Negro Child is admitted into the School,
must consent that such Child shall continue there for the Space of three Years at least, if
the School should be so long continued.
A decent Appearance of the Scholars, especially when they go to Church, being
very likely to make a favourable Impression, All Owners of Children sent to this School
must take Care that they be properly cloathed & kept in a cleanly Manner; & if it should
be agreeable, the Trustees would propose that the Children should wear one uniform
Dress, by which they might be distinguished & it is concieved that this Method would be
attended with very little additional Expence.
The Owners must send their Negro Children regularly, & constantly at the Hours
of Schooling; must comply with all Orders relating to them & freely submit them to be
chastized for the Faults without quarrelling or coming to School on such Occasions; must
by no Means encourage or wink at the Children's Faults nor discourage the Teacher in the
Performance of her Duty; but if there be any just Grounds of Complaint, they must lay
them before the Trustees & Acquiesce in their Determination; the Trustees engaging on
their Part to act with the Strictest Justice & Impartiality & that they will, to the utmost of
their Power, endeavour to redress every just Grievance.
It is not doubted but that the Owners themselves will give the Children, when at
Home, good Examples of a sober & religious Behaviour, but them must moreover take
Care, as much as in them lies, that they are not corrupted by the Wickedness & ill
Examples of their Servants & other Slaves, must frequently catechize the Children at
Home & second the Endeavours of the Teacher by inculcating in them the most useful &
salutary Principles of Christianity.
Rules to be observed by the Tutoress or Mistress, (who is preferred to a Master, as the
Scholars
will consist of Children of both Sexes.)
She shall take no Scholars but what are approved of by the Trustees & She shall attend
the School at seven O Clock in the Winter half of the Year & at six in the Summer half
Year in the Morning & keep her Scholars diligently to their Business during the Hours of
schooling, suffering none to be absent at any Time, but when they are sick or have some
other reasonable Excuse.
She shall teach her Scholars the true Spelling of Words, make them mind their Stops &
endeavour to bring them to pronounce & read distinctly.

236

She shall make it her principal Care to teach them to read the Bible, to instruct them in
the Principles of the Christian Religion according to the Doctrine of the Church of
England, shall explain the Church Catechism to them by some good Exposition, which,
together with the Catechsim, they shall publicly repeat in Church, or elsewhere, so often
as the Trustees shall require & shall be frequently examined in School as to their
Improvements of every Sort.
She shall teach them those Doctrines & Principles of Religion, which are in their Nature
most useful in the Course of private Life, especially such as concern Faith & good
Manners.
She shall conduct them from her School House, where they are all to be first assembled,
in a decent & orderly Manner to Church, so often as divine Service is there performed &
before it begins, & instruct & oblige them to behave in a proper Manner, kneeling or
standing as the Rubrick directs, & to join in the public Service with & regularly to repeat
after the Minister in all Places where the People are so directed & in such a Manner as
not to disturb the rest of the Congregation. She shall take Care that the Scholars, so soon
as they are able to use them, do carry their Bibles & Prayer Books to Church with them,
&, that they may be prevented from spending the Lord's Day profanely or idly, she shall
give her Scholars some Task out of the most useful Parts of Scripture, to be learnt on
each Lord's Day, according to their Capacities, & shall require a strict Performance of it
every Monday Morning.
She shall use proper Prayers in her School every Morning & Evening & teach the
Scholars to do the same at Home, devoutly on their Knees, & also teach them to say
Grace before & after their Victuals, explaining to them the Design & Meaning of it.
She shall take Particular Care of the Manners & Behaviour of her Scholars & by all
proper Methods discourage Idleness & suppress the Beginnings of Vice, such as lying,
cursing, swearing, profaning the Lord's Day, obscene Discourse, stealing &c., putting
them often in Mind & obliging them to get by Heart such Parts of the Holy Scriptures,
where these Things are forbid & where Christians are commanded to be faithful &
obedient to their Masters, to be diligent in their Business, & quiet & peaceable to all
Men.
She shall teach her female Scholars knitting sewing & such other Things as may be
useful to their Owners & she shall be particularly watchful that her Scholars, between the
School Hours, do not commit any Irregularities nor fall into any indecent Diversions.
Lastly, She shall take Care that her Scholars keep themselves clean & neat in their
Cloaths & that they in all Things set a good Example to other Negroes.
Source: Tate, The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg, p. 76; Van Horne, ed.,
Religious Philanthropy and Colonial Slavery, pp. 184-191.

237

Part IV—Modifications in the Restrictions on Slaves and Free Blacks

In the third quarter of the eighteenth century cracks in the slave system became
apparent. Some prominent Virginias increasingly questioned the morality of the slave
trade and sought to bring it to an end, even as they continued to profit from the ever more
intense labor they extracted from reluctant bondsmen and women. A few whites began to
question the institution of slavery itself, but while some might advocate an end to further
importations, almost none could envision an end to the existing slave system (documents
relating to attempts to end the slave trade are included in the section on the Capitol). As
a rising generation of native-born African Americans began to predominate among
enslaved laborers in the tidewater, a new culture emerged that sustained plantation
communities and individuals in new ways at the same time that greater familiarity with
white language and customs and with the local countryside afforded new economic
opportunities and new modes of resistance.
The cracks in the system became fissures when the colonists‘ disputes with
Britain escalated from polemics and protests to armed conflict. White Virginians who
took up arms to prevent their perceived enslavement by the British government had also
to violently suppress the numerous enslaved within the colony who embraced
Revolutionary equalitarian ideals all too literally. Securing liberty from Britain, they
quickly found, required vigorously denyung freedom to the enslaved Africans and
African Americans upon whose coerced labor and social subordination their economic
prosperity and social structure continued to depend.

October 1765—ACT XXIV. An act to prevent the practice of selling persons as slaves
that are not so, and for other purposes therein mentioned
The legislators decided to impose a fine of £50 on anyone who tried to sell a mulatto
servant as a slave. In addition, they ruled that children born to mulatto servants would
serve the same term of indenture (boys to age twenty-one and girls to age eighteen) as
white children born to white servants did.
I.WHEREAS it is represented to this present General Assembly that divers ill
disposed persons have of late years been guilty of selling and disposing of mulattoes and
others as slaves, who by the laws of this colony are subject to a service only of thirty one
years, after which they become free: Be it therefore enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor,
Council and Burgesses of this present General Assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the
authority of the same, that if any person or persons shall hereafter sell as a slave within
this colony, or carry or cause to be carried out thereof and sell as a slave, any such
mulatto, or other servant, knowing him or her so to be, every such offender shall forfeit
and pay the sum of fifty pounds to the purchaser of such servant or servants, over and

238

above the money actually paid by such purchaser for the same; and moreover such
offender shall be liable to the penalty of twenty pounds to any person who will inform or
sue for the same, and may be recovered, with costs, by action of debt or information, in
any court of record within this colony. And if any person shall be a second time
convicted of selling the same servant as a slave, he, she, or they, so offending, shall
forfeit the residue of the time of service due from such servant, who shall thereupon be
bound out, by order of the court of the county where the matter shall be tried, to serve to
the age of twenty one years, in the same manner as is by law directed for the binding out
orphan children; but if such servant shall at the time of such trial have attained the age of
twenty one years, he shall be, and he is hereby declared to be free.
III. And whereas by one act of assembly made in the twenty-seventh year of the
reign of his late majesty, entitled An act for the better government of servants and slaves,
it is amongst other things enacted that if any woman servant shall have a bastard child by
a negro or mulatto, or if any free christian white woman shall have such bastard child by
a negro or mulatto, in both cases, besides the punishment inflicted on the mother of such
bastard, the church-wardens shall bind the said child to be a servant until it shall be
thirty-one years of age, which is an unreasonable severity towards such children: Be it
therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the passing of this act
the church-wardens shall bind out such bastard children already born, and not yet bound
out, or which shall hereafter be born, either of white women servants or of free christian
white women, to serve, the males to the age of twenty-one years, and the females to the
age of eighteen years only, and no longer; any thing in the said in part recited act to the
contrary thereof, in any wise, notwithstanding.
IV. And be it further enacted, That the children hereafter to be born of mulatto
women during the time of their service, who are obliged by law to serve to the age of
thirty-one years, shall serve the master or mistress of such mulatto woman, the males to
the age of twenty one, and the females to the age of eighteen years only, and no longer;
any former law, custom, or usage, to the contrary thereof, in any wise, notwithstanding.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 8:133-135.

October 1765—ACT XXVI. An act for amending the act entitled An act directing the
trial of slaves committing capital crimes; and for the more effectual punishing
conspiracies and insurrections of them; and for the better government of negroes,
mulattoes, and indians, bond or free
This statute enabled the governor to issue a permanent commission of oyer and terminer
to four or more of the justices of the peace in each county. They also decided that a slave
convicted of manslaughter of another enslaved person could plead benefit of clergy.
I. . . . . And it be enacted, by the Lieutenant-Governour, Council, and Burgesses,
of this present General Assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same,
That from and after the commencement of this act the governour or commander in chief
of this colony for the time being is desired and empowered to issue commissions of oyer

239

and terminer directed to the justices of each county respectively, empowering them from
time to time to try, condemn, and execute, or otherwise punish or acquit, all slaves
committing capital crimes within their county; and when any commission for constituting
justices of the peace shall thereafter issue, a general commission of oyer and terminer for
the purposes aforesaid shall be sent therewith, and directed to the same persons: And
such justices, or any four or more of them (one being of the quorum) having taken the
usual oaths to his majesty‘s person and government, and subscribed the same, and
repeated and subscribed the test, and having also taken an oath well and truly to execute
the office of justices of oyer and terminer, according to such commission, without favour,
affection, or partiality, shall have power, and they are hereby required, to meet at the
court-house of their county, at any time when there shall be occasion, for the trial of any
slave or slaves committing any offence which by carrying into execution any judgment
by them given on such trial.
II. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That when any slave or
slaves shall at any time hereafter be committed to any county gaol by precept from a
justice of the peace for any criminal offence, such justice shall forthwith issue his warrant
to the sheriff of the county, requiring him to summon the justices to meet at their courthouse on a certain day to be in such warrant appointed, to hold a court for the trial of such
criminal or criminals; on which day, or at such other time as shall be appointed, in case a
court shall not then be held, the said justices, or any four or more of them (one being of
the quorum) shall cause the offender or offenders to be publickly arraigned and tried,
without the solemnity of a jury, upon such evidence, in like manner, and subject to the
several regulations in the herein before recited act directed and required, where the same
is not hereby altered.
III. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That where any slave shall be
convicted of manslaughter for killing a slave, such offender shall be allowed the benefit
of clergy.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 8:137-139.

November 1765—List of the Children at the Bray School in Williamsburg
Robert Carter Nicholas enclosed a list of the children at the Bray School in a letter to the
Reverend John Waring.
List of Negro Children who are at the Charity School in Williamsburg November 1765
Mrs. Campbell‘s Young & Mary
Mrs. Davenport‘s William
Mr. Hay‘s Jerry
Doctor Carter‘s Nanny
Mr Blair‘s John, Dolly, Elizabeth, Catherine,
Fanny, Isaac & Johanna
Mrs. Burwell‘s Joseph & Davy

[# of children]
2
1
1
1
7
2

240

Mrs. Prentis‘s Molly
Colo. Johnson‘s Squire
Colo. Chiswell‘s Edmund & Johnny
Mr. Charlton‘s Nancy & Davy
Mrs. Grymes‘s Phillis
Mrs. Orr‘s Pat & Jack, James & Sal
Mr. Thompson‘s Charles
Mr. Brown‘s Elizabeth
Mr. Thompson‘s Betty
Matt. Ashby‘s Harry & John
Mrs. Vobe‘s Sal
Mr. Waters‘s Sylvia
Mr. Randolph‘s Roger and Sam
in all

1
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
34

Source: Van Horne, ed., Religious Philanthropy and Colonial Slavery, pp. 241-242.
December 23, 1765—George Mason on Slavery as a ―troublesom Estate‖
In the introduction to his "Scheme for Replevying Goods and Distress for Rent,"
addressed to George William Fairfax and George Washington, Mason expressed his
uneasiness about the effect of slavery on Virginia. In arguing that the legislature should
do more to promote tenancy, he asserted that slavery discouraged white settlers from
immigrating to Virginia and coarsened the "morals and manners" of those who already
lived in the colony. This is Mason's first known allusion to the negative effects of
slavery. Mason apparently came face to face with the troublesomeness of his own slaves
when two or more of them were executed late in 1767 for their involvement in murdering
several overseers by poisoning.
The Policy of encouraging the Importation of free People & discouraging that of
Slaves has never been duly considered in this Colony, or we shou'd not at this Day see
one Half of our best Lands in most Parts of the Country remain unsetled, & the other
cultivated with Slaves; not to mention the ill Effect such a Practice has upon the Morals
and Manners of our People: one of the first Signs of the Decay, & perhaps the primary
Cause of the Destruction of the most flourishing Government that ever existed was the
Introduction of great Numbers of Slaves--an Evil very pathetically described by the
Roman Historians--but 'tis not the present Intention to expose our Weakness by
examining this Subject too freely.
That the Custom of leasing Lands is more beneficial to the Community than that
of setling them with Slaves is a Maxim that will hardly be denyed in any free Country;
tho' it may not be attended with so much imediate Profit to the Land-holder: in Proportion
as it is more useful to the Public, the Invitations from the Legislature to pursue it shou'd
be stronger:—no Means seem so natural as securing the Payment of Rents in an easy &
effectual Manner: the little Trouble and Risque attending this Species of Property may be

241

considered as an Equivalent to the greater Profit arising from the Labour of Slaves, or any
other precarious & troublesom Estate. . . .
Source: The Papers of George Mason, 1:61-62.

July 2, 1766—George Washington Sells a Runaway Slave Named Tom to the West
Indies
Although by all accounts George Washington was a humane master who tried not to
separate slave families and who developed an increasing antipathy toward the institution
of slavery over the course of his life, he had little tolerance for rebellious slaves. In 1766,
he wrote the letter transcribed below, asking Captain Joseph Thompson to sell a slave
named Tom to the West Indies in return for molasses, rum, fruit, sweetmeats, and spirits.
Similarly, in 1772, he sold a slave named Will Shag, who had run away several times and
had beaten an overseer, to Port-au-Prince for molasses.
Sir,

Mount Vernon July 2d 1766.
With this Letter comes a Negro (Tom) which I beg favour of you to sell, in any of
the Islands you may go to, for whatever he will fetch, & bring me in return for him
One Hhd of best Molasses
One Ditto of best Rum
One Barrl of Lymes–if good & Cheap
One Pot of Tamarinds--contg about 10 lbs.
Two small Do of mixed Sweetmeats--abt 5 lb. each
And the residue, much or little, in good old Spirits
That this Fellow is both a Rogue & Runaway (tho. he was by no means
remarkable for the former, and never practised the latter till of late) I shall not pretend to
deny--But that he is exceeding healthy, strong, and good at the Hoe, the whole
neighbourhood can testifie & particularly Mr Johnson and his Son, who have both had
him under them as foreman of the gang; which gives me reason to hope he may, with
your good management, sell well, if kept clean & trim'd up a little when offerd to Sale.
I shall very chearfully allow you the customary Commissions on this affair, and
must beg the favour of you (least he should attempt his escape) to keep him handcuffd till
you get to Sea--or in the Bay--after which I doubt not but you may make him very useful
to you.
I wish you a pleasant and prosperous Passage, and a safe & speedy return, being
Sir, Yr Very Hble Servt
Go: Washington
Source: The Papers of George Washington, ed. Abbot and Twohig, et al., Colonial
Series, 7:453-454.

242

July 22, 1766—Nathaniel Littleton Savage to John Norton
Nathaniel Littleton Savage complains about the deleterious effects of slavery on
slaveowners and their families in this letter to John Norton, an English merchant who had
lived in Yorktown. He worries in particular about the legacy of violence and
extravagance that his children will inherit as slaveholders.
Judge then if our situation is much mended. the only Recipe that can be
prescribed, at this junction, is Frugality & Industry, which is a Potion scarcely to be
swallowed by Virginians, brought up from their Cradles, in Idleness, Luxury, &
Extravagancy, depending on their Myriads of Slaves, that Bane, (if not Curse) of this
Country; how happy are you, to have had it in your power to Rid yourself of that bond of
trouble, which is Inseperable from a Virginia Estate, and place your posterity beyond the
reach of such wretched examples; had it been in my power, to have sold my whole Estate
(as I have part of it, a distant one, which fell to me since I saw you, for Four thousand
pounds, which now would scarcely fetch two thirds of the Money) while Bills keep up &
the people lost their senses should have almost doubled my Fortune, & rendered my Life
easy & free from those perplexing cares, which I have at the thoughts of leaving my
Children, in a country where they must make Whipping Negroes their chief employ,
suppose Mr. Cary, has informed you, that he had sold me your Dwelling House, out
houses & Lotts (which are now occupied by Mr. J. Ambler) for L 600 Sterling, to be
paid, on your making a Title.
Source: Brock Collection, Huntington Library.
March 19, 1767—Arthur Lee‘s Address on Slavery
On March 19, 1767, Rind‘s Virginia Gazette published an open letter by Dr. Arthur Lee
in which he addressed the House of Burgesses on the subject of slavery. Lee, the sixth
son of Thomas and Hannah (Ludwell) Lee of Westmoreland County, had returned to
Virginia the previous year after completing his medical degree at the University of
Edinburgh and two years of advanced study at the University of Leyden. He was living
in Williamsburg when he penned his address.
In his address, Lee argued for the abolition of slavery, setting forth arguments he had
honed in his Essay in Vindication of the Continental Colonies of America (London,
1764). Because there are few extant issues of Rind‘s Virginia Gazette for 1767, it is
impossible to gauge accurately the response that Lee‘s address received from the
supporters of slavery. It is known, however, that Rind refused to publish the second part
of Lee‘s address, which focused on the retrieval of specie.
Less than two weeks after the publication of Lee‘s address, Henry Lee of Leesylvania
proposed a bill in the House of Burgesses to place an additional duty on imported slaves.
It passed in amended form the next month. Arthur Lee did not publish further on the
issue of slavery, but Quaker abolitionist Anthony Benezet subsequently gave Lee‘s

243

address wide circulation in the colonies through an abridged edition devoid of Lee‘s
predictions of violent slave rebellion.
The following extracts are from Lee‘s original essay. The brackets indicate material
omitted from Benezet‘s edition.
To Mr. Rind
Sir–
Permit me, in your paper, to address the members of our Assembly, on two points,
in which the publick interest is very dearly concern‘d.
The Abolition of Slavery & Retrieval of Specie, in this Colony, are the Subjects,
on which I would bespeak their Attention. . . .
Long and serious Reflection upon the nature & Consequences of Slavery, has
Convinced me, that it is a Violation both of Justice and Religion; that it is dangerous to
the safety of the Community in which it prevails; that it is destructive to the growth of
arts & Sciences; and lastly, that it produces a numerous & very fatal train of Vices, both
in the Slave, and in his Master.–To prove these assertions, shall be the purpose of the
following essay. . . .
. . . The British Merchants obtain [slaves] from Africa by violence, artifice &
treachery, with a few trinkets to prompt those unfortunate & detestable people to enslave
one another by force or Strategem. Purchase them indeed they may, under the authority
of an act of British Parliament. An act entailing upon the Africans, with whom we were
not at war, and over whom a British Parliament could not of right assume even a shadow
of authority, the dreadful curse of perpetual slavery upon them and their children forever.
There cannot be in nature, there is not in all of history, an instance in which every right of
men is more flagrantly violated. The laws of the Antients never authorized the making
slaves but of those nations whom they had conquer'd; yet they were Heathens and we are
Christians. They were misled by a false and monstrous religion, divested of humanity, by
a horrible & Barbarous worship; we are directed by the unerring precepts of the revealed
religion we possess, enlightened by its wisdom, and humanized by its benevolence.
Before then were gods deformed with passions, and horrible for every cruelty & Vice;
before us is that incomparable pattern of Meekness, Charity, love, and justice to mankind,
which so transcendently distinguished the founder of Christianity and his ever amiable
doctrines. Reader--remember that the corner stone of your religion is to do unto others as
you wou'd they shou'd do unto you; ask then your own Heart, whether it would not abhor
anyone, as the most outrageous violator of this & every other principle of right, Justice &
humanity, who should make a slave of you and your Posterity forever. Remember that
God knoweth the heart. Lay not this flattering unction to your Soul, that it is the custom
of the Country, that you found it so, that not your will, but your Necessity consents; Ah
think, how little such an excuse will avail you in that awfull day, when your Saviour shall
pronounce judgment upon you for breaking a law too plain to be misunderstood, too
sacred to be violated. If we say that we are Christians, yet act more inhumanly and
unjustly than Heathens, with what dreadfull justice must this Sentance of our blessed
Saviour fall upon us: Not every one that sayeth unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter into the

244

Kingdom of Heaven5; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Think
a moment how much your temporal, your eternal welfare, depends upon the abolition of a
practice, which deforms the Image of your God; tramples on his reveal'd will, infringes
the most Sacred rights, and violates humanity.
Enough I hope has been said to prove that slavery is in violation of justice and
religion. That it is dangerous to the safety of the State in which it prevails, may be as
safely asserted.
What one's own experience hath not taught, that of others must decide. From
whence does history derive its utility. For being, when truly written, a faithfull record of
the transactions of mankind, and the consequences that flow'd from them; we are thence
furnished with the means of judging what will be the probable effect of transactions
similar amoung ourselves. We learn then from history, that Slavery, wherever
encouraged, has sooner or later been productive of very dangerous commotions. I will
not trouble my reader here with quotations in support of this assertion, but content myself
with referring those, who may be dubious of its truth, to the histories of Athens,
Lacedaemon, Rome, and Spain. [And that this observation may bear its full weight, let
me beg that it be remember'd these states were remarkable for being the most warlike in
the world; the bravest and best trained to discipline and arms.
That we are not such is but too obvious. Yet it does not appear that the slaves in
those Communitys, were so numerous as they are in ours. Demosthenes during his
orphanage, had been defrauded of a large fortune; and in his oration for retrieving it
enumerates 52 Slaves. Tacitus, in mentioning a roman Nobleman, who was assassinated
by one of his Slaves; records the whole number amounting to 400, to have suffered Death
for that crime. From these facts we may conclude, that the proportion of slaves among
the antients was not so great as with us; and as, not withstanding this, the freemen, tho'
infinitely better armed and disciplined than we are, were yet brought to the very brink of
ruin by the insurrections of their Slaves; what powerful reasons have not we, to fear event
more fatal consequences from the greater prevalence of Slavery among us.] How long
how bloody and destructive, was the contest between the Moorish slaves and the native
Spaniards, and after almost deluges of blood had been shed, the Spaniards obtain'd
nothing more, than driving them into the mountains; [from whence they remain
themselves subjected to perpetual inroads.] Less bloody indeed, though not less
alarming, have been the insurrections in Jamaica; and to imagine that we shall be forever
exempted from this Calamity, which experience teaches us to be inseparable from
slavery, so encouraged, is an infatuation as astonishing, as it will be surely fatal. [On us,
or on our posterity, the inevitable blow, must, one day, fall; and probably with the most
irresistable vengeance the longer it is protracted. Since time, as it adds strength and
experience to the slaves, will sink us into perfect security and indolence, which
debillitating our minds, and enervating our bodies, will render us an easy conquest to the
feeblest foe. Unarm'd already and undisciplined, with our Militia laws contemned,
neglected or perverted, we are like the wretch at the feast; with a drawn sword depending
over his head by a Single hair; yet we flatter ourselves, in opposition to the force of
reason and conviction of experience, that the danger is not imminent.

5Mathew Chap 7 v. 21

245

To prosecute this Subject farther, at present, would I perceive Mr. Rind, engross
too much of your paper, and most likely disgust the reader, I must therefore take leave to
defer what remains to the next week. Happy shall I be if my poor attempts should prompt
more able Heads to think and write upon a Subject, of such lasting import to the welfare
of the Community. Strongly, I confess, am I attached to the positions here laid down,
because they are formed upon long and serious deliberation; Yet I am open to that
conviction, which truth ever operates on minds unseduced by Interest, and uninflamed by
passion.
I am, Sir,
Your humble Servant
PHILANTHROPOS
Source: MacMaster, ―Arthur Lee‘s ‗Address on Slavery‘,‖ pp. 141-157.

[February 16, 1769]—Robert Carter Nicholas to the Reverend John Waring
Robert Carter Nicholas included a list of the boys and girls who were Anne Wager‘s
pupils in a letter to Reverend Waring
List of Negro Children
Negroes now at School. [16 Feb. 1769]
Mrs. Prisca. Dawson‘s Grace
Mr R. C. Nicholas‘s Sarah
Mr. President Blair‘s Catherine, Nancy, Johanna
& Clara Bee
Mr. Hay‘s Jerry, Joseph, Dick
Mrs. Chiswell‘s Jack
Mrs. Campbell‘s Mary, Sally, Sukey
Mrs. Speaker‘s Sam
Mrs. Vobe‘s Jack
John & Mary Ashby . . free
Mr. Ayscough‘s Sally
The College. Adam, Fanny
The Commissary‘s Charlotte
Mrs. Blaikley‘s Jenny, Jack
Hon. Robt. Carter‘s Dennis
Mr. Hornsby‘s Nancy, Judy, Ratchel
Mr. Cocke‘s Mourning
Mr. Davenport‘s Matt, Harry

[# of children]
1
1
4
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
2

Source: Van Horne, ed., Religious Philanthropy and Colonial Slavery, pp. 277-278.

246

November 1769—ACT XIX. An act to amend the Act, intituled an Act to amend the Act
for the better government of Servants and Slaves
The legislators decided that a slave man could be castrated only if he was found guilty of
raping or attempting to rape a white woman. The restrictions that they placed on the
participation of slaves in the economy indicates that a number of enslaved persons traded
as did free persons.
Philip Schwarz notes that few black men were charged with the rape of a white woman in
the first three-quarters of the eighteenth century. The small number of rapes is evidence
that the legislators responded to white fears of black male sexuality when they wrote this
statute.
I. . . . . Be it therefore enacted, by the Governor, Council, and Burgesses, of this
present General Assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That it
shall not be lawful for any county court to order and direct castration of any slave, except
such slave shall be convicted of an attempt to ravish a white woman, in which case they
may inflict such punishment; any thing in the said recited act, to the contrary,
notwithstanding.
V. Provided also, That if the owner or overseer of such runaway shall be an
inhabitant of the county where such runaway is taken up, the taker up shall, in that case,
convey and deliver him or her to the owner or overseer as aforesaid, and shall not be at
liberty to carry such runaway to the gaol of the county, as is before directed.
VI. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That before any runaway
shall be delivered out of custody of the sheriff or gaoler, the person claiming such
runaway shall pay down the reward aforesaid, for taking up, and the charge of
advertising, with the fees for keeping and maintaining the runaway, as the same are now
settled by law; and every sheriff or gaoler receiving the reward aforesaid for taking up,
and refusing or neglecting to pay the same, the taker-up may recover the same, with
costs, by warrant, before a single justice, where the reward shall not exceed twenty-five
shillings or where the reward shall exceed that sum, then by petition or action, as the case
may require, in any court of record within this colony.
VIII. And whereas many owners of slaves, in consideration of stipulated wages to
be paid by such slaves, licence them to go at large, and to trade as freemen, which is
found to be a great encouragement to the commission of thefts and other evil practices by
such slaves, in order to enable them to fulfil their agreements with their masters or
owners: For prevention whereof, Be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That
from and after the commencement of this act, if any master or owner of a slave shall
licence such slave to go at large, and trade as a freeman as aforesaid, the master or owner
shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten pounds current money, for the use of the poor of that
parish where such slave shall be found going at large, and trading as aforesaid, to be
recovered by the churchwardens by action of debt, in any court of record within this
dominion. And if after conviction such slave shall be found so going at large, and

247

trading, the master or owner shall again be liable to the like penalty, to be recovered and
applied as aforesaid, and so as often after conviction as such slave shall be found so
going at large, and trading.
Source: Schwarz, Twice Condemned, pp. 71-72, 82-84, 149-164; Hening, ed., The
Statutes at Large, 8:358-361.

November 1769—ACT. XXXVII. An act for exempting free negro, mulatto, and Indian
women, from the payment of levies
In May 1769, free black men petitioned to have their wives and daughters exempted from
the payment of tithes. The approval of their petition in November of the same year lifted
a financial burden from the free black residents of Virginia. Documents related to this
statute are included in the section on the Capitol in this resource book.
I. WHEREAS by an act of the general assembly passed in the twenty second year
of the reign of his late majesty George the second, intituled An act concerning tithables, it
is among other things enacted, that all free negro, mulatto, and Indian women, of the age
of sixteen years, except Indians tributary to this government, and all wives of free
negroes, mulattoes, and Indians, except as is before excepted, should be, and are thereby
declared tithables, and chargeable for defraying the public, county, and parish levies, of
this colony and dominion, which is found very burthensome to such negroes, mulattoes,
and Indians, and is moreover derogatory of the rights of free-born subjects: For remedy
whereof, Be it enacted, by the Governor, Council, and Burgesses, of this present General
Assembly, and it is hereby enacted, by the authority of the same, That from and after the
ninth day of June next, all free negro, mulatto, and Indian women, and all wives, other
than slaves, of free negroes, mulattoes, and Indians, shall be, and are hereby exempted
from being listed as tithables, and from the payment of any public, county, or parish
levies.
II. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That so much of the said
recited act as declares free negro, mulatto, and Indian women, to be chargeable with
public, county, and parish levies, shall be, and the same is hereby repealed.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 8:396.

April 5, 1770—Williamsburg Considers the Establishment of a Night Watch
The Williamsburg area experienced some unrest in the first part of 1770. The February
8, 1770 issue of the Maryland Gazette and the February 15, 1770 edition of the New York
Journal or General Advertiser included accounts of trouble with slaves in York, James
City, and Hanover counties. It is possible that the robberies noted in the April 5, 1770
issue of Purdie and Dixon‘s newspaper were part of the unrest reported in the two other
papers.

248

On Monday night Mr. John Carter‘s store, in the most publick part of the main street of
this city, was broke open and robbed of sundry goods; and some time before Mr. Joseph
Scrivener‘s store, likewise on the main street, was robbed of a considerable sum of
money, by the thieves entering at his cellar window and getting up through a trap door.
We hear likewise of several smokehouses having been stripped of their useful contents,
by undermining, &c. So many robberies, one might imagine, would put our rulers in
mind to fall upon some scheme to prevent them; and we humbly conceive that a set of
watchmen, under proper regulations, would answer that desirable end, who might
likewise be of infinite service in the case of fire. Many of the inhabitants, we are well
assured, are ready and willing to contribute largely to the support of such an useful
institution, whenever it is adopted, which cannot be too soon.
Source: Tate, The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg, p. 113; Virginia Gazette,
Purdie and Dixon, eds., April 5, 1770.

1772—The Somerset Decision
Although less familiar to most Americans than the Dred Scott decision of 1857, the
Somerset decision of 1772 similarly considered the issue of a slave's status when he was
transported beyond his residence by his owner. Unlike Dred Scott, Somerset was a
victory for the enslaved plaintiff, who was a former resident of Virginia. Although the
finding in the case was quite narrow, abolitionists interpreted it as an attack on the
legitimacy of slavery. News of the decision, including erroneous summaries published in
the Virginia Gazette, reached the colonies and prompted some slaves to escape or
demand their freedom.
In 1749, a slaver brought the man who would soon be named James Somerset from
Africa to Virginia, where he was purchased by Charles Stewart, a Scottish merchant who
lived in Norfolk. Stewart and Somerset later relocated to Massachusetts, where Stewart
was a customs officer. In 1769, Stewart traveled to England on business, and Somerset
accompanied him as a personal servant. Two years later, Somerset escaped, but Stewart
tracked him down and placed him on a ship bound for Jamaica so that he could be sold.
Abolitionist Granville Sharp and others intervened on Somerset's behalf, and he was
released on a writ of habeas corpus.
Legal historian William M. Wiecek provides a useful introduction to the Somerset case
and its importance to the development of antislavery thought in England and America.
Americans, for better or worse, are a peculiarly legalistic people. Moral or
ideological pressures alone, divorced from secular legal considerations, would not have
accounted for the potency of antislavery in the United States. But slavery was, among
other things, a legal institution, and attacks on its legitimacy were especially congenial to
the American temperament. Abolitionists struck one of their most telling blows when
they asserted that slavery had been established in America in violation of natural law, the
common law, and the constitutional order of the British colonies.

249

The documentary bases of this legal attack were threefold: the Declaration of
Independence, the constitutive documents of the American states and nation, and
Somerset v. Stewart (1772), a decision handed down by William Murray, Lord
Mansfield, Chief Justice of King's Bench, the highest common-law court in England.
Read strictly and technically, the holding of Somerset was limited to two points: a master
could not seize a slave in England and detain him preparatory to sending him out of the
realm to be sold; and habeas corpus was available to the slave to forestall such seizure,
deportation, and sale. But Mansfield's decision, as reported by the young English lawyer
Capel Lofft, contained utterances that imbued the holding with a much broader
significance. As interpreted by American abolitionists and others, Somerset seemed to be
a declaration that slavery was incompatible with natural law and that, in the AngloAmerican world, it could legitimately exist only if established by what Mansfield
ambiguously termed "positive law."
Many contemporaries understood Somerset to have abolished slavery in England;
a few thought it challenged slavery in the colonies as well. Mansfield's utterance had a
plangent quality, suggesting that slavery was of dubious legitimacy everywhere. Though
Mansfield later disavowed the broad implications imputed to Somerset, the decision took
on a life of its own and entered the mainstream of American constitutional discourse. It
furnished abolitionists with some of the most potent doctrinal weapons in their arsenal;
even slave-state jurists at first accepted its antislavery premises and then later worked out
a justification of slavery, as it were, around or in spite of Somerset. The case therefore
became a cloud hanging over the legitimacy of slavery in America, a result that would
have surprised Mansfield. . . .
In spite of the restricted scope of the holding, and the efforts of Mansfield and
others to emphasize how narrow it was and to foreclose more liberating possibilities that
appeared in the interstices of Mansfield's ideas, Somerset burst the confines of its author's
judgment. This occurred chiefly for two reasons. First, the judgment itself, discharging a
black alleged to be a slave by a writ of habeas corpus, struck a telling blow at slavery.
The mere fact that habeas corpus was available to any black to test the legitimacy of his
putative master's claim to him was in itself an extension of the scope of the Great Writ
and a threat to the security of slavery in England. Second, Mansfield's statements
justifying the result had implications for the imperial relation, for conflict of laws, and for
the future of natural law that Mansfield probably did not foresee, and that the defenders
of slavery later had cause to regret.
Source: Wiecek, The Sources of Antislavery Constitutionalism in America, pp. 20-21,
28-29, 33, 40. See also Chapter 9, ―The Case of James Sommersett, a Negro,‖ in A. Leon
Higginbotham, Jr., In the Matter of Color: Race and the American Legal Process: The
Colonial Period, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 333-355.

February 1772—ACT IX. An act for amending the acts concerning the trials and
outlawries of slaves
This statute enabled a slave who was convicted of breaking and entering a house at night
to plead benefit of clergy.

250

I. WHEREAS it hath been doubted whether slaves convicted of breaking and
entering houses in the night time, without stealing goods or chattels from thence, are
entitled to the benefit of clergy: For explaining the law in this point, Be it enacted, by the
Governor, Council, and Burgesses, of this present General Assembly, and it is hereby
enacted, by the authority of the same, That a slave who shall break any house in the night
time, shall not be excluded from clergy, unless the said breaking, in the case of a
freeman, would be a burglary.
II. And be it further enacted, That from and after the passing of this act, sentence
of death shall in no case be passed upon any slave, unless four of the court, before whom
such slave is arraigned and tried, being a majority, shall concur in their opinion of his or
her guilt; any law, custom, or usage, to the contrary thereof, notwithstanding.
III. And whereas doubts have arisen, and various opinions have prevailed,
touching the proper constructions of part of an act of assembly, made in the twentysecond year of the reign of his late majesty, directing the method of proceeding against
outlying slaves, and in what manner they shall be paid for by the public, when killed or
destroyed, in pursuance of the said act: For removing such doubts, and that the said act
may hereafter receive one uniform interpretation, Be it enacted, by the authority
aforesaid, That no justice or justices of the peace of this colony shall, by virtue of the
said act, issue a proclamation against any slave, authorizing any person to kill or destroy
such slave, unless it shall appear to the satisfaction of such justice or justices that such
slave is outlying and doing mischief; and if any slave shall thereafter be killed or
destroyed, by virtue of any proclamation, issued contrary to this act, the owner or
proprietor of such slave shall not be paid for such slave by the publick; any thing in the
said recited act to the contrary, or seeming to the contrary, in any wise, notwithstanding.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 8:522-523.

July 16, 1772—Establishment of a Watch in Williamsburg
Williamsburg‘s municipal officials did not establish a watch until July 1772, even though
the August 1755 Act for the better regulating and training the Militia gave them the
authority to do so. The city leaders decided that the members of the watch would patrol
from 10 pm to daylight each night.
The next mention of the Williamsburg slave patrol is in the 1776 York County levy. The
justices included the following charge: ―Allowed patrollers for 269 times on Duty as per
List at ¼ [£] 17.18.6.‖ It is likely that the entry referred to 269 individuals who had
served on a patrol for a total of sixty-eight patrols (if four men were sent out on each
patrol). If four men served on a watch every night, the charge to York County for the
several patrols in 1776 would have been greater. A minimum of sixty-eight patrols in
one year at a time when the militia regulations required a minimum of twelve patrols in a
calendar year suggests that the residents of Williamsburg believed that they needed a
patrol in 1776.

251

LAST Saturday, at a Court of Common Hall, a bye law was passed for constituting a
WATCH, to consist of four sober and discreet People, who are to patrol the Streets of this
City from ten o‘clock every Night until Daylight the next Morning, to cry the Hours, and
use their best Endeavours to preserve Peace and good Order, by apprehending and
bringing to Justice all disorderly People, Slaves, as well as others. They are likewise to
have the Care of the FIRE ENGINES, and to be ready, in Cases of Accidents by Fire, to
give their Assistance towards extinguishing the same. For which Services each Person is
to receive a Salary of thirty Pounds a Year.
This Regulation, it is hoped, may prove extremely beneficial, not only to this City, but to
the Neighbourhood in general. But as much will depend on those to be employed as
Watchmen, such only as will answer the above Description (to which must be added
Honesty and Diligence) need apply; and they are to give in their Names, with the
necessary Certificates, to the Mayor, to be laid before the Common Hall to be held on the
first Tuesday in next Month, when the Watch will be appointed.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., July 16, 1772.

February 2, 1774—Robert Pleasants to Anthony Benezet
In this letter, Pleasants, a Quaker the President of the Virginia Abolition Society,
discusses the fact that the other twelve colonies were also faced with the problem of how
to end slavery, with Benezet, a resident of Philadelphia.
I think the Phisition has handled the subject of Slavery in a masterly manner, altho I
suppose he may have very little reason to expect to share with his antagonist the thanks of
the Affrican Company, but let that be as it may, he will receive what I expect will be
more agreeable to him, the approbation of Judicious sencible men. I highly approved and
sincerely wish the several petitions to the King and Parliament may have the desired
effect, but I fear there is not virtue and resolution sufficient to forgo or withstand a
present (tho false and imaginary) interest in the continuation of a wicked and destructive
Trade. I have sent one of the papers containing the address and advice to those Mercht.,
to the Printer, and doubt not they will shortly appear in our Gazette and as it seems the
attempts of our Assembly to prohibit the further Importation of Slaves by an imposition
of high Dutys, has been frustrated (as I find is the case in N. york) does thou not think
that Acts of the Colonys making all free after a certain term of Servitude like other
foreigners taking place at a future period so as that all concerned in the Trade might have
notice of such law, would not be (when accompanied with pertinent reasons) more
effectually to put an end to it, and be more likely to be approved by the King and Council
than a prohibition by Duties for I have been told our Governor (and its not unlikely others
also) has instructions to pass no such laws. I just drop this hint for thy consideration.
Source: Donnan, ed., Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to
America, 4:161.

252

June 30, 1774—News of the Somerset Decision Reaches Virginia Slaves
This advertisement in the June 30, 1774 issue of Purdie and Dixon‘s Virginia Gazette
makes clear that news of the Somerset decision reached Virginia slaves.
Augusta, June 18, 1774
Run away the 16th Instant, from the Subscriber, a Negro Man named BACCHUS, about
30 Years of Age, five Feet six or seven Inches high, strong and well made; had on, and
took with him, two white Russia Drill Coats, one turned up with blue, the other quite
plain and new, with white figured Metal Buttons, blue Plush Breeches, a fine Cloth
Pompadour Waistcoat, two or three thin or Summer Jackets, sundry Pairs of white Thread
Stockings, five or six white Shirts, two of them pretty fine, neat Shoes, Silver Buckles, a
fine Hat cut and cocked in the Macaroni Figure, a double-milled Drab Great Coat, and
sundry other Wearing Apparel. He formerly belonged to Doctor George Pitt, of
Williamsburg, and I imagine is gone there under Pretence of my sending him upon
Business, as I have frequently heretofore done; he is a cunning, artful, sensible Fellow,
and very capable of forging a Tale to impose on the Unwary, is well acquainted with the
lower Parts of the Country, having constantly rode with me for some Years past, and has
been used to waiting from his Infancy. He was seen a few Days before he went off with a
Purse of Dollars, and had just before changed a five Pound Bill; most, or all of which, I
suppose he must have robbed me off, which he might easily have done, I having trusted
him much after what I thought had proved his Fidelity. He will probably endeavour to
pass for a Freeman by the Name of John Christian, and attempt to get on Board some
Vessel bound for Great Britain, from the Knowledge he has of the late Determination of
Somerset's Case. Whoever takes up the said Slave shall have 5 l. Reward, on his
Delivery to GABRIEL JONES.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., June 30, 1774.

June 1774—The Prince George County Resolves Call for an End to the Slave Trade
In 1774, the residents of Prince George County and the members of the Virginia
Association passed resolutions that called for the end of the slave trade. The Prince
George County resolution passed in June of that year.
At a General Meeting of the Freeholders and Inhabitants of Prince George‘s
County, Virginia, the following Resolves were proposed and unanimously agreed to . . . .
Resolved, That the African Trade is injurious to this Colony, obstructs the
population of it by freemen, prevents manufacturers and other useful emigrants from
Europe from settling amongst us, and occasions an annual increase of the balance of trade
against this Colony . . . .
At a very full Meeting of Delegates from the different Counties in the Colony and
Dominion of Virginia, begun in Williamsburg the first day of August, in the year of our

253

Lord 1774, and continued by several adjournments to Saturday, the 6th of the same
month, the following Association was unanimously resolved upon and agreed to:
2d. We will neither ourselves import, nor purchase any slave or slaves imported
by any other person, after the first day of November next, either from Africa, the West
Indies, or any other place.
Source: Donnan, ed., Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to
America, 4:161-162.

July 18, 1774—The Fairfax County Resolves Call for an End to the Slave Trade
The Fairfax County Resolves were drafted by George Mason and George Washington at
Mount Vernon for the July 18, 1774 meeting of the Fairfax County committee, which
convened to formulate a response to the Boston Port Bill. The seventeenth resolve
addressed the slave trade. Washington brought the resolves first to Williamsburg, where
he attended the special August meeting of the House of Burgesses, and then to the First
Continental Congress in Philadelphia, where the Resolves were transformed into the
Continental Association of October 20, 1774.
17.
RESOLVED that it is the Opinion of this Meeting, that during our present
Difficulties and Distress, no Slaves ought to be imported into any of the British
Colonies on this Continent; and we take this Opportunity of declaring our most
earnest Wishes to see an entire Stop for ever put to such a wicked cruel and
unnatural trade.
Source: The Papers of George Mason, ed. Rutland, 1:207.

1774—Thomas Jefferson Accuses Great Britain of Trying to Reduce the Colonies to
Slavery
Before the Virginia Convention met in 1774, Jefferson prepared a series of resolutions to
serve as a guide for the delegates to the First Continental Congress, who would be
formulating an address to the king. Jefferson became ill and could not attend the
convention, but some of his friends printed his paper as A Summary View of the Rights of
British America. Among other things, Jefferson criticized King George III for refusing to
accept the Virginia legislature‘s attempt to limit the slave trade by adopting a prohibitive
tariff on imports. In the excerpt below, Jefferson accused Parliament of trying to reduce
the colonies to slavery.
That thus have we hastened thro‘ the reigns which preceded his majesty‘s, during
which the violation of our rights were less alarming, because repeated at more distant
intervals, than that rapid and bold succession of injuries which is likely to distinguish the
present from all other periods of American history. Scarcely have our minds been able to

254

emerge from the astonishment into which one stroke of parliamentary thunder has
involved us, before another more heavy and more alarming is fallen on us. Single acts of
tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions,
begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably thro‘ every change of ministers,
too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.
Source: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Boyd, et al., 1:125.

1774—List of Slaves Owned by Thomas Jefferson
When Thomas Jefferson criticized King George III for rejecting the Virginia legislature‘s
attempt to limit the slave trade, he was the owner of approximately 187 slaves. Jefferson
inherited many of his enslaved laborers and a number of his slave women were mothers
of young children. Jefferson did not need to purchase slaves imported into Virginia in
order to have a labor force to work on his plantations.
Jefferson wrote the following list of slaves on January 14, 1774.
A Roll of the proper Slaves of Thomas Jefferson. Jan. 14. 1774.
Monticello.
*Goliah.
*Hercules.
+Jupiter. 1743.
*Gill.
*Fanny
+Ned. 1760.
Suckey 1765.
Frankey. 1767.
Gill. 1769.
*Quash
*Nell.
*Bella. 1757.
*Charles. 1760.
Jenny. 1768.
*Betty
-Juno
*Toby junr. 1753.
-Luna.1758.

Monticello.
+George
+Ursula.
George.
Bagwell
Archy. 1773
+Frank 1757.
+Bett. 1759
+Scilla. 1762.

255

*Cate. about 1747.
Hannah 1770
Rachel. 1773
* denotes a labourer in the ground.
+ denotes a titheable person following some other occupation
- denotes a person discharged from labor on acct of age or infirmity.

Lego.

Slaves conveyed by my mother to

me
*Harry.
*Will.
*Leah.
Lucy. 1773
Shadwell.
* Moll.
Phill. Dec. 1768.
Phyllis. 1771.
- Milly. 1760.
Dilcy. 1764.
Will. Mar. 1768.
Betty (Patt‘s daur)
- Toby.

under the power given her in my
father‘s will as an indemnification
for the debts I had paid for her.
Lego.
*Caesar.
Shadwell.
* Sall.
+ Lucinda. 1761.
Simon. 1765.
Cyrus. Nov. 1772.
* Squire.
* Belinda.
* Hal. 1760.
Charlotte. Mar. 1768.
Minerva. Sep. 1771.
Sarah. Dec. 1772.

A Roll of the slaves of John Wayles which were allotted to T.J. in right of his wife on a
division of the estate Jan. 14. 1774.
Tradesmen
+ Sanco. Elkhill
Carpenters
+ Abram. Guinea
+ Billy boy Poplar Forest Smiths
+ Barnaby. 1760. Guinea
+ Phill. Guinea Shoemaker
+ King Judith‘s creek
+ Jim Hubbard. Elk hill Watermen
+ Peter. Crank‘s

Judith‘s creek or Dun-lora
- Peg.
* Judy
Hanah.Octob. 1771.
Tamar. June. 1773
* Jupiter
- Phyllis
Shandy. Aug. 1768
Sam. July. 1770.
Phyllis. Nov. 1772

256

Poplar Forest.
* Guinea Will.
* Betty
Hall. Sep. 1767.
Dilcy. Mar. 1769
Suckey. May. 1771
Wingo‘s.
* John. 1753
* Davy. 1755.
+ Mary. 1753
* Doll. 1757.
* Charles.

Crank‘s.
* Emanuel.
* Patt
Prince. 1769
Isabel. 1770.
Peter. 1772.
Sam. 1772.
- Lucy.
- Jack.

Byrd or Elk-hill.
* Sue.
+ Robin. 1757.
* Phoebe. 1759.
Betty. 1762.
Joe. 1764.
Patty. 1766.
Sanco. 1768.
Nanny. 1771.
Sue. 1773.
* Nan.
* Frank.
Gamey. 1764.
Natt. 1766.
Joan. 1768.
Armistead. 1771.
Natia. 1773.
+ York.
* Mima.
Beck. 1771.
* Tomo.
* Rose.
* Turpin.
* Jack
* Patt Kennon.

Elk-hill contind
- Sam.
* Polydore
* Suckey.
Mary. 1773.

Indian Camp.
*
*
*
*
*

Londy.
Sarah.
Ned.
Amey.
Isabel.
Lewis.
Sarah. 1764.
Peg.
* Phoebe
Frank. Jan. 1764
Betty. Aug. 1767.
Lucy. July. 1769.
*
*
*
*

Sam
Dinah.
Jack.
Aggy.
Sam. Feb. 1762.
Judy. 1764.
Dinah. 1766.
Solomon. 1769.

257

Tom. 1767.
Jeffery. 1769.
* Branford.
* Jenny.
continued.

Indian camp contind.
* Will.
* Judy.
Jemmy.
York. 1764.
* Abby. She is said to have been older than
Samey & York probably born abt 53.
Jesse. Nov. 1772. Abby‘s son.
* Ambrose.
* Hannah.
Harry. 1770.
Nanny. 1772.

Angola.
* Cate.
* Cuffey.
* Stephen.
Sall. 1764.
Phill. 1766.
Daniel. 1772.

* Sam.
* Nancy.

Guinea.
+ Betty Hemings.
Nancy. 1761.
Jemmy. 1765.
Thenia. 1767.
Critta. 1769.

continued.

Guinea contind.
Peter. Aug. 1770.
Sally. 1773.
Daniel (grandson) 1772.
+ Aggy.
Jenny. 1764.
Dick. 1767.
* Sall.
Aggy. 1769.
Jemmy. 1771.
Bridge quarter.
* Will.
* Betty.
* Tom.
* Isabel.
Liggon‘s.
* Peter.
* Hannah.
Betty. 1772.
Forest.
+ Martin. 1756.
Bob. 1762.
Dinah. 1761.
Billy Warny. 1763.
* Lucy.
+ Suck
+ Old Jenny

258

* Mingo.
* Tom Shackleford.
Source: Betts, ed., Thomas Jefferson‘s Farm Book, pp. 5-9.

Part V—Enslaved Virginians and the Impending Revolution

Spring and Summer 1775—Reaction to the Gunpowder Incident
In his article, "'Rebel Against Rebel': Enslaved Virginians and the Coming of the
American Revolution," Woody Holton places the revolutionary actions of Virginia's
slaves and patriots in the context of a tradition of black resistance to bondage. He
emphasizes that Lord Dunmore's seizure of gunpowder from the magazine in
Williamsburg's on April 21, 1775 took place when communities throughout the colony,
including Williamsburg, were abuzz with rumors of slave insurrection. Holton stresses
that there were more reports of potential slave uprisings in the third week of April 1775
than in any period in the colony's history. In subsequent days, Dunmore threatened to
free the colony's slaves and use them against patriot militiamen. In Williamsburg, nightly
slave patrols were doubled, and Benjamin Waller remarked that the governor had lost
"the Confidence of the People not so much for having taken the Powder as for the
declaration he made of raising and freeing the Slaves." That summer a record number of
slaves were brought before the county courts for criminal trials.
For more than six months after the battles of Lexington and Concord, the fighting
between British and patriot troops was confined to the northern colonies. Then on 26
October 1775, a squadron of British naval vessels attacked the town of Hampton,
Virginia. The Revolutionary War had come to the South. The battle of Hampton
resulted partly from the actions of a "small mulatto man" named Joseph Harris. Only
four months earlier, Harris had been a resident of Hampton and the property of another
Hamptonian, Henry King, whom he served as a pilot on the Chesapeake Bay. Harris, it
was said, was "well-acquainted with many creeks on the Eastern Shore, at York, James
River, and Nansemond, and many others." All in all, he was "a very useful person."
Harris's knowledge gave him an opportunity to gain his freedom. On 8 June
1775, Virginia's last royal governor, John Murray, fourth earl of Dunmore, fearing an
attack from the increasingly belligerent patriots, fled Williamsburg and took refuge on
HMS Fowey. There he set about assembling a small squadron to fight the patriots. To
accomplish his designs he needed people who knew the bay, so when Harris slipped off
one night in July and presented himself to the skipper of the Fowey, he was welcomed
and immediately put to work as a pilot. When the Fowey left the Chesapeake a short time
later, Harris transferred to a tender called the Liberty.
On the night of 2 September 1775, a hurricane swept through Tidewater Virginia
and drove the Liberty ashore near Hampton. On board Harris's vessel when it went

259

aground was Matthew Squire, captain of the Liberty's mother ship, the Otter. Harris
obtained a canoe from a slave, and he and Squire managed to get across Hampton Roads
to the Otter, which was anchored off Norfolk. Their escape was fortunate because white
leaders had threatened to execute slaves like Harris who fled to the British. Meanwhile,
the beached Liberty fell into the hands of the rebels, who helped themselves to the sails
and other equipment (including seven swivel guns) and then set the boat ablaze. The
Liberty "was burnt by the people thereabouts," the Virginia Gazette reported, "in return
for [Squire's] harbouring gentlemen's negroes, and suffering his sailors to steal poultry,
hogs, &c." Captain Squire was furious. He demanded that Hampton at least return the
Liberty's stores. The rebel committee that ruled the town said it would be happy to
comply with the captain's request—as soon as Squire returned Harris and other black
crewmen to their former owners. This Squire refused to do, prompting a patriot
newspaper to note with sarcasm the "singular ATTACHMENT AND LOYALTY to his
sovereign" of Squire's "Ethiopian director."
Eventually deciding that the contest could not be resolved peacefully, Squire
attacked Hampton on 26 October with six small craft. The little squadron came under
deadly long arms fire. Some nine blacks and other British sailors were killed, and Squire
had to retreat. One of his vessels, the Hawke, went aground, and its crew was captured.
The white prisoners, including Joseph Wilson, an indentured servant who had escaped
from George Washington, were "treated with great humanity," a patriot newspaper
reported. The black crewmen were "tried for their lives."
The engagement at Hampton was the first battle of the Revolutionary War south
of Massachusetts. Just as the earlier fighting in New England had helped poison relations
between Britain and all the rebel colonies, so the battle of Hampton helped embitter white
Virginians against their king. Thomas Jefferson reported that the armed confrontation
had "raised our country into a perfect phrensy." The story of the battle would have been
very different if Joseph Harris had not made his dash for freedom. Perhaps Hampton
whites would never have come into conflict with Captain Squire at all.
Harris was but one of thousands of enslaved Virginians who found opportunity
within the breach that opened between loyalist and patriot whites in 1775. A majority of
those who reached British lines ended up worse off than before. Many were killed in
battle, and hundreds died of disease. Others were recaptured and subjected to worse
working conditions than before, in Chiswell's Mines, which supplied rebel soldiers with
lead, or on sugar plantations in the West Indies. In the single year 1776, however, 400
former slaves sailed away from Virginia to freedom. The aspirations and actions of
enslaved Virginians during the American Revolution have been ably chronicled by
several scholars. Now that the struggle for black freedom during the revolutionary era is
coming into focus, we can begin to assess its effect on white Virginians. One result of
the slaves' struggle was political: In seeking their own freedom, black Virginians
indirectly helped motivate white Virginians to declare independence from Britain.
______
In August 1774 most white Virginians were angry at Parliament for adopting the
acts they called Intolerable. These colonists, however, were content to express their
outrage by cutting off trade with Britain. It was a long way from the boycott of 1774 to
the revolution of 1776. What happened during the crucial year 1775 to convert mere

260

boycotters into revolutionaries? Some of the factors that turned white Virginians against
Britain were geographically or temporally remote; the colonies were incensed that the
British army had invaded far-off Massachusetts, and they feared that the king's troops
might invade Virginia as well. A third source of the white Virginians' anger was not
remote at all; they were irate at Governor Dunmore for first threatening to ally with
enslaved Virginians and, then, later, actually doing so.
Neither Dunmore's threat in April 1775 to emancipate Virginia's slaves nor his
offer of freedom in November of that year to patriots' bondspeople who joined his army
would have carried much significance if black Virginians had remained entirely passive
during the revolutionary crisis. But slaves were not passive. Perhaps a thousand of them
took advantage of Dunmore's offer of emancipation in November 1775. Even before the
governor published his proclamation, however, scores of slaves had joined his little army
or undertaken their own resistance to white rule. Even earlier, before Dunmore first
threatened to offer freedom to the slaves, bondspeople in different parts of Virginia had
gathered to discuss how to take advantage of the growing rift among whites. And the
opposition of 1774 and 1775 was only the culmination of a tradition of black resistance
that was as old as Virginia slavery itself.
...
In the fall of 1775, Dunmore gave white Virginians additional reasons to hate him
and the government he represented. On 15 November at Kemp's Landing south of
Norfolk, his outnumbered force, made up largely of former slaves, defeated 170 members
of the Princess Anne County militia. Several militiamen were killed, and the rest were
put to flight. The patriot commander, Joseph Hutchings, was captured by one of his own
former bondsmen. Kemp's Landing persuaded Dunmore that fugitive slaves could be
valuable allies indeed. The governor "was so ela[ted] with this Victory," John Page,
vice-chairman of the Committee of Safety, reported that he immediately published his
famous emancipation proclamation. About 1,000 slaves escaped their owners and joined
Dunmore. Enlisted in an "Ethiopian Regiment" and wearing uniforms that pointed up the
hypocrisy of liberty-seeking patriots by proclaiming "Liberty to Slaves," former
bondsmen soon made up the major part of the loyalist troops. In order to glimpse the
psychological effect of emancipation on the people who reached Dunmore, it may be
sufficient to notice the case of a man whites called Yellow Peter. He escaped one day in
1775 or 1776 and was later seen "in Governor Dunmore's regiment with a musquet on his
back and a sword by his side." He had changed his name to Captain Peter.
Although Dunmore apparently meant to limit his offer of emancipation to ablebodied men (he addressed it to servants and slaves "able and willing to bear Arms"), half
of those who joined him and survived the war were women and children. Among them
was Francis Rice's slave, Mary. One night in spring 1776, Mary, a resident of Hampton,
snatched up her three-and-a-half-year-old daughter Phillis and made a dash for the British
lines. The two got in safely, lived through the Revolution, and settled afterward in Nova
Scotia.
Still, for the 99 percent of slaves who did not escape to Dunmore, his
emancipation proclamation was in may ways a disappointment. During summer 1775,
many Virginians anticipated that the British government might make the abolition of

261

slavery a goal of the war. Instead, Dunmore offered freedom only to individuals and
formed a conventional army to pursue the limited strategy of taking and holding ground.
Even as Dunmore's decision to fight a traditional war destroyed the hopes of many black
Virginians, it emboldened whites. To them, a black regiment in the British army was a
frightening thing indeed, but it was nothing like a British promise of general
emancipation. By August 1776, patriots forced Dunmore's vastly outnumbered army to
retreat to New York City.
The relief that white Virginians experienced when Dunmore chose to fight a
conventional war did not diminish their anger at him for allying with slaves. As early as
May 1775, free subjects had begun literally to demonize their governor. In November,
when he published his declaration of emancipation, this process intensified. Citizens
denounced Dunmore's "Diabolical scheme" and all "his infernal tribe." "Our devil of a
Governor goes on at a Devil of a rate indeed," Benjamin Harrison commented after
reading the Virginia news.
The deterioration in white Virginians' affection for Dunmore was not the only
political result of his proclamation. Thomas Jefferson spoke for other white Americans
when he stated in the Declaration of Independence that Dunmore's emancipation
proclamation was a major cause of the Revolution. Throughout Virginia, observers noted
that the governor's pronouncement turned neutrals and even loyalists into patriots. "The
inhabitants of this Colony are deeply alarmed at this infernal Scheme," Philip Fithian
recorded in his journal as he passed through the Virginia backcountry in late November.
"It seems to quicken all in Revolution to overpower him at any Risk." Richard Henry
Lee told Catherine Macauley that "Lord Dunmores unparalleled conduct in Virginia has,
a few Scotch excepted, united every Man in that large Colony." Archibald Cary agreed.
"The Proclamation from Lord D[unmore], has had a most extensive good consequence,"
he wrote; white "Men of all ranks resent the pointing a dagger to their Throats, through
the hands of their Slaves." Cary noted that by endangering loyalists as well as patriots,
Dunmore's decision converted many of the former into the latter.
These patriot writers' comments on the governor's declaration may have reflected
some measure of wishful thinking about its effect on undecided and loyalist whites, but
Dunmore's pronouncement did transform many neutrals and loyalists into patriots. It
even pushed two members of the colony's powerful executive council, Robert
"Councilor" Carter and William Byrd III, from the loyalist to the patriot camp. During
summer 1775, Byrd had offered to lead British troops. Both he and Carter, however,
became patriots after Dunmore confirmed his alliance with black Virginians. Byrd then
tendered his services to the patriot forces.
Some of William Byrd's fellow conservatives initially believed that as soon as
Dunmore's superiors in London learned about his emancipation proclamation, they would
repudiate it and recall him. At the end of 1775, Landon Carter assured his diary that it
was "not to be doubted" that Dunmore would soon receive "some missive commission to
Silence all his iniquities both male and female." (This was yet another reference to
Dunmore's alleged miscegenation.) But the winter of 1775-76 came and went with no
evidence that anyone at Whitehall objected to Dunmore's decision to offer freedom to the
slaves.
...

262

Although the effect of Dunmore's cooperation with slaves on white Virginians'
decision to declare independence is often mentioned by scholars who write about the
Revolution, it is generally underestimated. One reason for this minimization is that
students of the origins of the Revolution often do not mention enslaved Virginians until
November 1775, when Dunmore issued his famous emancipation proclamation.
Actually, as several social historians have shown, the governor's declaration culminated a
process that had begun much earlier. Slaves had always resisted their condition. In 1774,
while Dunmore was still one of the colony's most popular governors, enslaved Virginians
began conspiring to exploit the opportunities presented to them by the imperial crisis.
The following April, as rumors of the planning of a wide-ranging insurrection circulated,
a group of slaves literally knocked on the governor's door and offered to cast their lots
with his. And slaves kept knocking all through the summer and into the fall. Andrew
Estave's fifteen-year-old bondswoman presented herself at the governor's palace early in
the summer, after Dunmore had taken refuge on a British warship. She was recaptured,
but other slaves did reach the earl and served him as sailors, raiders, and soldiers. It was
not until after the series of black initiatives culminating in the victory at Kemp's Landing
on 15 November that Dunmore officially offered freedom to the slaves. The slaves'
insurgency played an important role in persuading Dunmore to ally with them--and thus
in prodding white Virginians farther along the road to independence.
If black Virginians really did help push whites into independence, how does that
change our understanding of the Revolution in Virginia? At least to some extent, we
must agree with an anonymous resident of Williamsburg who assessed the situation in
November 1775, shortly after Dunmore published his emancipation proclamation.
"Whoever considers well the meaning of the word Rebel," he wrote, "will discover that
the author of the Proclamation is now himself in actual rebellion, having armed our
slaves against us, and having excited them to insurrection." In modern terms, this author
might have said that white Virginians' struggle against Dunmore and his Ethiopian
Regiment was not a revolution but a counterrevolution.
The war in Virginia pitted two classes, slave owners and slaves, against each
other. At least in this one aspect of Virginia's multifaceted revolutionary experience,
therefore, Virginia fits the Progressive historians' interpretation of the Revolution as a
dual conflict over both home rule and who would rule at home. For years students of the
origins of the American Revolution in Virginia, taking as an article of faith the "relative
docility of the poorer farmers" in that colony, found almost no value in the Progressives'
hypothesis that class conflict helped cause the Revolution. More recently, the assumption
that small farmers were tractable has been challenged. And if enslaved Virginians are
considered a class—which surely they must be—then there certainly was class conflict in
Virginia during the prerevolutionary period, and that antagonism did help bring on the
American Revolution. In fact, judging from the frenzied white reaction to Dunmore's
decision to forge an alliance with black Virginians, it may be that Virginia was the colony
in which class conflict gave the biggest push to the movement for independence.
Source: Holton, "'Rebel Against Rebel,'" pp. 157-161, 182-187, 189-192.

263

April 1775—Slaves Create Disturbances in Williamsburg
In an April 21, 1775 letter to George Washington, Edmund Pendleton made reference to
agitation among Williamsburg slaves. He indicated that the unrest would delay Peyton
Randolph‘s departure for the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia. The
disturbances, which took place at the time of the powder magazine incident, were not
reported in the Virginia Gazette.
I have as yet heard nothing From the Speaker fixing the time of our setting out,
indeed from some disturbances in the City, by the Slaves, I doubt whether he will go–I
purpose however to set off at all events Wednesday morning the 3d & shall be glad to
meet you at upper Malbrough Thursday night. My Complts to Mrs Washington and the
young pair. I am Dr Sr Yr mo. humble Servt
Edmd Pendleton
Source: The Papers of George Washington, ed. Abbot and Twohig, et al., Colonial
Series, 10:340.

April 21, 1775—Address of the Williamsburg Municipal Common Hall to Governor
Dunmore
In the following excerpt, Williamsburg‘s municipal leaders express their concern about
potential slave unrest in the days after the Gunpowder Incident.
We further beg to inform your excellency, that from various reports at present prevailing in
different parts of the country, we have too much reason to believe that some wicked and
designing persons have instilled the most diabolical notions into the heads of our slaves, and
that, therefore, the utmost attention to our internal security is become the more necessary.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Pinkney, ed., April 20, 1775.

May 1, 1775—Governor Dunmore to Lord Dartmouth
In this letter, Dunmore reveals his plans to arm his slaves and any others who would be
willing to join him. The governor notes that he would free all enslaved persons who left
their masters.
Some of the families have removed from here to avoid the scene that is expected. I have
been obliged to send Lady Dunmore and my children on Board the Man-of-war, and I shall
remain here until I am forced out—But as I cannot expect to make any effectual resistance
in this place against the numbers that are said to be moving against me, I intend to retire
towards the Town or York, where the Man-of-war a 20 gun ship and an armed schooner lie,
under the protection of the guns of which, and under cover of a little entrenchment which I

264

shall throw up, or at worst on Board the Man-of-War, I shall wait for his Majt‘ys orders, and
I have already signified to the Magistrates of Williamsburg, that I expect them on their
allegiance to fall upon means of putting a stop to the March of the People now on their way,
before they enter this City, that otherwise, I shall be forced, and it is my fixed purpose, to
arm all my own negroes, & receive all others that will come to me, whom I shall declare
free. That I do enjoin the Magistrates and all others, professing to be loyal subjects, to repair
to my assistance that I shall consider the whole country in an Actual State of Rebellion, and
myself at liberty to annoy it by every possible means, and that I shall not hesitate at reducing
their houses to Ashes, and spreading devastation wherever I can reach. I have likewise
summoned the Council to attend me about the time which these insurgents are expected
here.
…
If the servants of the Crown should be of opinion, that the authority of Governt. ought to be
enforced here, I am persuaded, that if His Majesty should think proper to add to a small
body of Troops to be sent here, a quantity of Arms, Ammunition and other requisites for the
service, I could raise such a Force from among Indians, Negroes, and other persons, as
would soon reduce the refractory people of this Colony to obedience.
Source: McIlwaine et al., eds., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 17731776, pp. xviii-xix.
May 3, 1775—Governor Dunmore‘s Response to the House of Burgesses
In this proclamation, Dunmore explains his reasons for removing the gunpowder from the
Magazine in Williamsburg. He claims that his actions were intended to make the town safe
from a slave insurrection.
Although I consider myself, under the authority of the crown, the only constitutional judge,
in what manner the munition, provided for the protection of the people of this government,
is to be disposed of for that end; yet for effecting the salutary objects of this proclamation,
and removing from the minds of his Majesty's subjects the groundless suspicions they have
imbibed, I think proper to declare that the apprehensions which seemed to prevail
throughout this whole country of an intended insurrection of the slaves, who had been seen
in large numbers, in the night time, about the magazine, and my knowledge of its being a
very insecure depositary, were my inducements to that measure, and I chose the night as the
properest season, because I knew the temper to the times, and the misinterpretations of my
design which would be apt to prevail if the thing should be known. Acting under these
motives, I certainly rather deserved the thanks of the country than their reproaches. But,
whenever the present ferment shall subside, and it shall become necessary to put arms into
the hands of the militia, for the defence of the people against a foreign enemy or intestine
insurgents, I shall be as ready as on a late occasion to exert my best abilities in the service of
the country. In the mean time, as it is indispensably necessary to maintain order and the
authority of the laws, and thereby the dignity of his Majesty's government, I exhort and

265

require, in his Majesty's name, all his faithful subjects, to leave no expedient unessayed
which may tend to that happy end. Such as are not to be influenced by the love of order for
its own sake, and the blessings it is always productive of, would do well to consider the
internal weakness of this colony, as well as the dangers to which it is exposed from a savage
enemy; who, from the most recent advices I have received from the frontier inhabitants, are
ready to renew their hostilities against the people of this country. But, as on the one hand,
nothing can justify men, without proper authority, in a rapid recurrence to arms, nothing
excuse resistance to the executive power in the due enforcement of law, so on the other,
nothing but such resistance and outrageous proceedings shall ever compel me to avail
myself of any means that may carry the appearance of severity.
Anxious to restore peace and harmony to this distracted country, and to induce a firmer
reliance on the goodness and tenderness of our most gracious Sovereign to all his subjects
equally, and on the wisdom of his councils for a redress of all their real grievances, which
can only be obtained by loyal and constitutional applications, I again call upon and require
all his Majesty's liege subjects, and especially all magistrates and other officers, both civil
and military, to exert themselves in removing the discontents, and suppressing the spirit of
faction, which prevail among the people, that a dutiful submission to the laws of the land
may be strictly observed, which shall ever be the rule of my conduct, as the interest and
happiness of this dominion ever have been, and shall continue to be, the objects of my
administration.
Source: McIlwaine et al., eds., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia 1773-1776,
p. xvii; see also Virginia Gazette, Pinkney, ed., May 4, 1775.

May 4, 1775—Slave Unrest Continues in Williamsburg
Pinkney‘s May 4, 1775 edition of the Virginia Gazette contains the following details
about slave unrest in the Williamsburg area.
We are credibly informed that several negroes made a tender of their
services to a certain noble lord when the attack from the west was expected to
have been made on his sacred person. It must, however, be observed, to the
honour of his lordship, that he threatened them with his severest resentment,
should they presume to renew their application.
It has long been suspected that there were certain incendiaries in this place, whose
business has been most sedu[s]ously to poison the minds of persons in office, by
insidious tales; of which the following incident bears too convincing a proof: The servant
of a certain canonical personage, not very far from college, was taken up by the patrol on
Thursday night, without any pass. He had, however, a sealed letter, without any
superscription, which he said he was ordered to deliver to a certain noble lord, or in his
absence, to the lieutenant governor of one of the northern provinces. The patrol
conceiving that this extraordinary procedure might arise from the nature of the case,
waited on the reverend gentleman, and requested that he would communicate the contents

266

of the letter to them. The reason they allegded for this request was, that at this alarming
crisis even the whispering of the wind was sufficient to rouze their fears. The gentleman
complied with the request, when it was found that he intended to alarm his lordship with
the report of a design to seize Mr. R.C. junior, who was at that time at the Palace. As this
intelligence was utterly saife, it is imagined that many other reports, of the like nature,
have, with familiar views, been whispered in his lordship‘s ears.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Pinkney, ed., May 4, 1775.

June 14, 1775—Five Men Discuss the Gunpowder Incident With the Burgesses
In the following excerpts, four residents of Williamsburg—William Pasteur, Benjamin
Waller, John Randolph, John Dixon—and a man named Hugh Hamilton from
Westmoreland County told members of the House of Burgesses about the Gunpowder
Incident.
It appears to your Committee by the Testimony of Doctor William Pasteur that
on Friday Morning the twenty second of April last there was a Commotion in the City of
Williamsburg occasioned by the Governor‘s removing some Powder from the public
Magazine.…That in the morning of the twenty third of April the said Pasteur attending a
Patient at the Palace, accidentally met with his Excellency the Governor, who introduced
a Conversation relative to what had passed the preceeding day, and seemed greatly
exasperated at the Peoples having been under Arms, when the said Pasteur observed that
it was done in a Hurry and Confusion, that most of the People were convinced they were
wrong. His Lordship then proceeded to make Use of several rash expressions and said
that tho‘ he did not think himself in Danger yet he understood some injury or insult was
intended to be offered to the Captains Foy and Collins, which he should consider as done
to himself as those Gentlemen acted intirely by his particular Directions. That his
Lordship then swore by the living God that if a Grain of Powder was burnt at Captain
Foy or Captain Collins, or if any Injury or insult was offered to himself, or either of them,
that he would declare Freedom to the Slaves, and reduce the City of Williamsburg to
Ashes. His Lordship then mentioned setting up the Royal Standard, but did not say that
he would actually do it, but said he believed, if he did he should have a Majority of white
People and all the Slaves on the side of Government, that he had once fought for the
Virginians, and that, by GOD, he would let them see that he could fight against them, and
declared that in a short Time, he could depopulate the whole Country…That next
Morning after this Report, the said Pasteur attending a Patient at the Palace again met
accidentally with the Governor, who declared to the said Pasteur that if a large Body of
People came below Ruffin‘s Ferry (a place about thirty Miles from this City) that he
would immediately enlarge his plan, and carry it into Execution, but said that he should
not regard a small number of Men, adding he then had two hundred Muskets loaded in
the Palace.
…

267

It appears to your Committee from the Testimony of Benjamin Waller that the
morning after the Powder was removed from the public Magazine, the People in the City
of Williamsburg were much alarmed and assembled some with and others without Arms,
but when, the Corporation reported the Governor‘s answer to their Address, they, by the
persuasion of the Magistrates, and other principal Gentlemen of the Town dispersed and
were quiet, except in the Evening when a Report prevailed that the Marines were landed,
and intended to Town, they expressed great uneasiness and went with their Arms to the
Magazine to guard it, but soon dispersed except a few who acted a patrole that Night.
That the next Day Doctor Pasteur came to the said Waller‘s House, and informed him of
the Governor‘s Threatening that if himself his Family or Captain Collins were insulted,
he would declare liberty to the Slaves, and lay the Town in Ashes, and that the Governor
had desired him to communicate this his Declaration to the Magistrates of the City, for
that there was not an Hour to Loose. That these Declarations gave the said Waller and
the other Inhabitants of the Town great uneasiness. That several Days afterwards his
Excellency came to the said Waller‘s House on some private business, … whereupon he
said Waller took the liberty to mention to his lordship that he was very sorry to tell his
Excellency that he had lost the Confidence of the People not so much for having taken
the Powder as for the declaration he made of raising and freeing the said Slaves to which
he answered that he did say so and made no secret of it and that he would do that or any
thing else to have defended himself in case he had been attacked. That his Lordship
further observed that some Slaves had offered him their Service at the time the Hanover
Men were coming down but that he had sent them away.
…
It also appears to your Committee from the Testimony of John Randolph, Esquire,
Attorney General, of the City of Williamsburg that the Morning after the Removal of the
Powder many of the People were under Arms at the Court House. That he does not
recollect he heard the Governor expressly say he would proclaim Freedom to the Slaves,
but is well satisfied such was his Lordships intention, if it had been necessary for him to
take up Arms in defence of his Person…The said Randolph says that he understood from
the Governor, in case armed People came to Williamsburg, he would fix up the Royal
Standard, to distinguish the Friends of Government from its foes, and that if Negroes on
that Occasion offered their Service they would be received. That the Governor informed
him some Negroes (by one of his Servants) had offered their Service, but he ordered his
Servant to bid them go about their Business.
…
It also appears by the Testimony of John Dixon, Esquire, Mayor of the City of
Williamsburg,…That the Inhabitants appeared to be in perfect tranquility til a Report was
spread by his Excellency‘s throwing out some threats respecting the Slaves, when there
seemed to be great uneasiness but nothing more was done but doubling the usual Patrole.
…

268

It appears from the Testimony of Hugh Hamilton of the County of
Westmoreland…That the people within his Acquaintance have been very orderly and that
he never saw any Commotion before the Powder was taken from the Magazine. That
there was an alarm concerning the Slaves prior to this transaction, which was greatly
increased by the Report of the Governor‘s intention to declare them free. That he never
discovered the smallest inclination in any of the Inhabitants to be independent of Great
Britain, but on the contrary a most eager desire for a Connection as it stood prior to the
Acts of Parliament imposing Taxes on America, and he is persuaded a Redress of the
Grievances complained of would establish a perfect Tranquility throughout this Colony,
and produce a Reconciliation with the parent State.
Source: McIlwaine et al., eds., Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, pp. 231234.

June 16, 1775—Letter to Alexander Purdie
An unidentified author sent the following letter to Alexander Purdie in June 1775. The
author points out that Virginia has played a leading role in the American opposition to
England and that the colony had enjoyed tranquility until the spring of 1775.
The rise and progress of the present troubles in America are so well known, through most
parts of the world, and our resistance to arbitrary power so generally applauded, that I
may well be excused from looking far backwards, and from vindicating the first steps of
American opposition. Though Virginia most heartily concurred, and in many instances
took the lead, in the virtuous struggles of the colonies, yet, till lately, she was free from
those direful effects of ministerial tyranny which some other parts of the continent
experienced. The first thing which particularly disturbed her tranquillity was a threatened
insurrection of her negro slaves, in the beginning of the spring of 1775. Whether this was
general, or who were the instigators, remains as yet a secret. There was reason, however,
to believe that most of the negroes were too well affected to their masters, and too
apprehensive of the bad consequences, as well as suspicious of the friendship of our
adversaries, to join in such a wicked scheme. From some hints, it was inferred that the
negroes had not been without encouragement from a Gentleman of the Navy, who has
distinguished himself lately in our rivers. Whatever the plot was, it was seasonably
discovered, and effectual measures taken to suppress it…. The people could not conceive
how disarming them would discourage their negroes from rising, should they be so
disposed; nor could they divine how he could procure the powder, upon any emergency,
from a vessel whose station for one hour was uncertain. The magazine had never yet
been attempted by the negroes; and, had this been apprehended, they thought it might
easily have been secured by a guard. Upon the whole, they looked upon the Governour‘s
answer as evasive and insulting; and the people were, with difficulty, kept within the
bounds of moderation.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., June 16, 1775.

269

June 19, 1775—The Burgesses Address Governor Dunmore
The members of the House of Burgesses address Dunmore on the Gunpowder Incident.
The tone of the address indicates that many Virginians feared a slave insurrection and
believed that the slaves might be encouraged to take action because of lack of powder
and arms in the Powder Magazine.
From the best Accounts received from Great Britain, there was too much Reason to be
convinced that his Majesty‘s Ministry were prosecuting the most vigorous and arbitrary
Measures towards subjugating the Continent of America to their despotick Rule; which
Measures, it is more probable, had been suggested from hence, and the other Colonies:
That a Scheme, the most diabolical, had been meditated, and generally recommended, by
a Person of great Influence, to offer Freedom to our Slaves, and turn them against their
Masters. The Convention, to guard against these Dangers not clearly seen into before
that time, recommended a strict attention to the Militia Law of 1738 [Hening‘s V, p. 16.];
but thinking this defective in many essential Points, considering that under this Law the
whole Militia were not obliged to exercise so frequently as might be necessary, it was
recommended that volunteer Companies should be formed in each County, for the better
Defence and Protection of the whole Country. These Proceedings, according to an
unusual Style, it is more than probable, have been represented as designed to oppose
Government; whereas, we are persuaded, that Nothing was farther from the Intentions of
the Convention…. Judge then how very alarming a Removal of the small Stock which
remained in the public Magazine, for the Defence of the Country, and the Striping the
Guns of their Locks, must have been to any People, who had the Smallest Regard for
their Security. The manner and Time, of doing it, made no small Addition to the General
Apprehension of your Lordship‘s Views. The reason assigned by your Lordship for
taking this step, we should have thought the most likely, at any other Time, to have
dictated a very different Conduct. We should have supposed, that a well-grounded
Apprehension of an Insurrection of the Slaves ought to have called forth the utmost
exertions to suppress it.… That in the succeeding night, on a Report that a number of
armed Men had landed at a Ferry about four Miles from the City, the Inhabitants were
again much alarmed; but, upon the Interposition of some Gentlemen, they were quieted,
and nothing farther was done than strengthening the usual Patrole for the security of the
City. We farther find, that on the next Day, when every Thing was perfectly quiet, your
Lordship sent a Message into the City by one of the Magistrates, which you delivered
with the most solemn Asseverations, that if any Insult was offered to Captain Foy or
Captain Collins, you would declare Freedom to the Slaves, and lay the Town in Ashes;
and that you could easily depopulate the whole Country. What could have provoked your
Lordship to this we cannot discover, as both Captain Foy and Captain Collins, and
several other Officers, had been frequently seen walking publickly in the Streets, and no
one offered either of them the least Injury; nor can we discover any Reason to believe
that any Thing of the sort was intended. The Inhabitants my Lord could not but be
exceedingly alarmed at so cruel a Threat, many People considered it as a part of that
General Plan, they had heard was recommended in England, and which was discovered

270

by your Lordship through Accident, they, however, did nothing more, that we can learn
than continue their former Patroles.
Source: McIlwaine et al., eds., Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, pp. 256258; see also ibid., p. 245.

1775—Phillis Wheatley Praises George Washington and Freedom
Born in 1753, perhaps along the Gambia River in Africa, the slave girl later named Phillis
Wheatley arrived in Boston Harbor on July 11, 1761. She was purchased by John and
Susanna Wheatley and worked for them as a servant. Her first published writing
appeared six years later, when she was about fourteen. Her poem, ―On the Death of the
Rev. George Whitefield,‖ published in London in 1770, brought her international
renown. Early in September 1773, her Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral,
was published in London, the first book published by a black American. The next month,
she described her recent manumission in a letter to a friend. Wheatley later married but
died in poverty in Boston on December 5, 1784. The first American printing of her
Poems occurred two years later.
Wheatley, who was manumitted sometime before October 1773, wrote several poems
commemorating events in the American Revolution, including the Boston Massacre and
the appointment of George Washington as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army.
The black poet and Virginia slaveholder later met. In the poem, first published in
Providence in 1775 and later reprinted by Thomas Paine in The Pennsylvania Magazine,
Wheatley celebrates freedom.
To His Excellency General Washington
Celestial choir! enthron‘d in realms of light,
Columbia‘s scenes of glorious toils I write.
While freedom‘s cause her anxious breast alarms,
She flashes dreadful in refulgent arms.
See mother earth her offspring‘s fate bemoan,
And nations gaze at scenes before unknown!
See the bright beams of heaven‘s revolving light
Involved in sorrows and veil of night!
The goddess comes, she moves divinely fair,
Olive and laurel bind her golden hair:
Wherever shines this native of the skies,
Unnumber‘d charms and recent graces rise.
Muse! bow propitious while my pen relates
How pour her armies through a thousand gates,

271

As when Eolus heaven‘s fair face deforms,
Enwrapp‘d in tempest and a night of storms;
Astonish‘d ocean feels the wild uproar,
The refluent surges beat the sounding shore;
Or thick as leaves in Autumn‘s golden reign,
Such, and so many, moves the warrior‘s train.
In bright array they seek the work of war,
Where high unfurl‘d the ensign waves in air.
Shall I to Washington their praise recite?
Enough thou know‘st them in the fields of fight.
Thee, first in peace and honours,–we demand
The grace and glory of thy martial band.
Fam‘d for thy valour, for thy virtues more,
Hear every tongue thy guardian aid implore!
One century scarce perform‘d its destined round,
When Gallic powers Columbia‘s fury found;
And so may you, whoever dares disgrace
The land of freedom‘s heaven-defended race!
Fix‘d are the eyes of nations on the scales,
For in their hopes Columbia‘s arm prevails.
Anon Britannia droops the pensive head,
While round increase the rising hills of dead.
Ah! cruel blindness to Columbia‘s state!
Lament thy thirst of boundless power too late.
Proceed, great chief, with virtue on thy side,
Thy ev‘ry action let the goddess guide.
A crown, a mansion, and a throne that shine,
With gold unfading, WASHINGTON! be thine.
Source: The Collected Works of Phillis Wheatley, ed. Shields, pp. 145-146. See also pp.
73-75 for a poem in which Wheatley explains her appreciation for freedom.

1775—British General Thomas Gage Uses the Slave Metaphor to Complain about the
Treatment of Prisoners
During the 1770s, colonial patriots perfected the use of the slave metaphor to complain
about their treatment at the hands of the British government. In the summer of 1775,
George Washington received a letter from Lieutenant General Thomas Gage, who used
the same metaphor in a slightly different way when he protested that British prisoners in
Boston were being treated like slaves because they were being forced to do common
labor.
Sir

Boston 13th August 1775.

272

To the Glory of Civilized nations, humanity and War have been compatible; and
Compassion to the subdued, is become almost a general system.
Britons, ever preeminent in Mercy, have outgone common examples, and
overlooked the Criminal in the Captive. Upon these principles your Prisoners, whose
Lives by the Laws of the Land are destined to the Cord, have hitherto been treated with
care and kindness, and more comfortably lodged then the King‘s Troops in the Hospitals,
indiscriminately it is true, for I acknowledge no Rank that is not derived from the King.
My intelligence from your Army would justify severe recrimination. I understand
there are of the King‘s faithfull Subjects, taken sometime since by the Rebels, labouring
like Negro Slaves, to gain their daily Subsistence, or reduced to the Wretched
Alternative, to perish by famine, or take Arms against their King and Country. Those
who have made the treatment of the Prisoners in my hands, or of your other Friends in
Boston, a Pretence for such measures, found Barbarity under falsehood.
Source: The Papers of George Washington, ed. Abbot, et al., Revolutionary War Series,
1:301-302.

1775—The Enlistment of Blacks During the Revolutionary War
In general orders issued from Cambridge, Massachusetts, on November 12, 1775,
Washington prohibited officers of the Continental Army from enlisting black men.
Manpower needs soon prevailed, however, and an estimated 5,000 black soldiers had
fought on the American side by the end of the war.
In Virginia, the state government enacted similar restrictions, seeking in particular to
prevent the enlistment of slaves. In 1777, the General Assembly forbade recruiting
officers from enlisting blacks unless they produced free papers issued by a justice of the
peace. Although the government never passed an act permitting the arming of slaves,
slaves did enroll as soldiers and sailors, either passing as free men or simply participating
in spite of the law. Particularly after the war‘s fighting shifted south in 1779 and it
became increasingly difficult to fill Virginia‘s regiments, black men were routinely
accepted in the calls for troops issued by the state. While the exact number of black
troops who fought in Virginia is unknown, historian Luther Porter Jackson estimated that
500 free blacks took part along with a smaller number of slaves.

Excerpts from Washington‘s general orders follow.

273

The Officers are to be careful not to inlist any person, suspected of being
unfriendly to the Liberties of America, or any abandon‘d vagabond to whom all Causes
and Countries are equal and alike indifferent–The Rights of mankind and the freedom of
American will have Numbers sufficient to support them, without resorting to such
wretched assistance–Let those who wish to put Shackles upon Freeman fill their Ranks,
and place their confidence in such miscreants.
Neither Negroes, Boys unable to bare Arms, nor old men unfit to endure the
fatigues of the campaign, are to be inlisted; The preferrences being given to the present
Army, The Officers are vigilantly to try, what number of men can be inlisted, in the
Course of this week, and make report thereof to their Colonels, who will report it to the
General–This is to be done every week, until the whole are compleated.
Sources: The Papers of George Washington, ed. Abbot et al., Revolutionary War Series,
2:354-355; Jackson, ―Virginia Negro Soldiers and Seamen in the American Revolution,‖
pp. 251-252, 253, 255-257.
November 16, 1775—Dunmore‘s Proclamation
Governor Dunmore drafted his proclamation on November 7, 1775. He issued it a day
after he and his army defeated several hundred militia at Kemp‘s Landing.
By His Excellency the Right Honorable JOHN Earl of DUNMORE, His MAJESTY‘S
Lieutenant and Governor General of the Colony and Dominion of Virginia and Vice
Admiral of the same.

A PROCLAMATION.
AS I have ever entertained Hopes, that an Accomodation might have taken Place between
GREAT-BRITAIN and this Colony, without being compelled by my Duty to this most
disagreeable but now absolutely necessary Step, rendered so by a Body of armed men
unlawfully assembled, firing on His MAJESTY‘S Tenders, and the formation of an
Army, and that Army now on their March to attack His MAJESTY‘S Troops and destroy
the well disposed Subjects of this Colony. To defeat such reasonable Purposes, and that
all such Traitors, and their Abettors, may be brought to Justice, and that the Peace, and
good Order of this Colony may be again restored, which the ordinary Course of the Civil
Law is unable to effect; I have thought fit to issue this my Proclamation, hereby
declaring, that until the aforesaid good Purposes be obtained, I do in Virtue of the Power
and Authority to ME given, by his MAJESTY, determine to execute Martial Law, and
cause the same to be executed throughout this Colony: and to the end that Peace and
good Order may the sooner be restored, I do require every Person capable of bearing
Arms, to resort to His MAJESTY‘S STANDARD, or be looked upon as Traitors to His
MAJESTY‘S Crown and Government, and thereby become liable to the Penalty the Law
inflicts upon such Offences; such as forfeiture of Life, confiscation of Lands, &c. &c.
And I do hereby further declare all indented Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to

274

Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY‘S
Troops as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense
of their Duty, to His MAJESTY‘S Crown and Dignity. I do further order, and require, all
His MAJESTY‘S Leige Subjects, to retain their Quitrents, or any other Taxes due or that
may become due, in their own Custody, till such Time as Peace may be again restored to
this at present most unhappy Country, or demanded of them for their former salutory
Purposes, by Officers properly authorised to receive the same.
GIVEN under my Hand on board the Ship WILLIAM, off NORFOLK, the 7th
Day of November, in the SIXTEENTH Year of His MAJESTY‘S Reign.
DUNMORE
(GOD save the KING.)
Source: Holton, ―‘Rebel against Rebel,‘‖ p. 183.

November 30, 1775 and December 9, 1775—Virginians Use the Newspaper to
Discourage Slaves From Joining Dunmore
The following excerpts from John Pinkney‘s Virginia Gazette indicate that the colony‘s
leaders used the newspaper to deter slaves from joining the British. They hoped that
enslaved men, women, and children would hear about the poor treatment that slaves
received from Dunmore when their masters read the paper, when they read the paper
themselves, and when slaves shared the details with other slaves. Virginians hoped that
their enslaved laborers would react to Dunmore‘s Proclamation in the same way that
Barber Caesar (also known as John Hope) did.
Lord Dunmore‘s cruel policy begins at length to be discovered by the blacks, who
have lately deserted from him to a considerable number. When his lordship first went
down to Norfolk he gave great encouragement to unwary negroes, but, such was his
baseness, some of them, it is confidently said, he sent to the West Indies, where these
unfortunate creatures were disposed of to defray his lordship‘s expences; and others, such
as he took any dislike to, he delivered up to their masters, to be punished. Since the
troops under colonel Woodford‘s command began their march, lord Dunmore issued a
proclamation inviting the [dirty] of rebels, as he is pleased to say, to repair to [
] rd.
A considerable number at first went to him, but upon their masters taking the oath of
allegiance they were immediately told they ma [ ] return. Some runaways, however,
remained, but these were kept constantly employed in digging entrenchments in wet
ground, till at length the severity of their labour forced many of them to fly. Those that
were left behind have made several attempts to get off, but such is the barbarous policy of
this cruel man, he keeps these unhappy creatures not only against their will, but intends to
place them in the front of the battle, to prevent their flying, in case of an engagement,
which, from their utter ignorance of fire arms, he knows they will do.

275

An honest negro (Caesar, the famous barber of York) being asked what he
thought of lord Dunmore‘s setting negroes free, said, that he did not know any one
foolish enough to believe him, for if he intended to do so, he ought first to set his own
free.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Pinkney, ed., November 30, 1775; ibid., December 9, 1775.

December 1775—ACT VII. An ordinance for establishing a mode of punishment for the
enemies to America in this colony
Virginia‘s leaders decided to punish any slave who fought against the colony. The
Committee of Safety had the authority to send a captured slave to the West Indies to be
sold. By early 1776 the members of the Committee of Safety decided to send some of the
captured slaves to work in the lead mines in Montgomery County.
And be it farther ordained, That if any slave, or slaves, shall be hereafter taken in
arms against this colony, or in the possession of an enemy, through their own choice, the
committee of safety shall have full power and authority to transport such slave, or slaves,
to any of the foreign West India islands, there to be disposed of by sale, and the money
arising from such sale to be laid out in the purchase of arms and ammunition, or
otherwise applied to the use of this colony, as the committee of safety shall judge most
proper; and in case such slaves, so taken in arms, or in the possession of an enemy,
cannot be transported with convenience to this colony, the same shall be disposed of for
the use of this colony, or returned to the owner or owners of such slaves, or otherwise
dealt with according to an act of assembly for punishing slaves committing capital
offences, as the committee of safety may judge most proper.
Provided always, and be it farther ordained, That the owner, or owners, of such
slaves, shall be paid, by the treasurer of this colony for the time being, the full amount of
such sale, or value of such slaves, after deducting the expenses and charge of
transportation; which said valuation shall be made by the commissioners in each county
aforesaid, and certified to the committee of safety, who shall thereupon grant their
warrant, directed to the treasurer for payment of the value of such slave as aforesaid.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 9:101, 106.
1775—Lund Washington‘s Response to Dunmore‘s Proclamation
George Washington‘s cousin Lund managed Mount Vernon between 1764 and 1785.
Early in December 1775, Lund wrote to Washington about Dunmore‘s Proclamation and
speculated that the plantation‘s slaves would be secure unless white laborers gave them
ideas about escaping. While he acknowledged that ―Liberty is sweet,‖ he could not
envision slaves seeking their liberty without instigation from white men.

276

Our Dunmore has at length Published his much dreaded proclamation–declareg
Freedom to All Indented Servts & Slaves (the Property of Rebels) that will repair to his
majestys Standard–being able to bear Arms–What effect it will have upon those sort of
people I cannot tell–I think if there was no white Servts in this family I should be under
no apprehensition about the Slaves, however I am determined, that if any of them Create
any confusition to make & [an] example of him, Sears who is at worck here says there is
not a man of them, but woud leave us, if they believed they coud make their Escape–Tom
Spears Excepted–& yet they have no fault to find[.] Liberty is sweet.
Source: The Papers of George Washington, ed. Abbot, et al., Revolutionary War Series,
2:479-480.

December 3, 1775—Letter from William Roscow Wilson Curle to the Elizabeth City
County—Hampton Town Committee of Safety
In a December 3, 1775 letter to the Honorable Committee of Safety, William Roscow
Wilson Curle, chair of the Elizabeth City County-Hampton Town joint committee formed
to enforce non-importation, made an analogy between Virginia patriots and slaves after
the patriots captured the merchant ship Christian and confiscated letters on board. He
also referred to slaves captured while attempting to join Lord Dunmore's forces in
response to the governor's proclamation.
Sir

Decr. 3rd. Hampton
Night before the last, on hearing a Sloop from Norfolk bound out was laying
below the Fort; The Gentleman who has Charge of this &c. at the Direction of our
Commanding Officer went down with 7 or 8 men, boarded her and brought her to the
Mouth of our Harbour, and Yesterday She was fetched in; She is called the Christian.
The Property of A[rchibald] Govan & Co. and one [James] Avery is master thereof, who
being bound to Glasgow, was bearing thither, a Number of Letters which our Committee
together with the Concurrence of [Lt.] Colo. [Thomas] Elliott thought right to peruse. On
which we have discovered some of our most base, vile, secret and malicious Enemys,
who appear to have formed a diabolical Combination to do their Utmost; Slyly and
ungratefully to reduce Americans, and especially Virginia to the most miserable and
abject State and Condition; In Short I think they prove if Scotchmen continue in our Land
thus free; Virginians must be Slaves
...
Pray Order what shall be done with the Christian and other Scotch Prizes; The Negroes
we have from divers Quarters found going over to the Governor and secured, are
becoming too numerous as our Goal [sic] is at present very insufficient; We therefore
wish they may be sent for--there are 14 in Confinement.
Source: Scribner and Tarter, eds., Revolutionary Virginia, 5:45-46.

277

December 5, 1775—Colonel William Woodford Describes the Battle of Great Bridge
Colonel William Woodford, commander of Virginia's 2nd Regiment, described the
events of December 5, 1775 during the Battle of Great Bridge near Norfolk in a letter to
Edmund Pendleton. In a skirmish before dawn, the Virginians killed two black loyalist
soldiers and captured two others. The two prisoners were interrogated, and their
testimony shows how fully escaped slaves participated in the British defense of Norfolk.
Examination of Negroes George and Ned taken prisoners by [Lt.] Colo: Stephen's
[Edward Stevens's] detachment December 5th: 1775. before the field officers.
Negro George belonging to Mr. [Samuel] Donaldson at Suffolk informs that he
left Norfolk yesterday with 55 Black and 2 White men, that he thinks there are 400
Blacks in that town, besides Soldiers and Tories;—That a tender went down the river to
meet a ship & a snow which the Soldiers told him were expected from St. Augustine with
troops to the Amount of 4 or 500: That the intrenchment at Norfolk was nearly
compleated, and that they were to begin to mount their Cannon yesterday on the works,
twelve pieces. That there are in the fort at the bridge about 30 Whites & 90 Blacks; The
fort is commanded by one [John] Cunningham; They have six pieces of Cannon on
Carriages in the fort, and he believes plenty of Ammunition and provision. That last
Saturday there were about 30 head of Cattle & 50 Sheep driven into Norfolk by the
Country people & put into an inclosure. That in general they are plentifully supplied with
fresh provisions from the Market in Norfolk. That all the blacks who are sent to the fort
at the great Bridge, are supplied with muskets, Cartridges, &C and strictly ordered to use
them defensively & offensively. That the Officer who commanded the party from which
he was taken last night, is named Wodrop [James Wardrop]. That negro Ned taken
Prisoner with him the said George, entered as a Voluntier into the service.
_______
Examination of Negro Ned taken prisoner by Lieut. Colo. Stephens's Detachment
December 5th: 1775
Negro Ned, belonging to Mr. [Nathaniel?] Newton of Kemps Landing, upon his
Examination, informs that a Ship & a snow arrived at Norfolk on Friday last with
Soldiers. That he came from Norfolk yesterday with twenty odd Blacks and three
Whites.
That all the Blacks who are at any time sent up to the fort at the Great Bridge are
supplied with Muskets Ammunition &c, and ordered to use them against us
Source: Scribner and Tarter, eds., Revolutionary Virginia, 5:58-59.

278

December 14, 1775—Delegates to the Fourth Virginia Convention Offer to Pardon
Slaves Who Abandon Dunmore
On December 13, 1775, Treasurer Robert Carter Nicholas reported that the committee
charged with drawing up a response to Dunmore's Proclamation had completed its work.
The declaration, which described Dunmore's action as a despotic seizure of property and
a stimulus to slave insurrection, was unanimously approved by the members of the Fourth
Virginia Convention. The following day the delegates to the Fourth Virginia Convention
unanimously approved the following declaration.
By the representatives of the people of the Colony and Dominion of Virginia assembled
in General Convention.
A Declaration.
Whereas lord Dunmore, by his proclamation, dated on board the ship William, off
Norfolk, the 7th day of November 1775, hath offered freedom to such able-bodied slaves
as are willing to join him, and take up arms, against the good people of this colony,
giving thereby encouragement to a general insurrection, which may induce a necessity of
inflicting the several punishments upon those unhappy people, already deluded by his
base and insidious arts, and whereas, by an act of the General Assembly now in force in
this colony, it is enacted, that all negro or other slaves, conspiring to rebel or make
insurrection, shall suffer death, and be excluded all benefit of clergy: We think it proper
to declare, that all slaves who have been, or shall be seduced, by his lordship's
proclamation, or other arts, to desert their masters' service, and take up arms against the
inhabitants of this colony, shall be liable to such punishment as shall hereafter be directed
by the General Convention. And to the end that all such, who have taken this unlawful
and wicked step, may return in safety to their duty, and escape the punishment due to
their crimes, we hereby promise pardon to them, they surrendering themselves to col.
William Woodford, or any other commander of our troops, and not appearing in arms
after the publication hereof. And we do farther earnestly recommend it to all humane and
benevolent persons in this colony to explain and make known this our offer of mercy to
those unfortunate people.
Source: Scribner and Tarter, eds., Revolutionary Virginia, 5:139; see ibid., 5:125-127 for
the December 13, 1775, response to Dunmore and Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed.,
December 16, 1775.

December 26, 1775—George Washington on Governor Dunmore
On December 26, 1775, Washington wrote to Richard Henry Lee from Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and expressed his antipathy for Dunmore. Concerned about the damage
Dunmore and his forces could cause, Washington hoped to stem the flow of slaves and
servants to the former royal governor by capturing or killing him. In July 1776, three of
Washington‘s slaves joined Dunmore‘s fleet. In addition, three of Washington‘s slaves

279

(two men and a woman), all of whom gave different times of escape, were among the
close to 3,000 black refugees who left New York with the British in 1783.
Lord Dunmores Letters to General Howe &ca wch very fortunately fell into my hands, &
Inclosed by me to Congress, will let you pretty fully into his diabolical Schemes–If my
Dear Sir that Man is not crushed before Spring, he will become the most formidable
Enemy America has–his strength will Increase as a Snow ball by Rolling; and faster, if
some expedient cannot be hit upon to convince the Slaves and Servants of the Impotency
of His designs. You will see by his Letters what pains he is taking to invite a
Reinforcement at all events there, & to transplant the War to the Southern Colonies. I do
not think that forcing his Lordship on Ship board is sufficient; nothing less than depriving
him of life or liberty will secure peace to Virginia; as motives of Resentment actuates his
conduct to a degree equal to the total destruction of the Colony.
Source: The Papers of George Washington, ed. Abbot, et al., Revolutionary War Series,
2:611.
1775 to 1776—The Experiences of ―Lord Dunmore‘s Ethiopian Regiment‖
While some slaves were suspicious of Dunmore because of his limited offer of
emancipation and his unwillingness to free his own slaves, an estimated 800 or more
slaves decided to join him. Male slaves who escaped in response to Dunmore‘s
Proclamation contributed to the British war effort in Virginia for about eight months. To
try to minimize the number of slaves who might make themselves available to Dunmore,
Virginia authorities collected and guarded potential escape vessels and required owners
in some Tidewater counties to remove their slaves to the interior. Officials also tried to
discourage slaves from joining Dunmore by selling those who were captured to the West
Indies or purchasing them and putting them to work in the lead mines. Other runaways
ended up in the public gaol in Williamsburg, where several died awaiting trial in 1776,
leading the Virginia convention to order that sanitary measures be improved at the gaol.
When the fighting returned to Virginia between 1779 and 1781, slaves bolted to the
British in even greater numbers than they had earlier in the war. British raids along the
James and Potomac Rivers in 1781 caused widespread desertion of slaves from the
plantations. Numerous slaves also joined General Cornwallis as he made his way from
North Carolina to Yorktown. In all, thousands are estimated to have taken a chance on
gaining their freedom. While some of the men among the runaways had the opportunity
to fight, especially at sea, most served as military laborers or as body servants. Like
many of Dunmore‘s troops, large numbers of the new recruits suffered horribly from
disease and famine.
In the following selection from his classic work, The Negro During the American
Revolution, Benjamin Quarles describes some of the military experiences of black men
who joined Dunmore as soldiers, pilots, and foragers. He also notes the terrible toll that
disease took on the troops.

280

The Negroes who reached the British were generally able-bodied men who could
be put to many uses. It was as soldiers, however, that Dunmore envisioned them, and
from the beginning he enlisted them in his military forces. By early December [1775] he
was arming them ‗as fast as they came in.‘ Negro privates took part in a skirmish at
Kemp‘s Landing in which the colonials were routed; indeed, slaves captured one of the
two commanding colonels. In the encounters preceding the action at Great Bridge, two
runaways who were taken prisoner testified that the garrison was manned by thirty whites
and ninety Negroes, and that ‗all the blacks who are sent to the fort at the great Bridge,
are supplied with muskets, Cartridges &c strictly ordered to use them defensively &
offensively.‘ By the first of December the British had nearly three hundred slaves
outfitted in military garb, with the inscription, ‗Liberty to Slaves,‘ emblazoned across the
breast of each. The Governor officially designated them ‗Lord Dunmore‘s Ethiopian
Regiment.‘
The first and only major military action in which Dunmore‘s forces engaged was
the battle of Great Bridge. Of the Governor‘s troops of some six hundred men, nearly
half were Negroes. Of the eighteen wounded prisoners taken by the Virginians in this
rout, two were former slaves. One of them, James Anderson, was wounded ‗in the
Forearm–Bones shattered and flesh much torn.‘ The other one, Cesar, was hit ‗in the
Thigh, by a Ball, and 5 shot–one lodged.‘ After the fiasco at Great Bridge, the Governor
was forced to operate from his ships. Taking aboard the hardiest of his Negro followers
and placing them under officers who exercised them at small arms, he sanguinely awaited
recruits.
Dunmore‘s use of Negroes also embraced maritime service. On the six tenders
sent by the Governor to cannonade Hampton in late October 1775, there were colored
crewmen, two of whom were captured when the Virginians seized the pilot boat Hawk
Tender. To man the small craft that scurried in and out of the river settlements, harassing
the plantations, the British depended largely on ex-slaves, particularly as pilots. Joseph
Harris, a runaway, served as pilot of the Otter, having come to Captain Matthew Squire
with the highest recommendation from a fellow naval officer. ‗I think him too useful to
His Majesty‘s service to take away,‘ wrote the latter, because of ‗his being well
acquainted with many creeks in the Eastern Shore, at York, James River, and
Nansemond, and many others,‘ and ‗accustomed to pilot.‘ Two citizens on the Isle of
Wight advised the chairman of the Virginia Committee of Safety to go slow on
discharging ‗a Negro fello, named Caesar,‘ who was not only ‗a very great Scondrel‘ but
also ‗a fello‘ they can‘t do well without being an Excellent pilot.‘
Another service performed by Dunmore‘s black followers was foraging. The
Governor‘s supply of provisions, particularly fresh foods needed constant replenishment,
and the Virginia leaders understandably would not permit the British to send men ashore
to make purchases. ‗Back settlers‘ who might have been willing to supply his lordship
with provisions had no means of conveying them, and Dunmore fell back upon the
foraging abilities of his Negro recruits. Marauding parties of predominantly ex-slave
composition preyed on the countryside, nightly descending upon plantations and making
off with the choice livestock. One foraging party, captured while on its way to the
Eastern Shore, was made up of ‗one white and sixteen blacks.‘

281

Allegedly one of the services of Negroes to Dunmore was germ spreading. That
the charge of germ warfare was propaganda-laden did not make it less potent in arousing
indignation. The accusation was that Dunmore had inoculated two Negroes and sent
them ashore at Norfolk to spread the smallpox. The charge was ironic in view of the fate
of the Negroes who fled to the British. The majority of them died of disease. Late in
March the Governor informed his superior in England that the recruiting of the black
regiment ‗would have been in great forwardness had not a fever crept in amongst them,
which carried off a great many very fine fellows.‘ He added that on advice of local
physicians, he had concluded that the trouble came from overcrowding aboard ship and
the lack of clothing, against both of which provision had now been made.
Nevertheless the plague persisted, killing off the Negroes and the Governor‘s
hopes alike. Writing to Germain in June, Dunmore confessed defeat. The fever, he
explained, was malignant, and had ‗carried off an incredible number of our people,
especially blacks.‘ Had this not happened he would have had 2,000 Negro followers. He
was separating the sick from the well, he wrote, and would try to keep the two groups
from intermingling. The Governor‘s efforts were unavailing, it seems, for by early June
1776 there were not more than ‗150 effective Negro men,‘ although each day the black
corps was augmented by six to eight arrivals.
Failure to arrest the smallpox and the harassment by the Virginia and Maryland
militia finally brought an end to his lordship‘s stay in Chesapeake waters. In May 1776,
faced with the likelihood of heavy losses from disease, the fleet moved from their
exposed quarters at Tucker‘s Mills near Portsmouth and took shelter on Gwynn‘s Island
near the mouth of the Rappahannock. Nowhere were Dunmore and his ‗floating Town‘
allowed peace; ‗we no sooner appear off the land, than signals are made from it,‘ he
wrote, ‗and if we come to anchor within cannon-shot of either shore, guns are
immediately brought to bear upon us.‘
Early in July the British, after suffering an attack upon their shipping, took refuge
on St. George‘s Island in the Potomac. By the end of the month the disease-ridden corps,
lacking suitable drinking water and despairing of re-enforcements, prepared to leave.
Dismantling, burning, or running aground 63 of their 103 vessels, they sailed out of the
Potomac on August 6, seven of the ships bound for Sandy Hook and the others setting a
southward course for St. Augustine and the Bermudas. With the departing fleet went
some three hundred Negroes–the healthiest–who were going northward, destined for
further military service. Dunmore‘s schemes had come to an inglorious end.
Sources: Quarles, The Negro in the American Revolution, pp. 27-31; Frey, ―Between
Slavery and Freedom: Virginia Blacks in the American Revolution,‖ pp. 377-398.

282

Part VI—Independence and Enslavement

March 29, 1776—Letter from An American to Alexander Purdie
The following letter appeared in Purdie's Virginia Gazette on March 29, 1776. In arguing
in favor of independence, the unidentified writer repeatedly described the American
colonists as slaves to Great Britain. He even went so far as to compare English leaders to
oppressive West Indian slaveholders. He viewed the colonists as enslaved because their
trade had been restricted, their laws (including the General Assembly's attempt to limit
the importation of slaves) had been repealed by the king and their representative
assemblies dissolved by him, and their homes invaded during the first year of the
Revolutionary War. He termed the attempt to attract the colonists' slaves to the British
cause a grievous oppression. Finally, he called for an alliance between the colonies and
France so as to save the former from further enslavement.
MUCH has been said concerning the independence of the colonies, and some people have
been made to believe that such a state is not desirable, and that we should wish for no
more liberty than we enjoyed in 1763; but let any man consider that, at that time, we were
restrained from making nails and hats, and might with equal justice have been hindered
from building houses or making stockings; that we were cruelly and wantonly restricted
in our trade, in some instances as it were merely to show that we were the slaves of
Britain.
Although the English cannot make wine, raise silk, grow olives, citrons, oranges or
lemons, yet we were forced to buy these articles of them only, and were not suffered to
purchase them of the French, Spaniards, or Italians; and although all Europe to the
northward of Cape Finisterre had been starving for want of grain, and we had it in our
power to supply their wants, yet we were not permitted to do it. Our tobacco trade was
wholly engrossed by English merchants; they alone had the privilege of selling this
invaluable article of our commerce to the Dutch, French, Spaniards, Portuguese, and to
the different states up the Mediterranean. The king nominated all officers civil and
military, had the power of repealing all our laws, however necessary to our security and
happiness; and the present king has wantonly and cruelly exerted that power, in repealing
an act of our Assembly, for obliging ships to perform quarantine, and another for
preventing the farther importation of slaves, by laying heavy duties on such as should be
imported.
The king, by his instructions to his governours, could dissolve our Assemblies as
pleasure, without assigning any reason for doing, as he has frequently done. He had a
right to keep any number of troops or ships in our colonies, which right he will never give
up. He could build forts on our frontiers, and garrison them as he pleased. This was our
situation in 1763, and yet some people are weak enough to wish to be left as we were
then, as they express it; but, good God! Were we not abject slaves; We wanted but the
name.

283

Indeed we were treated with some small respect, and it was not till 1763 that we were
openly insulted, and treated as slaves. The English have certainly looked upon us as
slaves, or they would have carried on the war in a manner more becoming the character
of their nation. They seem to think, as the masters of slaves in the West Indies do, that no
method is unjustifiable by which they can suppress an insurrection, nor any punishment
too severe to be inflicted on revolting slaves.
Our masters in Britain, though they made us labour and toil for their emolument, yet did
not attempt to take from us the little we had been permitted to earn for ourselves. In this
respect, they were as indulgent to us as we are to our poor slaves; but this they evidently
looked upon as an instance of their indulgence, moderation, and forbearance, for they
have declared, in both houses of Parliament and the royal sanction has been given to the
declaration, that they had, have, and of right ought to have, a power to make laws to bind
us in all cases whatsoever, that is, that they are our absolute lords and masters.
Well, therefore, may lord North and general Burgoyne say, that they talk no more than
that America should be in the situation she was in 1763. The truth is, the ministry do not
wish that we were more enslaved now than we were then, but they earnestly wish we
would be as passive.
Since this is the case, and we have not only been long oppressed, and of late grievously
so, but have also been attacked by sea and land, our towns and private houses plundered
and burnt, our property snatched from us, our countrymen dragged from their very beds
to piratical boats, and hurried on board men of war, our negroes taken from our
plantations, many encouraged to leave their masters, and take up arms against them,
several hundreds of whom are now in arms against us, and when we know that all of
these have been invited to do so; when we know that an act of parliament was passed to
encourage the Canadians to attack us, that a skillful and artful general was sent amongst
them to lead them on upon us, and when we know what pains have been taken to prevail
on the Indians to ravage our frontiers (for no one is a stranger to general Carletons,
Dunmores and Connollys plots) I say, since we know these things, who, that is not a
slave indeed, who that has any feelings, or the least spirit, is there amongst us that would
hesitate a moment to declare he will no longer submit to such hard restriction on his
trade, that he will not suffer himself and his posterity to be so cruelly insulted and
oppressed, and that he will be revenged of his inhuman plunderers and butchers; who,
when he finds it necessary to carry on the war we have entered into (a most just and holy
war, and in which Heaven has peculiarly favoured us) who, I say, can hesitate a moment
to make use of all the alliance he can procure to prosecute it with vigour?
...
If a powerful fleet and army should suddenly invade our country, and get possession of
the lower parts of it, wasting it with fire and sword, and should totally put a stop to our
trade, and at the same time should supply their armies from hence with provision of every
sort, and enable them to make a complete conquest of some other colony, we should then
wish we had called in the alliance of the French and Spanish fleets; or if, whilst we are

284

most dutifully whining after our mother country; France should choose not to wait any
longer for offers from the Congress, but should agree with England to share the plunder
of America, what should we say for ourselves? But, God be praised, France has waited
with patience, and it is not yet too late to ask assistance of her; and she seems prepared to
give it. And if she does, England must desist from her cruel plan of enslaving the
colonies, and will think herself happy to come in for a share of their extensive trade.
So shall peace and harmony be restored to these distracted countries, which will become
great and flourishing in commerce, arts, and sciences; and will flourish as long as they
enjoy freedom, and practise virtue.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., March 29, 1776.

April 24, 1776—A Public Letter of Instructions from the Freeholders of James City
County to Robert Carter Nicholas and William Norvell, Delegates to the Fifth Virginia
Convention
The freeholders of James City County instructed Robert Carter Nicholas and William
Norvell to dissolve the connection between America and Great Britain.
It cannot be a violation of our faith, now, to reject the terms of 1763. They are a qualified
slavery at best, and were acceptable to us, not as the extent of our right, but the probable
cause of peace; but since the day in which they were most humbly offered, as the end of
animosities, an interval hath passed, marked with tyranny intolerable.
We, therefore, whose names are hereunto subscribed, do request and instruct you, our
delegates (provided no just and honourable terms are offered by the king) to exert your
utmost ability, in next Convention, towards dissolving the connexion between America and
Great Britain, totally, finally, and irrevocably.
Source: Virginia Gazette (Purdie), April 26, 1776 supplement.

May 15, 1776—The Virginia Resolves
Members of the Fifth Convention voted to declare independence from Great Britain and to
form a new government on May 15, 1776.
FORASMUCH as all the endeavours of the United Colonies, by the most decent
representations and petitions to the King and Parliament of Great Britain, to restore peace
and security to America under the British government, and a re-union with that people upon
just and liberal terms, instead of a redress of grievances, have produced, from an imperious
and vindictive Administration, increased insult, oppression, and a vigorous attempt to effect
our total destruction. By a late act, all these colonies are declared to be in rebellion, and out
of the protection of the British Crown, our properties subjected to confiscation, our people,

285

when captivated, compelled to join in the murder and plunder of their relations and
countrymen, and all former rapine and oppression of Americans declared legal and just.
Fleets and armies are raised, and the aid of foreign troops engaged to assist these destructive
purposes: The King's representative in this colony hath not only withheld all the powers of
government from operating for our safety, but, having retired on board an armed ship, is
carrying on a piratical and savage war against us, tempting our slaves, by every artifice, to
resort to him, and training and employing them against their masters. In this state of
extreme danger, we have no alternative left but an abject submission to the will of those
over-bearing tyrants, or a total separation from the Crown and Government of Great Britain,
uniting and exerting the strength of all America for defence, and forming alliances with
foreign powers for commerce and aid in war: Wherefore, appealing to the SEARCHER OF
HEARTS for the sincerity of former declarations, expressing our desire to preserve the
connection with that nation, and that we are driven from that inclination by their wicked
councils, and the eternal laws of self preservation.
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY, that the delegates appointed to represent this colony in
General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectiable body to declare the United
Colonies free and independent states, absolved from all allegiance to, or dependence upon,
the Crown or Parliament of Great Britain; and that they give the assent of this colony to such
declaration, and to whatever measures may be thought proper and necessary by the
Congress for forming foreign alliances, and a confederation of the colonies, at such time,
and in the manner, as to them shall seem best: Provided that the power of forming
government for, and the regulations of the internal concerns of each colony, be left to the
respective colonial legislatures.
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY, that a committee be appointed to prepare a
DECLARATION of RIGHTS, and such a plan of government as will be most likely to
maintain peace and order in this colony, and secure substantial and equal liberty to the
people.
EDMUND PENDLETON, President.
John Tazewell, Clerk of the Conv.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., May 17, 1776; ibid., Dixon, ed., May 18, 1776.

May to June 1776—Slavery and the First Clause of the Virginia Declaration of Rights
As a member of the Virginia Convention, George Mason drafted the Virginia Declaration
of Rights some time between May 20 and 26, 1776. This draft, which included some
additions by Thomas Ludwell Lee, was presented to the rest of the committee called to
prepare the declaration; the committee added several provisions, and then the committee
draft was printed for consideration by the full Convention.
During the debate over the committee draft, the issue of slavery arose as the delegates
wrangled over the first clause of the declaration. Edmund Randolph recalled that Robert

286

Carter Nicholas and other conservatives expressed their anxiety that the first clause,
especially the phrase "born equally free," might provoke an insurrection among Virginia
slaves. Liberal members of the Convention dismissed this concern by arguing that slaves
were not constituent members of civil society and would by no means apply the clause to
themselves. A full debate over slavery did not ensue, and the delegates eventually
compromised by modifying the language of the first clause to attempt to reconcile the
ideal of freedom and the reality of slavery. The successive drafts of the first clause
follow; the brackets in the final draft indicate the changes made by the full Convention.
First Draft, ca. May 20-26, 1776
That all Men are born equally free and independant, and have certain inherent
natural Rights, of which they can not by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity;
among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and
possessing Property, and pursueing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.
Committee Draft, May 27, 1776
1.
THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent
natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity;
among which are, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and
possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Final Draft, June 12, 1776
1.
That all men are <by nature> equally free and independent, and have certain
inherent rights, of which, <when they enter into a state of society,> they cannot, by any
compact, deprive or divest their posterity,; <namely,> the enjoyment of life and liberty,
with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety.
Source: The Papers of George Mason, ed. Rutland, 1:275, 277, 283, 287, 289.

1776—Samuel Hopkins's A Dialogue Concerning the Slavery of the Africans
Theologian Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803), a disciple of Jonathan Edwards, began
preaching against slavery in 1773. From the pulpit of the First Congregational Church in
Newport, Rhode Island, a center of the slave trade in the colonies, Hopkins denounced
slavery with Calvinist fervor. One of the first Congregational ministers to attack slavery,
he raised money to free slaves in Newport and collected funds to train blacks as
missionaries for Africa, a plan that never came to fruition because of the disruption of the
Revolutionary War.
In 1776, Hopkins addressed his Dialogue to the members of the Continental Congress in
the hope that they would abolish slavery in the colonies, just as they had halted the slave

287

trade. With its themes of original sin, conversion, and self-renunciation, the address
reflected Hopkins‘s fundamental religious beliefs. Copies of Hopkins‘s pamphlet were
presented to members of the Congress, as well as to other colonial leaders. The New
York Manumission Society later reprinted the address. Historian William M. Wiecek has
described Hopkins's piece as "the leading anti-slavery tract of the Revolution."
In the following excerpts, Hopkins treats the issues of the proper timing of emancipation
and the potential practical problems associated with it, the Christianization of the slaves,
the curse on Ham‘s posterity, and the desire for freedom among the slaves. In the
dialogue, ―A‖ represents a slaveowner, while ―B‖ echoes Hopkins‘s views. Also
included is the majority of Hopkins‘s direct address to slaveowners.
To the Honourable Members of the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS,
Representatives of the THIRTEEN AMERICAN COLONIES.
MUCH HONOURED GENTLEMEN,
As God the Great Father of the Universe, has made you the fathers of these Colonies; and
in answer to the prayers of his people, given you counsel, and that wisdom and integrity,
in the exertion of which, you have been such great and extensive blessings, and obtained
the approbation and applause of your constituents, and the respect and veneration of the
nations in whose fight you have acted, in the important, noble struggle for LIBERTY: We
naturally look to you in behalf of more than half a million of persons in these Colonies,
who are under such a degree of oppression and tyranny, as to be wholly deprived of all
civil and personal liberty, to which they have as good a right as any of their fellow men,
and are reduced to the most abject state of bondage and slavery, without any just cause.
We have particular encouragement thus to apply to you, since you have had the
honour and happiness of leading these Colonies to resolve to stop the slave trade; and to
buy no more slaves imported from Africa. We have the satisfaction of the best
assurances that you have done this not merely from political reasons; but from a
conviction of the unrighteousness and cruelty of the trade, and a regard to justice and
benevolence, deeply sensible of the inconsistence of promoting slavery of the Africans, at
the same time we are asserting our own civil liberty, at the risque of our fortunes and
lives. This leaves in our minds no doubt of your being sensible of the equal
unrighteousness and oppression, as well as inconsistence with ourselves in holding so
many hundreds of thousands of blacks in slavery, who have an equal right to freedom
with ourselves, while we are maintaining this struggle for our own and our children's
liberty: and a hope and confidence that the cries and tears of these oppressed will be
regarded by you and that your wisdom and the great influence you have in these colonies,
will be so properly and effectually exerted, as to bring about a total abolition of slavery,
in such a manner as shall greatly promote the happiness of those oppressed strangers, and
the best interest of the public.
There are many difficulties and obstacles, we are sensible, in the way of this good
work. But when the propriety, importance, and necessity of it, come into view, we think
ourselves warranted to address you, in the words spoken to Ezra, on an occasion not

288

wholly dissimilar. "Arise, for this matter belongeth unto you; we also will be with you:
be of good courage and do it."
The righteous and merciful governor of the world has given the greatest
encouragement to go on, and thoroughly execute judgment, and deliver the spoiled out of
the hand of the oppressor, both in his word, and in the wonderful things he has done for
us since we have began to reform this public iniquity. But if we stop here, what will be
the consequence!-It is observable that when the Swiss were engaged in their struggle for liberty, in
which they so remarkably succeeded, they entered into the following public resolve: "No
Swiss shall take any thing by violence from another, neither in time of war, nor peace."
How reasonable and important is it that we should at this time heartily enter into, and
thoroughly execute such a resolution! And that this implies the emancipation of all of
our African slaves, surely none can doubt.
In this view, the following dialogue is humbly offered to your perusal, hoping that
it may have your approbation and patronage.
May you judge the poor of the people, save the children of the needy, relieve the
oppressed, and deliver the spoiled out of the hands of the oppressor; and be the happy
instruments of procuring and establishing universal LIBERTY to white and black, to be
transmitted down to the latest posterity. With high esteem, and the most friendly
sentiments, We are, honourable Gentlemen,
Your very humble servants,
THE EDITORS
A DIALOGUE, &c.
A. SIR, What do you think of the motion made by some among us to free all our African
slaves? They say, that our holding these blacks in slavery, as we do, is an open violation
of the law of God, and is so great an instance of unrighteousness and cruelty, that we
cannot expect deliverance from present calamities, and success in our struggle for liberty
in the American colonies, until we repent, and make all the restitution in our power. For
my part, I think they carry things much too far on this head; and if any thing might be
done for the freedom of our slaves, this is not a proper time to attend to it, while we are in
such a state of war and distress, and affairs of much greater importance demand all our
attention, and the utmost exertion of the public.
B. Sir, I am glad you have introduced this subject, especially, as you own a number of
these slaves; I shall attend to it with pleasure, and offer my sentiments upon it freely,
expecting you will as freely propose the objections you shall have against any thing I
shall advance. And I take leave here to observe, that if the slavery in which we hold the
blacks, is wrong; it is a very great and public sin; and therefore a sin which God is now
testifying against in the calamities he has brought upon us, consequently must be
reformed, before we can reasonably expect deliverance, or even sincerely ask for it. It
would be worse than madness then, to put off attention to this matter, under the notion of
attending to more important affairs. This is acting like the mariner, who, when his ship is
filling with water, neglects to stop the leak or ply the pump, that he may mend his sails.

289

There are at the lowest computation, 800,000 slaves in British America, including the
West India islands; and a great part of these, are in the colonies on the continent. And if
this is in every instance wrong, unrighteousness and oppression; it must be a very great
and crying sin, there being nothing of the kind equal to it on the face of the earth. There
are but few of these slaves, indeed in New-England, compared with the vast numbers in
the islands and the southern colonies; and they are treated much better on the continent,
and especially among us, than they are in the West-Indies. But if it be all wrong, and real
oppression of the poor helpless blacks, we, by refusing to break this yoke, and let these
injured captives go free, do practically justify and support this slavery in general, and
make ourselves, in a measure at least, answerable for the whole: and we have no way to
exculpate ourselves from the guilt of the whole, and bear proper testimony against this
great evil, but by freeing all our slaves. Surely then, this matter admits of no delay; but
demands our first, and most serious attention, and speedy reformation.
...
A. Sir, there is one important circumstance in favour of the slave-trade; or which will at
least serve to counterbalance many of the evils you mention; and that is, we bring these
slaves from a heathen land, to places of gospel light; and so put them under special
advantages to be saved.
B. I know this has been mentioned by many in favour of the slave-trade: but when
examined, will turn greatly against it. It can hardly be said with truth, that the West-India
islands are places of gospel light. But if they were, are the Negroes in the least benefited
by it? Have they any access to the gospel? Have they any instruction, more than if they
were beasts? So far from this, that their masters guard against their having any
instruction to their utmost; and if any one would attempt any such thing, it would be at
the risque of his life. And all the poor creatures learn of Christianity, from what they see
in those who call themselves Christians, only serves to prejudice them in the highest
degree against the Christian religion. For they not only see the abominably wicked lives
of most of those who are called Christians, but are constantly oppressed by them, and
receive as cruel treatment from them, as they could from the worst of beings. And as to
those who are brought to the continent, in the southern colonies, and even to NewEngland, so little pains are taken to instruct them, and there is so much to prejudice them
against Christianity, that it is a very great wonder, and owing to an extraordinary divine
interposition, in which we may say, God goes out of his common way, that any of them
should think favourably of Christianity, and cordially embrace it. As to the most of them,
no wonder they are unteachable, and get no good by the gospel; but have inbibed the
deepest prejudices against it, from the treatment they receive from professed Christians;
prejudices which most of them are by their circumstances restrained from expecting;
while they are fixed in the strongest degree in their minds.
But if this was not the case, and all the slaves brought from Africa, were put under
the best advantage to become Christians, and they were in circumstances that tended to
give them the most favourable idea of Christians, and the religion they profess; and
though all concerned in this trade, and in slavery in general, should have this wholly in
view, viz. their becoming Christians, by which they should be eternally happy; yet this

290

would not justify the slave-trade, or continuing them in a state of slavery: For to take this
method to christianize them, would be a direct and gross violation of the laws of Christ.
He commands us to go and preach the gospel to all nations; to carry the gospel to them,
and not to go, and with violence to bring them from their native country, without saying a
word to them, or to the nations from whom they are taken, about the gospel, or any thing
that relates to it.
If the Europeans and Americans had been as much engaged to christianize the
Africans, as they have been to enslave them; and had been at half the cost and pains to
introduce the gospel among them, that they have to captivate and destroy them; we have
all the reason in the world to conclude that extensive country, containing such a vast
multitude of inhabitants, would have been full of gospel light, and the many nations
there, civilized and made happy; and a foundation laid for the salvation of millions of
millions; and the happy instruments of it have been rewarded ten thousand fold for all
their labour and expence. But now, instead of this, what has been done on that coast, by
those who pass among the Negroes for Christians, has only served to produce and spread
the greatest and most deep-rooted prejudices against the Christian religion, and bar the
way to that which is above all things desirable, their coming to the knowledge of the truth
that they might be saved. So that while, by the murdering or enslaving millions of
millions, they have brought a curse upon themselves, and on all that partake with them,
they have injured in the highest degree innumerable nations, and done what they could to
prevent their salvation, and to fasten them down in ignorance and barbarity to the latest
posterity!--Who can realize all this, and not feel a mixture of grief, pity, indignation and
horror, truly ineffable! And must he not be filled with zeal to do his utmost to put a
speedy stop to this seven-headed monster of iniquity, with all the horrid train of evils
with which it is attended.
And can any one consider all these things, and yet pretend to justify the slavetrade, or the slavery of the Africans in America? Is it not impossible, that a real Christian,
who has attended to all this, should have any hand in this trade? And it requires the
utmost stretch of charity to suppose that any one ever did, or can buy or sell an African
slave, with a sincere view to make a true Christian of him.
...
A. You know that a curse was pronounced on the posterity of Ham, for his
wickedness, in the following words, A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
He could not be a servant unto his brethren unless they made him so, or at least held him
in servitude. The curse could not take place unless they executed it, and they seem to be
by God appointed to do this. Therefore while we, the children of Japheth, are making
such abject slaves of the blacks, the children of Ham, we are only executing the righteous
curse denounced upon them; which is so far from being wrong in us, that it would be a
sin, even disobedience to the revealed will of God, to refuse to make slaves of them, and
attempt to set them at liberty.
B. Do you think, my good Sir, it was the duty of Pharoah to make the Israelites
serve him and the Egyptians, and to afflict them in hard and cruel bondage, because God
had expressly foretold this, and said it should be done? And was the Assyrian king
blameless while he executed his judgments which God had threatened to inflict on his

291

professing people? Did God's threatening them with those evils, warrant this king to
distress, captivate and destroy them, as he did? And will you say the Jews did right in
crucifying our Lord because by this they fulfilled the Scriptures, declaring that it must
be?--Your argument, if it is of any hope, will be renounced by you, and by all who have
the least regard for the holy Scripture, with proper abhorrence.
But if this argument were not so fraught with absurdity and impiety as it really is,
and it were granted to be forcible, with respect to all upon whom the mentioned curse
was denounced; yet it would not justify our enslaving the Africans, for they are not the
posterity of Canaan, who was the only son of Ham that was doomed to be a servant of
servants. The other sons of Ham, and their posterity, are no more affected with the curse,
than the other sons of Noah, and their posterity. Therefore this prediction is as much of a
warrant for the Africans enslaving us, as it is for us to make slaves of them. The truth is,
it gives not the least shadow of a right to any one of the children of Noah to make slaves
of any of their brethren.
...
A. It is impossible to free all our Negroes; especially at once, and in present
circumstances, without injuring them, at least, many of them, and the public to a great
degree. Why then is this urged so vehemently now? I think this proceeds from a zeal,
not according to knowledge.
B. If it be not a sin, an open flagrant violation of all the rules of justice and
humanity, to hold these slaves in bondage, it is indeed folly to put ourselves to any
trouble and expence, in order to free them. But if the contrary be true; if it be a sin of a
crimson dye, which as most particularly pointed out by the public calamities which have
come upon us, from which we have no reason to expect deliverance till we put away the
evil of our doings, this reformation cannot be urged with too much zeal, nor attempted
too soon, whatever difficulties are in the way. The more and greater these are, the more
zealous and active should we be in removing them. You had need to take care, lest from
selfish motives, and a backwardness to give up what you unrighteously retain, you are
joining with the slothful man to cry, there is a lion in the way! A lion is in the streets!
While there is no insurmountable difficulty, but that which lies in your own heart.
No wonder there are many and great difficulties in reforming an evil practice of
this kind, which has got such deep root by length of time, and is become so common.
But it does not yet appear that they cannot be removed, by the united wisdom and
strength of the American colonies, without any injury to the slaves, or disadvantage to the
public. Yea, the contrary is most certain, as the slaves cannot be put into a more
wretched situation, ourselves being the judges, and the community cannot take a more
likely step to escape ruin, and obtain the smiles and protection of Heaven. This matter
ought doubtless to be attended to by the General Assemblies, and Continental and
Provincial Congresses; and if they were as much united and engaged in devising ways
and means to set at liberty these injured slaves, as they are to defend themselves from
tyranny, it would soon be effected. There were without doubt many difficulties and
impediments in the way of the Jews liberating those of their brethren they had brought
into bondage, in the days of Jeremiah. But when they were besieged by the Chaldeans,

292

and this their sin was laid before them, and they were threatened with desolation if they
did not reform: They broke through every difficulty, and set their servants at liberty.
And how great must have been the impediments, how many the seeming
unanswerable objections, against reforming that gross violation of the divine command in
Ezra's time, by their marrying strange wives, of which to[o] many of the Jews were
guilty, and the hand of the princes and rulers had been chief in this trespass! Yet the
pious zeal of Ezra and those who joined with him, and their wisdom and indefatigable
efforts conquered every obstacle, and brought them to a thorough reformation. Would
not the like zeal, wisdom and resolution, think you, soon produce a reformation of this
much greater abomination, by finding out an effectual method to put away all our slaves?
Surely we have no reason to conclude it cannot be done, till we see a suitable zeal and
resolution, among all orders of men, and answerable attempts are thoroughly made.
Let this iniquity be viewed in it's true magnitude, and in the shocking light in
which it has been set in this conversation; let the wretched case of the poor blacks be
considered with proper pity and benevolence; together with the probable dreadful
consequence to this land, of retaining them in bondage, and all objections against
liberating them would vanish. The mountains that are now raised up in the imagination
of man, would become a plain, and every difficulty surmounted.
...
A. I believe my slaves are so far from thinking themselves abused, or being in the
least uneasy in a state of slavery, that they have no desire to be made free; and if their
freedom were offered to them, they would refuse to accept it.
B. I must take leave to call this in question, Sir; and I think you believe it, in
contradiction to all reason and the strongest feelings of human nature, till they have
declared it themselves, having had opportunity for due deliberation, and being in
circumstances to act freely, without the least constraint or fear.
There are many masters (if we believe what they say) who please themselves with
this fond opinion of their goodness to their slaves; and their choice of a state of slavery,
in preference to freedom, without the least foundation, and while the contrary is known to
be true by all who are acquainted with their slaves. If they really believe this, they by it
only discover great insensibility, and want of proper reflection. They have not so much
as put themselves in the place of their slaves, so as properly and with due sensibility to
consult what would be their own feelings, on such a supposition. Have they themselves
lost all desire of freedom? Are they destitute of all taste of the sweets of it; and have they
no aversion to slavery, for themselves and children? If they have these feelings, what
reason have they to conclude their servants have not?
But it seems most of those masters do not fully believe what they so often say on
this head: For they have never made the trial; nor can they be persuaded to do it. Let
them offer freedom to their servants; and give them opportunity to choose for themselves,
without being under the most distant constraint. And if they then deliberately choose to
continue their slaves the matter will be fairly decided, and they may continue to possess
them with a good conscience.
Slaves are generally under such disadvantages and restraints, that however much
they desire liberty, they dare not so much as mention it to their masters. And if their

293

master should order them into his presence, and ask them whether they had a desire to be
made free, many would not dare to declare their choice, lest it should offend him, and
instead of obtaining their freedom, bring themselves into a more evil case than they were
in before, as the children of Israel did, by desiring Pharoah to free them.
In this case such precaution ought to be taken, as to give the slaves proper
assurance that they may without any danger to themselves, declare their choice of
freedom: and that it shall be done to them according to their choice.
...
AN ADDRESS TO THE OWNERS OF NEGRO SLAVES IN THE AMERICAN
COLONIES.
GENTLEMEN,
SINCE it has been determined to publish the preceding dialogue, it was thought
proper it should be attended with a particular address to you, who are more immediately
interested in the slavery there considered.
It would be injurious, it is confessed, to consider you as the only persons guilty or
concerned in this matter. The several legislatures in these colonies, the magistrates, and
the body of the people have doubtless been greatly guilty in approving and encouraging,
or at least conniving at this practice. Yea, every one is in a measure guilty, who has been
inattentive to this oppression, and unaffected with it, and neglected to bear proper
testimony against it. And it is granted, the public ought to go into some effectual
measures to liberate all the slaves, without laying an unreasonable burden on their
masters. But though this be not done, such neglect will not excuse you in holding them
in slavery; as it is in your power to set them free, and your indispensible duty, and really
your interest, to do them this piece of justice, though others should neglect to assist you,
as they ought.
...
Consider also, how very inconsistent this injustice and oppression is with
worshipping God through Christ, and attending on the institutions of religion; and how
unacceptable and abominable these must be, while you neglect to let the oppressed go
free, and refuse to do justice, and love mercy. The bible is full of declarations of this.
"To do justice and judgment, is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice."
Without the former, the latter is nothing but gross hypocrisy, and abomination to God; for
he "will have mercy, and not sacrifice." He requires no devotion, or attendance on any
religious right or institution, which is inconsistent with mercy, or that is done without the
love and exercise of mercy; but rejects all such prayers and service, as most
dishonourable and abominable to him. And when we consider, that Christianity is the
greatest instance and exhibition of righteousness and mercy that was ever known, or can
be conceived of: And the great Author of it is, in the most eminent and glorious degree,
THE JUST GOD AND THE SAVIOUR; we shall not wonder that no offering can be

294

acceptable to him, which is without the exercise and practice of righteousness and mercy:
And that "he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy."
You who are professors of religion, and yet the owners of slaves, are intreated
well to consider, how you must appear in the sight of God, and of all who view your
conduct in a true light, while you attend your family and public devotions, and sit down
from time to time, at the table of the Lord. If your neighbour wrong you of a few
shillings, you think him utterly unfit to attend that sacred ordinance with you; but what is
this, to the wrong you are doing to your brethren, whom you are holding in slavery!
Should a man at Algiers have a number of your children his slaves, and should, by some
means be converted, and become a professor of Christianity, would you not expect he
would soon set your children at liberty? And if after you had particularly dealt with him
about it, and offered abundant light and matter of conviction, of the oppression and
cruelty of which he was guilty, he should be deaf to all you could say, and resolve to hold
them and their children in slavery, what would you think of him, when you see him at his
prayers, and attending at the Lord's supper? Would you think he was more acceptable to
God, than if he neglected these institutions, and yet had been so just and merciful, as to
set all his slaves at liberty? Yea, would you scruple to say, his devotion and attendance
on the holy supper were hypocrisy and abomination? If Nathan the prophet was here, he
would say, "Thou art the man."
The Friends, who are commonly called Quakers, have been for a number of years,
bearing testimony against this oppression, as inconsistent with Christianity; and striving
to purge themselves of this iniquity, rejecting those from fellowship with them, who will
not free their slaves. They indeed do not attend the Lord's supper; and it is granted, they
are herein neglecting an important institution of Christ: But ought it not to alarm you to
think, that while you are condemning them for this neglect, your attendance, in the
omission of that righteousness and mercy which they practise, is inexpressibly more
dishonourable and offensive to Christ, than their neglect! These things you ought first to
have done, to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke; and then not leave the
other undone.
May you all, in this day of your visitation, know and practice the things that
belong to your peace, and the safety and happiness of the united American colonies, by
no longer oppressing these poor strangers wrongfully, and doing violence to them; but by
executing judgment, relieve the oppressed, and deliver the spoiled out of the hands of the
oppressor! May this counsel be acceptable unto you, and you break off this your sin, and
all your sins, by righteousness, and your iniquities by shewing mercy to these poor; that it
may be a lengthening of the tranquility of yourselves, your families, and of this now
distressed land!
Source: [Hopkins], A Dialogue Concerning the Slavery of the Africans, pp. 8-12, 17-20,
26-28, 38-40, 49-50, 66-69.

295

1776—Thomas Jefferson Rebukes King George III over Slavery
In writing the preamble to the Virginia Constitution and drafting the Declaration of
Independence, Thomas Jefferson castigated King George III for encouraging slaves to
take up arms and for refusing to allow the colonists to place limitations on the slave trade.
Jefferson‘s ―original Rough draught‖ (as he labeled it late in his life) of the Declaration
of Independence contained a harshly worded rebuke of George III for establishing slavery
in the colonies, preventing the colonies from limiting the slave trade, and inciting
insurrection among the slaves. The passage was eventually struck out entirely by the
Continental Congress. Below are excerpts from the Virginia Constitution, the draft of the
Declaration, and the Declaration as adopted.
The Virginia Constitution of 1776 as Adopted by the Convention
[29 June 1776]
In a General Convention.
Begun and holden at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg, on Monday the
sixth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, and continued, by
adjournments to the day of June following:
A CONSTITUTION, OR FORM OF GOVERNMENT,
agreed to and resolved upon by the Delegates and Representatives of the several Counties
and Corporations of Virginia.
Whereas George the Third, King of Great Britain and Ireland, and Elector of
Hanover, heretofore intrusted with the exercise of the Kingly Office in this Government,
hath endeavoured to pervert the same into a detestable and insupportable Tyranny; by
putting his negative on laws the most wholesome and necessary for the publick good;
...
by inciting insurrections of our fellow Subjects, with the allurements of forfeiture
and confiscation;
by prompting our Negroes to rise in Arms among us, those very negroes whom,
by an inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by Law;
by endeavouring to bring on the inhabitants of our Frontiers the merciless Indian
savages, whose known rule of Warfare is an undistinguished Destruction of all Ages,
Sexes, and Conditions of Existence . . . .
Jefferson‘s ―original Rough draught‖ of the Declaration of Independence, 1776
the history of his present majesty, is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations,
among which no one fact stands single or solitary to contradict the uniform tenor of the
rest, all of which have in direct object the establishment of absolute tyranny over these
states. to prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we
pledge a faith as yet unsullied by falsehood.
...

296

he has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian
savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes,
& conditions of existence;
he has incited treasonable insurrections in our fellow-subjects, with the allurements of
forfeiture & confiscation of our property;
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it‘s most sacred rights of
life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating &
carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their
transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the
warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market
where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing
every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this
assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those
very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has
deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying
off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he
urges them to commit against the lives of another.

The Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of absolute tyranny over these
states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
...
He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on
the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of
warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
Sources: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Boyd, et al., 1:377-378, 424-426; The
Declaration of Independence.

297

Sources Cited in the American Diversity
Berlin, Ira. Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North
America. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1998.
Betts, Edwin Morris, ed. Thomas Jefferson‘s Farm Book With Commentary and Relevant
Extracts From Other Writings. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia,
1987.
Brock Collection, Huntington Library, San Marino, California.
Brown, Kathleen M. Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender,
Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia. Chapel Hill and London: University of
North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture,
1996.
Byrd, William III. William Byrd III Memorandum Book, 1757-1758. CWF Microfilm
M-97.
Dawson Papers, Miscellaneous Manuscripts, Library of Congress.
The Declaration of Independence.
Donnan, Elizabeth, ed. Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to
America. 4 vols. New York: Octagon Books, 1969.
Du Bois, W. E. B. The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of
America, 1638-1870. Harvard Historical Studies. New York: Longmans, Green,
& Co., 1896.
Fields, Joseph E., comp. ―Worthy Partner‖: The Papers of Martha Washington.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1994.
Frey, Sylvia. ―Between Slavery and Freedom: Virginia Blacks in the American
Revolution.‖ Journal of Southern History 49 (1983): 377-398.
Hening, William Waller, ed. The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of
Virginia, From the First Session of the Legislature, in 1619. 13 vols. Richmond,
New York, and Philadelphia, 1819-1823; reprint, Charlottesville: University
Press of Virginia for the Jamestown Foundation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, 1969.
Holton, Woody. "'Rebel Against Rebel': Enslaved Virginians and the Coming of the
American Revolution." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 105 (Spring
1997) 157-192.

298

[Hopkins, Samuel]. A Dialogue Concerning the Slavery of the Africans; Shewing it to be
the Duty and Interest of the American States to emancipate all their African
Slaves. With an Address to the owners of such Slaves. Dedicated to the
Honourable the Continental Congress. Norwich, [Ct.]: Judah P. Spooner, 1776;
repr., N.Y.: Robert Hodge, 1785.
Jackson, Luther Porter. ―Virginia Negro Soldiers and Seamen in the American
Revolution.‖ Journal of Negro History 27 (July 1942) 247-287.
Jefferson, Thomas. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, et als. 27 vols.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950-.
Letter of William Gooch reprinted in Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 28
(1920): 299-300, 306.
MacMaster, Richard K. "Arthur Lee's 'Address on Slavery': An Aspect of Virginia's
Struggle to End the Slave Trade, 1765-1774." Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 80 (April 1972): 141-157.
McCusker, John J., and Russell R. Menard. The Economy of British North America,
1607-1789. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of
Early American History and Culture, 1985.
McIlwaine, H. R., et al., eds. Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 6
vols. Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1927-1966.
McIlwaine, H. R., et al., eds. Journal of the House of Burgesses. 13 vols. Richmond:
Virginia State Library, 1905-1915.
Mason, George. The Papers of George Mason, 1752-1792, ed. Robert A. Rutland. 3
vols. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970.
Perry, William Stevens, ed. Historical Collections Relating to the American Colonial
Church. 5 vols. Hartford, 1870-1878; reprint, New York: AMS Press, Inc.,
1969.
Quarles, Benjamin. The Negro in the American Revolution. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1961.
Schwarz, Philip J. Twice Condemned: Slavess and the Criminal Laws of Virginia, 17051865. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1988.
Scribner, Robert L., et als., eds. Revolutionary Virginia: The Road to Independence. 7
vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1973-1983.

299

Tate, Thad W. The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg. Williamsburg, Virginia:
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1965.
Van Horne, John C., ed. Religious Philanthropy and Colonial Slavery: The American
Correspondence of the Associates of Dr. Bray, 1717-1777. Urbana: University
of Illinois, 1985.
Virginia Gazette. Williamsburg, 1736-1780.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. XXXII (1924):322-325.
Walsh, Lorena S. From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove: The History of a Virginia Slave
Community. Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1997.
Washington, George. The Papers of George Washington, ed. W. W. Abbot, Dorothy
Twohig, et als. Colonial Series. 10 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of
Virginia, 1983-.
_______. The Papers of George Washington, ed. W. W. Abbot, et als. Revolutionary
War Series. 2 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1985-.
Wheatley, Phillis. The Collected Works of Phillis Wheatley, ed. John C. Shields. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Wiecek, William M. The Sources of Antislavery Constitutionalism in America, 17601848. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977.
Winfree, Waverly K., comp. The Laws of Virginia, Being a Supplement to Hening‘s The
Statutes at Large, 1700-1750. Richmond: The Virginia State Library, 1971.
York County Court Records.

300

TAKING POSSESSION AND ENSLAVING VIRGINIA
RESOURCE BOOK
May 1723—ACT IV. An Act directing the trial of Slaves, committing capital crimes; and
for the more effectual punishing conspiracies and insurrections of them; and for the
better government of Negros, Mulattos, and Indians, bond or free
The legislators listened to the speech of Governor Drysdale and the fears of Virginias
about slave rebellions and the growing free black population. They wrote a statute that
imposed new restrictions on the colony‘s enslaved blacks and took away the few
privileges that free men of color enjoyed. The law imposed a ban on all assemblies of
slaves that were not licensed by masters, prohibited all blacks—free and enslaved—and
Native Americans from providing testimony against white persons in court, imposed
punishment if a black person provided false testimony, and withdrew the privilege of
benefit of clergy for a slave convicted of plotting or attempting a rebellion. Punishments
for runaway slaves became harsher and included dismemberment. The law required a
master to prove that a slave had performed ―meritorius service‖ in order to manumit the
said slave.
The colonial leaders placed a financial burden on the free black population when they
decided that free women of color over the age of sixteen were tithable (as they had been
between 1668 and 1705). In addition, the wife of a free black or a Native American man
was tithable. The only free black men allowed to own guns were those who lived on the
frontier and who needed guns for protection. The legislators decided that all free children
of color were to serve longer terms of servitude than did white children.
The legislators made this statute an instrument to maintain social control and stability.
They required churchwardens to read it in April and October of each year and to enter a
copy in each parish register. The sheriff of each county had to post the law at the
courthouse in June or July.
Ira Berlin notes that Virginia‘s ―social order required raw power to sustain it; and during
the early years of the eighteenth century, planters mobilized the apparatus of coercion in
the service of their new regime. In the previous century, maimings, brandings, and
beatings had occurred commonly, but the level of violence increased dramatically as
planters transformed the society with slaves into a slave society. Chesapeake slaves
faced the pillory, whipping post, and gallows far more frequently and in far larger

301

numbers than ever before. Even as planters employed the rod, the lash, the branding iron,
and the first with increased regularity, they invented new punishments that would
humiliate and demoralize as well as correct.‖
IV. And to the end, such Negros, Mulattos, or Indians, not being christians, as
shall hereafter be produced as evidences, on the trial of any slave for capital crimes, may
be under the greater obligation to declare the truth, Be it enacted, That where any such
Negro, Mulatto, or Indian, shall upon due proof made, or pregnant circumstances
appearing before any county court within this colony, be found to have given a false
testimony, every such offender shall, without further trial, be ordered by the said court to
have one ear nailed to the pillory, and there to stand for the space of one hour, and then
the said ear to be cut off; and thereafter, the other ear nailed in like manner, and cut off, at
the expiration of one other hour; and moreover, to order every such offender thirty-nine
lashes, well laid on, on his or her bare back, at the common whipping-post.
X. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That if any white person,
free negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall at any time hereafter be found in company with any
such slaves, at any such unlawful meetings, as aforesaid, or harbor or entertain any negro,
or other slave whatsoever, without the consent of their owners, he, she, or they, so
offending, upon being thereof lawfully convicted, shall forfeit and pay the sum of fifteen
shillings, or one hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco, to the informer: To be recovered,
with costs, before any justice of the peace; and upon failure to make present paiment,
shall have and receive, on his, her, or their bare backs, for every such offence, twenty
lashes, well laid on. And every negro, mulatto, or indian slave, who shall come or
assemble to such unlawful meetings, shall, upon information thereof made to any justice
of the peace of the county where such offence shall be committed, for every such offence,
have and receive, on his or her bare back, any number of lashes, not exceeding thirtynine.
XIII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That if any negro,
mulatto, or Indian slave, shall at any time hereafter presume to come and be upon the
plantation of any person or persons whatsoever, without the leave or consent, in writing,
or his or her master, owner, or overseer, and without the consent and approbation of the
owner of overseer of such plantation, it shall and may be lawful to and for the master,
owner, or overseer of any such plantation or quarter, to correct and give such slave or
slaves ten lashes, well laid on, on his or her bare back, for every such offence.
XIV. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That no negro,
mulatto, or Indian whatsoever; (except as is hereafter excepted,) shall hereafter presume
to keep, or carry any gun, powder, shot, or any club, or other weapon whatsoever,
offensive or defensive; but that every gun, and all powder and shot, and every such club
or weapon. as aforesaid, found or taken in the hands, custody, or possession of any such
negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall be taken away; and upon due proof thereof made, before
any justice of the peace of the county where such offence shall be committed, be forfeited
to the seisor and informer, and moreover, every such negro, mulatto, or Indian, in whose
hands, custody, or possession, the same shall be found, shall, by order of the said justice,

302

have and receive any number of lashes, not exceeding thirty-nine, well laid on, on his or
her bare back, for every such offence.
XVII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That no negro,
mullatto, or indian slaves, shall be set free, upon any pretence whatsoever, except for
some meritorious services, to be adjudged and allowed by the governor and council, for
the time being, and a licence thereupon first had and obtained.—And that, where any
slave shall be set free by his master or owner, otherwise than is herein before directed, it
shall and may be lawful for the churchwardens of the parish, wherein such negro,
mullatto, or indian, shall reside for the space of one month, next after his or her being set
free, and they are hereby authorized and required, to take up, and sell the said negro,
mullatto, or indian, as slaves, at the next court held for the said county, by public outcry;
and that the monies arising by such sale, shall be applied to the use of the said parish, by
the vestry thereof.
XXI. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That all free negros,
mullattos, or indians, (except tributary indians to this government) male and female,
above the age of sixteen years, and all wives of such negros, mullattos, or indians,
(except before excepted) shall be deemed and accounted tithables; any law, custom, or
usage, to the contrary, in any wise, notwithstanding.
XXII. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That where any
female mullatto, or indian, by law obliged to serve ‘till the age of thirty or thirty-one
years, shall during the time of her servitude, have any child born of her body, every such
child shall serve the master or mistress of such mullatto or indian, until it shall attain the
same age the mother of such child was obliged by law to serve unto.
XXIII. And be if further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby
enacted and declared, That no free negro, mullatto, or indian whatsoever, shall hereafter
have any vote at the election of burgesses, or any other election whatsoever.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, p. 115; Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large,
4:126-134. See also ibid., 6:40-42 (1748) and ibid., 7:519-520 (1762).
May 1732—ACT VII. An Act for settling some doubts and differences of opinion, in
relation to the benefit of Clergy; for allowing the same to Women; and taking away of
Reading; and to disable certain Persons, therein mentioned, to be Witnesses
This statute extended the privilege of benefit of clergy to women and, with some
limitations, to slaves. At the same time, the legislation placed a further restriction on all
people of color—a black or Native American, whether free or enslaved, could only
provide testimony in the case of a slave accused of a capital offense.
IV. And whereas a question hath lately arisen, touching the right of negros, to the
benefit of clergy: For the determination thereof, Be it further enacted, That when any
negro, mulatto, or Indian whatsoever, shall be convicted of any offence within the benefit
of clergy, judgment of death shall not be given against him or her, upon such conviction;
but he or she, shall be burnt in the hand in open court, by the jailor, and suffer such other
corporal punishment, as the court shall think fit to inflict; except where such negro,
mulatto, or Indian shall be convicted of manslaughter, or the felonious breaking and

303

entring in the day-time any house, and taking from thence any goods or chattels
whatsoever, to the value of five shillings sterling; and where he or she hath once had the
benefit of this act; and in those cases, such negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall suffer death,
and be excluded from the benefit of this act.
V. And whereas negros, mulattos, and Indians, have lately been frequently
allowed to give testimony as lawful witnesses in the general court, and other courts of
this colony, when they have professed themselves to be christians, and been able to give
some account of the principles of the christian religion: But forasmuch as they are people
of such base and corrupt natures, that the credit of their testimony cannot be certainly
depended upon, and some juries have altogether rejected their evidence, and others have
given full credit thereto: For preventing the mischiefs that may possibly happen by
admitting such precarious evidence,
VI. Be it further enacted, That no negro, mulatto, or indian, either a slave or free,
shall hereafter be admitted in any court of this colony, to be sworn as a witness, or give
evidence in any cause whatsoever, except upon the trial of a slave, for a capital offence;
in which case they shall be allowed to give evidence, in the manner directed by one act of
assembly, made in the ninth year of the reign of the late king George, intituled, An Act
directing the trial of Slaves committing Capital Crimes; and for the more effectual
punishing Conspiracies and Insurrections of them; and for the better government of
Negros, Mulattos, and Indians, bond or free.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 4:326-327.

304

ASPECTS OF SLAVE LIFE IN EIGHTEENTH- AND EARLY
NINETEENTH-CENTURY VIRGINIA
Table of Contents
Part I—Introduction
Part II—In Their Own Words: Documents Written by Virginia Slaves
1723—A Virginia Slave Writes to Edmund Gibson, the Bishop of London
1803—Autobiography of Dick, a Slave
July 16, 1807—―James Carters Accot of his sufferings, &c.‖
Early Nineteenth Century—Interview with Jeremy Prophet

Part III—Letters and Journals: Whites and a Free Black Write About Slavery
July 5, 1726—William Byrd II to the Earl of Arrery
1773 to 1774—The Journal of Philip Vickers Fithian
August 19, 1791—Benjamin Banneker to Thomas Jefferson
August 30, 1791—Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Banneker
October 12, 1803—Doctor Robert Carter to his children, Hill, Anne, Lucy, and
Thomas Carter
February 17, 1804—Henry St. George Tucker to St. George Tucker

Part IV—Travel Accounts
1732—Diary of William Hugh Grove
1742—Edward Kimber‘s Observations
1773—The Tour of John F. D. Smyth
1774 to 1777—The Journal of Nicholas Cresswell
1785 to 1787—Travels of Luigi Castiglioni

305

1793 to 1798—Travels of M. L. E. Moreau de Saint-Mery
1795 to 1797—Travels of Isaac Weld

Part V—The Family Life of Slaves
Family Life in Africa
Slave Families in the Chesapeake
Slave Families in Loudoun County, Virginia
John Custis and Jack
George Calvert and Eleanor Beckett

Part VI—Slaves and the Cycle of Family Life
Birth and Infancy
Childrearing
Black Marriage and Married Life
Old Age
Excerpts from Landon Carter‘s Diary

Part VII—Free Blacks
Selection from Kathleen M. Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious
Patriarchs

Part VIII—Religion
1789—Olaudah Equiano Discusses Ibo Religious Practices
1749 to 1763—The Sermons of the Reverend Thomas Bacon

306

1756 to 1818—Slaves Draw Strength From Religion
January 1758—Elizabeth Jones to Thomas Jones Junior
1767 to 1785—Black Baptist Preachers
Michael A. Gomez on ―Muslims in Early America.‖
1831—The Autobiography of Omar ibn Seid

Part IX—Slaves in Other Regions of Virginia
Selection from Ira Berlin, Many Thousands Gone
The Experience of a Slave Woman Named Kate
"Sustaining the Bonds of Kinship in a Trans-Appalachian Migration, 1790-1811"

Part X—The Participation of Slaves in the Economy
Selection from Ira Berlin, Many Thousands Gone
Selection from Lorena S. Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove
1758 to 1817—The Records of John Glassford and Company

307

Part I—Introduction
This section of the Enslaving Virginia Resource Book focuses on aspects of the lives of
slaves who lived in Virginia in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The
following selections indicate that enslaved men, women, and children experienced
slavery in many ways.
A variety of documents contain details about the lives and experiences of slaves—letters,
journals, travel accounts, business records, and advertisements in the Virginia Gazette.
These documents provide information about the family life of slaves, religion, slaves in
other areas of Virginia, and the participation of slaves in the economy.

Part II—In Their Own Words: Documents Written by Virginia Slaves

1723—A Virginia Slave Writes to Edmund Gibson, the Bishop of London
In 1723, a slave wrote a letter to the Bishop of London in which he pleaded for his
freedom. Perhaps this letter led Edmund Gibson to query ministers in Virginia about the
ways in which enslaved men, women, and children learned about and received
instruction in the Anglican faith. See the ―American Diversity‖ section for several of the
responses that Gibson received to his 1724 questionnaire to Virginia ministers.
Slaves were seldom permitted to learn to write, and written expressions of their
views of slavery in the colonial period are extremely rare, so it is doubly exciting to
discover a passionate appeal for liberation written by a Virginia slave in 1723. This
anonymous letter, at the Lambeth Palace Library, is the earliest known plea for freedom
by a slave based on a principle designed for general application. The document makes an
eloquent protest against slavery. It also opens a window on the conditions of slave life
and provides evidence that race mixture endangered the logic of race that structured slave
society. Moreover, the writer's plea shows how slaves could use Christian piety to
condemn masters who limited their religious activity.
The letter bears two dates: August 4 at the head; September 8 at the foot. We can
imagine the writer laboring privately at his text at odd hours (on Sunday) over a period of
weeks. For obvious reasons, the letter had to be kept secret–all the more so because it
was written in the aftermath of a series of slave plots culminating in the spring of 1723
that so unnerved Virginia planters that they transported a number of alleged plotters to
Barbados and took other measures to improve internal security. In May and June, the
legislature, meeting at Williamsburg, passed an act for the "more effectual" punishment
of slave conspirators "and for the better Government of Negroes Mulattos and Indians
bond or free." The act also placed further restrictions on free blacks and provided that
condemned slave plotters receive no benefit of clergy, barring first-time offenders from
claiming reprieve from capital punishment.

308

The letter was written only weeks after Virginians learned of the appointment of
Edmund Gibson as bishop of London, of whose extended see they formed a distant part.
Gibson's popular devotional tracts were already circulating in the colonies; as bishop he
would take an active interest in the christianization of slaves. How the letter got to
Gibson and into the Fulham Papers (strangely filed with correspondence from Jamaica
rather than in one of the four Virginia volumes in the collection) is a mystery, but it
demonstrates that slaves knew how to target their protests accurately. This letter, based
on logical argument and fundamental moral law, is the earliest known plea in the history
of American slavery for liberation of a group of slaves.
The identity of the slave who composed the letter is unknown….
The document was written by someone for whom the composition of grammatical
English was a struggle. The ink is a peculiar reddish, faded color by comparison with
other documents in the collection; it may have been homemade. The paper,
approximately seven by eleven and three-fourths inches, is of good quality with a high
rag content. The transcription retains the original spelling, punctuation, capitalization,
and marks of emphasis. A few minor interlineations have been brought down on line.
Canceled words are reproduced where decipherable.
[first page]
A [cancellation]
August the forth 1723
to The Right Righ Raverrand father in god my Lord arch Bishop of Lonnd
this coms to sattesfie your honour that there is in this Land of verJennia a Sort of
people that is Calld molatters which are Baptised and brouaht up in the way of the
Christan faith and the and followes the wayes and Rulles of the Chrch of England
and sum of them has white fathars and sum white mothers and there is in this
Land a L a Law or act which keeps and makes them and there seed SLaves
forever-and most honoured sir a mongst the Rest of your Charitabell acts and deed wee
humbly your humbell and pou poore partishinners doo begg Sir your aid and
assisttancce in this one thing which Lise as I doo understand of in your LordShips
brest which is that yr honour your honour will by the help of our Suffervering
[i.e., sovereign] Lord King George and the Rest of the Rullers will Releese us out
of this Cruell Bondegg and this wee beg for Jesus Christs his of Sake who has
commaded us to seeke first the kingdom of god god and all things shall be addid
un un to us
__________________________________________________________________
and here it is to bee noted that one brother is a SLave to another and one Sister to
an othe which is quite out of the way and as for mee [cancellation] my selfe I am
my brothers SLave but my name is Secrett
__________________________________________________________________
and here it is to be notd againe that wee are commandded to keep holey the
Sabbath day and wee doo hardly know when it comes for our [cancellation] task
mastrs are has hard with us as the Egypttions was with the Chilldann of Issarall
god be marcifll unto us

309

[second page]
here follows our hard service Sevarity and Sorrowfull Sarvice we are hard used
up on Every account wee f in the first place wee are in Ignorance of our Salvation
and in the next place wee are kept out of the Church and and matrimony is
deenied us
and to be plain they doo Look no more up on us then if wee ware dogs which I
hope when these Strange Lines comes to your Lord Ships hands will be Looket in
to
and here wee beg for Jesus Christs his Sake that as your honour do hope for the
marcy of god att the day of death and the Redemtion of our Savour Christ that
when this comes to your Lord Ships hands your honour wll Take Sum pitty of us
who is your humble butt Sorrowfull portitinors and Sir wee your humble
perticners do humblly beg the favour of your Lord Ship that your honour will
grant and Settell one thing upon us which is that our ch childarn may be broatt up
in the way of the Christtian faith and our desire is that they may be Larnd the
Lords prayer the creed and the ten commandements and that they may appeare
Every Lord's day att Church before the C Curatt to bee Exammond for our desire
is that godllines Shoulld abbound amongs us and wee desire that our Childarn be
putt to Scool and and Larnd to Reed through the Bybell
[third page]
which is all att prasant with our prayers to god for itts good Success
before your honour these from your humbell Servants in the Lord
my Riting is vary bad I whope yr honour will take the will for the deede
I am but a poore SLave th that writt itt and has no other tinme time butt Sunday
and hardly that att Sumtimes
September the 8th 1723
To the Right Reverrand father in d god
my Lord arch bishup of J London
these with care
wee dare nott Subscribe any mans name to this for feare of our masters if for if
they knew that wee have Sent home to your honour wee Should goo neare to
Swing upon the gallass tree
Source: Thomas N. Ingersoll, "‘Release us out of this Cruell Bondegg‘: An Appeal from
Virginia in 1723,‖ William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., LI (1994): 777-782.

1803—Autobiography of Dick, a Slave
Dick's autobiography comes from a travel book written by John Davis, an Englishman
who traveled throughout the new republic between 1798 and 1802. Age twenty-two
when he arrived in America, Davis was a self-educated writer of elite birth who had been
at sea for twelve years, including a stint in the navy. He visited Prince William County
toward the end of his journey and signed on to teach for three months at a school on
Ball's plantation, Pohoke.

310

Davis described Dick as a man of about sixty years, dressed in ragged clothing, who was
slow of movement but still engaged in a variety of jobs for his owner. Dick described
himself as his owner's right-hand man. Davis also depicted slavery on Ball's plantation as
a benign institution, with light work loads and no punishment.
The excerpts below describe Dick's life in Virginia, where he lived both before and after
the Revolution. In between he resided in Georgia and Maryland; he recalled having been
sold several times during the war. Dick's account reveals how dramatically a slave's
experience could vary depending on the character and fortunes of his owner. Dick's
recollections also convey the persistence of African cultural forms, the undercurrent of
violence that held slavery together, and the impact of gender roles on slaves' lives.
Story of Dick the Negro
I was born at a plantation on the Rappahannoc River. It was the pulling of corn
time, when 'Squire Musgrove was Governor of Virginia. I have no mixed blood in my
veins; I am no half and half breed; no chestnut-sorrel of a mulatto; but my father and
mother both came over from Guinea.
When I was old enough to work, I was put to look after the horses, and, when a
boy, I would not have turned my back against the best negur at catching or backing the
most vicious beast that ever grazed in a pasture.
'Squire Sutherland had a son who rode every fall to look at a plantation on James
River, which was under the care of an overseer. Young master could not go without
somebody on another horse to carry his saddle-bags, and I was made his groom.
This young chap, Sir, (here Dick winked his left eye,) was a trimmer. The first
thing he did on getting out of bed was to call for a Julep; and I honestly date my own love
of whiskey, from mixing and tasting my young master's juleps. But this was not all. He
was always upon the scent after game, and mighty ficious when he got among the negur
wenches. He used to say that a likely negur wench was fit to be a Queen; and I forget
how many Queens he had among the girls on the plantations.
My young master was a mighty one for music, and he made me learn to play the
Banger. I could soon tune it sweetly, and of a moonlight night he would set me to play,
and the wenches to dance. My young master himself could shake a desperate foot at the
fiddle; there was nobody that could face him at a Congo Minuet; but Pat Hickory could
tire him at a Virginia Jig.
The young 'Squire did not live long. He was for a short life and a merry one. He
was killed by a drunken negur man, who found him over-ficious with his wife. The
negur man was hanged alive upon a gibbet. It was the middle of the summer; the sun was
full upon him; the negur lolled out his tongue, his eyes seemed starting from their
sockets, and for three long days his only cry was Water! Water! Water!
The old gentleman took on to grieve mightily at the death of his son; he wished
that he had sent him to Britain for his education; but after-wit is of no use; and he
followed his son to that place where master and man, planter and slave must all at last lie
down together.
The plantation and negurs now fell to the lot of a second son, who had gone to
Edinburgh to learn the trade of a Doctor. He was not like 'Squire Tommy; he seemed to

311

be carved from different wood. The first thing he did on his return from Britain, was to
free all the old negur people on the plantation and settle each on a patch of land. He
tended the sick himself, gave them medicine, healed their wounds, and encouraged every
man, woman and child to go to a Meeting-house, that every Sunday was opened between
our plantation and Fredericksburgh. Every thing took a change. The young wenches,
who, in Master Tommy's time, used to put on their drops, and their bracelets, and ogle
their eyes, now looked down like modest young women, and carried their gewgaws in
their pockets till they got clear of the woods. He encouraged matrimony on the plantation
by settling each couple in a log-house, on a wholesome patch of land; hired a school
master to teach the children, and to every one that could say his letters gave a Testament
with cuts. This made me bold to marry, and I looked out sharp for a wife. I had before
quenched my thirst at any dirty puddle; but a stream that I was to drink at constant, I
thought should be pure,—and I made my court to a wholesome girl, who had never bored
her ears, and went constantly to Meeting.
She was daughter to old Solomon the Carter, and by moon-light I used to play my
banger under her window, and sing a Guinea Love-song that my mother had taught me.
But I found there was another beside myself whose mouth watered after the fruit. Cuffey,
one of the Crop Hands, came one night upon the same errand. I am but a little man, and
Cuffey was above my pitch; for he was six foot two inches high, with a chew of tobacco
clapped above that. But I was not scared because he was a big man, and I was a little
one; I carried a good heart, and a good heart is everything in love.
Cuffey, says I, what part of the play is you acting? Does you come after Sall?
May be, says he, I does. Then, says I, here's have at you boy; and I reckoned to fix him
by getting the finger of one hand into his ear, and the knuckles of the other into his eye.
But the whore-son was too strong for me, and after knocking me down upon the grass, he
began to stomp upon me, and ax me if I had yet got enough. But Dick was not to be
scared; and getting his great toe into my mouth, I bit it off and swallowed it. Cuffey now
let go his hold, and it was my turn to ax Cuffey if he had got enough. Cuffey told me he
had, and I walked away to the Quarter.
My master the next day heard of my battle with Cuffey. He said that I ought to
live among painters and wolves, and sold me to a Georgia man for two hundred dollars.
...
My master at Annapolis being made a bankrupt, there was an execution lodged
against his negurs. I was sent to Alexander, and knocked down at vendue to old 'Squire
Kegworth. I was put to work at the hoe. I was up an hour before the sun, and worked
naked till after dark. I had no food but Homony, and for fifteen months did not put a
morsel of any meat in my mouth, but the flesh of a possum or a racoon that I killed in the
woods. This was rather hard for an old man, but I knowed there was no help for it.
Squire Kegworth was a wicked one; he beat Master Tommy. He would talk of
setting us free; you are not, he would say, Slaves for life, but ony for ninety-nine years.
The 'Squire was never married; but an old negur-woman kept house; who governed both
him and the plantation. Hard work would not have hurt me, but I could never get any
liquor. This was desperate, and my only comfort was the stump of an old pipe that
belonged to my first wife. This was a poor comfort without a little drap of whiskey now

312

and then; and I was laying a plan to run away, and travel through the wilderness of
Kentucky, when the old 'Squire died.
I was now once more put up at vendue, and as good luck would have it, I was bid
for by 'Squire Ball. Nobody would bid against him because my head was grey, my back
covered with stripes, and I was lame of the left leg by the malice of an overseer who
stuck a pitchfork in my ham. But 'Squire Ball knowed I was trusty; and though self
praise is no praise, he has not a negur on the plantation that wishes him better than I; or a
young man that would work for him with a more willing heart. There is few masters like
the 'Squire. He has allowed me to build a log-house, and take in a patch of land where I
raise corn and water Melions. I keep chickens and ducks, turkeys and geese, and his lady
always gives me the price of the Alexander market for my stock. But what's better than
all, Master never refuses me a dram, and with the help of whiskey, I don't doubt but I
shall serve him these fifteen years to come. Some of his negurs impose on him; there's
Hinton, a mulatto rascal, that will run him into debt; and there's Let, one of the housegirls, who will suck the eggs and swear it was a black snake. But I never wronged Master
of a cent, and I do the work of Hinton, of Henry, and Jack, without ever grumbling. I
look after the cows, dig in the garden, beat out the flax, curry-comb the riding nag, cart
all the wood, tote the wheat to the mill, and bring all the logs to the school-house.
Source: John Davis, Travels of Four Years and a Half in the United States of America
During 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, and 1802 (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1909), pp.
413-417, 422-424.
July 16, 1807—―James Carters Accot of his sufferings, &c.‖
Abolitionists used James Carter‘s 1807 account of his family‘s sufferings to detail the
horrors of slavery during the second quarter of the nineteenth century.
A small Jernel of an only and beloved Brother and two sisters my poor brother J[?] Henry
was Born in the Family of Mrs. Lucy Armistead of Caroline County Virginia near the
Bowling green untell he was 22 years old he was then Sold to one George Buckner of the
County without knowning of it and buckner bearing a very cruel name My Brother would
not go with him and Runaway a few days after I sawd him and pesuade him to go and try
Mr. Buckner but Buckner had advertise him for 20 Dollars reward and thretting to send
him to Millers Iron works in North Carolina he was afraid but after sometime pesuadeing
he consent to go and set of form me at Frederickburg to go to his masters and met Mr.
Wm Woodford who knewd him and want to take him up my Brother Run from him this
was opposite to Mr Man Pages Mr Woodford Call to Mr Pages overseer and tell him to
Stop my Brother the overseer Run as fast as he could but could not over take my brother
he in this time got to the Rappahannock River near Mr Pages Mill whare he found a
Sheltering Rock and Crept under it the was some little boys playing at the mill the
overseer call to the boys and ask them whare that man went as Came Down to the River
the boys told him that he was under the Rock my brother hearing this he came from under
the rock and took to the River to Swim a Cross the overseer Immediately begun to Stone
him and Struck him on his head which put an end to his Life these is the Last words of

313

my Brother Lord have murcy on me you have kiled me help help me for god sake I am all
most gone and sunk to the bottom the next morning we heard of it and went to Look for
him and was out 5 Days Looking for him the 6th Day after his Death I ask my Master if I
might go with my father to Look for my Brother he said no you must go to Dumfries after
my horse it appear that he had more Regard for his horse then he had for my poor Dead
brother Dumfries is about 25 miles of from Fredg my mother said to me Do my Son try
and get home by sun set, we may hear of your brohter and you can help your father to get
him home I made all the hast I Could and got home as the Sun was setting the first thing I
saw in the ward was a horse and Cart with a Coffin my mother I am glad you have come
we have heard of your brohter he is 4 miles Down the River on the other Side we
Immediately Set of and Cross the River and inquireing at Every house untell we Came to
whare he was and Call up the Black men the got some nots of pine wood and lit them and
got a little boat and went Down the River whare my brother was tied to a bush with a
grape vine the boat was so very small it would not bear us all and the bank was so Steep
we could not get him up we was oblige for to put him in the water a gain and flote him on
the water untell we could land him we put him in the Coffin and brought him home to the
buriel ground and we was not able to take him out of the Cart this was about 3 in the
morning my father said to me you must Stay hear untell I go to the Town and get Some
person to help us he ask me if I was not afraid to Stay I told him no that I was not afraid
of my brother and that I had never Did thes Dead bodies any harm and for that Reason I
was not afraid and when my father Came with the man I was fast a Sleep leaning on the
Coffin my Brothers grave Look very Dreadfull at being open but I was not the least
aftraid my mind tell me not to be afraid that nothing will hurt me my brother Left under
the Rock a Little napsack which Contains 1 lb of Sugar 1 bottle of Molasses and a few
Ginderbreads which I gave him to take to his wife and one chield—My sister Nelly was
sold to one Johnson a Merchant of Fredg it is true that Johnson is a Speculator but his
Greatest Speculation is on human flesh he sold my sister Nelly whose I have never heard
of her sence my Little sister Judy was sent for from my mothers house to be Brought to
Bensons Tavern by Mr Landon Carter of Savern Hall who is a Son inlaw of Mrs Lucy
Armisteads to be viewd by thes Blood thrusty fellows this Child was about 8 years old
and was very much afraid of them She cried very much my mother and myself beaged Mr
Carter not to sell this Child out of Fredg he gave us his word and honour that he would
not but as soon as we left him he sold the Child to thes fellows and Did not Let us know
of it and as soon as the fellow had got as many as he Could convenently convay a Long
he came to my mothers house and take the Child by its arm and Led it of he would not so
much as to tell my mother what part the Cuntry he lives my mother in this time had got
part of the money to purchase the Child we have never heard of the Child sence my
mother has had 9 children and altho She and Mrs Armistead has been brought up together
from little Girls She has sufferd all my mothers Children to be picked from her my
mothers Family has Served the Family of Mrs Armistead upwards of one Hundred and 30
years my mother is at this time 64 years old and the has Jest Gave her the Discharge as
She Can not be of any service to them my father is 67 years old and I have offerd Mrs
Armistead one hundred Dollars for him and She would not take it as I want him to go and
Live my with mother—I was Sold to Mr James Sutton of Alexandria a Clerk at the Bank
by a Son of Mrs Armisteads who was my master and Servd him 15 months the last 3
monthes he hired me to 2 Gentlemen who live in Camden South Carolinia to attend them

314

to that Place which is about 6 Hundred miles and after ward was Left thare to get home to
Alexandria as I could the Paid me my wages which was 24 Dollars and 12 Dollars to
bring me home and I walk all the way home and Paid Mr Sutton 24 Dollars and 6 Days
after I had got home he Sold me to thes negro driver the Came to my house about 2
oclock in the morning and nock at the Door my master said to me get up I got up and
open the Door he said to me you must go with these men I ask him whare he said to
whare He [they?] Live I ask him if he was going to Sell me I would thank him if he
would Let me get a master in Alexandria he said to me I am nothing more to Do with you
and you have sence Enough to Come Back if you Do not Like the Place these words to
me was what compell him to Return the money which he had Received for me the took
me and Caries me 75 miles on thair Jerney on Night the put us in a Room and I got of
from them and with a very great Difficulty I got to Philadelphia Whare I got to Live
with Mr Elias Boudinot who I soon found was a Charatable man and I told him of my
Distress he Immediately write to my master and Did Every thing to Release me he was
very kind to my Family he Imploy my wife he gave her 60 Dollars per year for washing
he gave my family Clothes and the is not one artikle of this Life but what he gave my
Family and in the time this yellar Fever he take my Family to his house in the Cuntry for
2 and 3 monthes Mrs Boudinot and Mrs Bradford the Daughter of Mrs Boudinot also was
very kind to my Family and through his goodness and the goodness of god I had got my
Freedom
Wrote by me the 16th July 1807 in Alexandria James Carter a Mulatto man NB I
had a Brother in Law Caried of in one of the Droves and he wrote me a few Lines he says
when he got to tennesee Cuntry he had ticks on his back as Larg as the Ends of his
fingers being not able to take them of for the Iron bands the is not a week but what the is
Larg Droves go thrugh this City men all Link together with Iron Bands at this moment
this Goal is full of men womans and Children to be caried of my thes Negro Drivers the
Genely take them of in night James Carter
[Written on the final page of journal?]
for one of the friend in Philadelphia as a Request of Doctor Stabler
Alexandria Virginia
Mr Boudinot please to tell what friend it is
[Written on the back of the journal?]
To the Care of Mr John B Wallace
Philadelphia
Or to Elias Boudinot Burlington for one of the friends Philadelphia--James Carters Accot of his suffering &c—
Source: Parrish Collection of Quakeriana; see also Linda Stanley, ed., ―James Carter‘s
Accounts of his Sufferings in Slavery,‖ Pennsylvania Magazine of History and
Biography 105 (1981): 335-339.

315

Early Nineteenth Century—Interview with Jeremy Prophet
Jeremy Prophet was a slave owned by John Washington, the brother of George
Washington. He accompanied George Washington in the expedition to Fort Duquesne
and on other travels. James Kirke Paulding did not not mention when the interview with
Jeremy Prophet took place. The notes from the conversation appeared in the second
edition of Paulding‘s Letters from the South (1835).
―As a sample of what I have collected, I will copy for your gratification, a
considerable long talk with an old negro, who was formeraly a servant of the general, and
accompanied him in the disastrous expedition of Braddock against Fort Duquesne. It is
furnished me by a gentleman of Alexandria, of high character, and who is on terms of
familiar intimacy with the Washington family. In communicating it, he says, ―I have
carefully avoided putting down any thing, but just as I received it, and have chosen the
old negro‘s own language for his narratives, and only considered myself as his
amanuensis; without reference to any other authority than himself in his own words. I
spent several days at Mrs. Washington‘s; visited him frequently, took hasty notes as we
went along, which were collected and amplified during my repeated visits. I give you but
a fair copy of what I hastily worte down on the occasion.‖
―The old negro Jeremy, or Jeremy Prophet, bears in the family a high reputation
in every respect; is as fine a specimen of an old-fashioned servant as you ever met with,
an oracle among the blacks, and with the family, a sort of relic of their ancestors that they
seem proud to cherish and make comfortable. I was introduced to him, seated before a
rousing fire, in an arm-chair.‖
Old gentelman, said I, I have come a long way to see you, and hear you talk of
General Washington. I am told you went with him to Braddock‘s war.
―Aye, indeed, did I sir, and many‘s de t‘other place I bin wid him – Lord, sir, he
was amighty of a man, I tell you.‖
How old was you at this time?
―Why, I was a good, smart, mannish sort of a chap, big enough to be gemman‘s
servant.‖
Can you tell exactly how old you were at that time?
―Not ‗xacly – but I remember one morning, some time afore dat, I was at Mount
Vernon, wid my old mass John Bushrod, and I hear him say to mass John, John
Washington I tell you what I do. Jerry good smart boy, do a man‘s work, dough he but
fifteen or sixteen year old – I give him to you. He ax me if I want to live wid mass John
– I say yes – give me plenty meat and bread – and den I belong to John Washington.
John he den live wid George Washington, at Mount Vernon.‖
Well, now tell me something about Braddock‘s war.
―When Braddock (he pronounced the name sharp – Braddick) come, dey hear him
burning powder good way off, and de people so glad to see him, day come down to de
shore and burn powder too – pop – pop – pop, ebery hour de day. I couldln‘t tink what
de debbil de matter. By‘m by, I see de ships one fore God, most big as Mount Vernon
house, dough it wornt no great much of a house den, no how. Next morning, mass John
say, Git de carriage, Jerry, I gying to Belhaven, (dey call do place Alexandry now; huh! I
Cod! I know‘d it when dey more trees than houses, and dey couldn‘t find places to put

316

Braddick‘s soldiers in.) Well, when I come to Bell Haven, den I seed what de matter – de
soldiers and de officers eberywhere. Ebery body want to see dis great man Braddick, so,
as I was standing at de stable door, combing my head, de stable man at de armary dare
say, Jerry, dare Braddick – and I know‘d him, cause nobody else I seed, had star on left
breast, and dare he was, tween tow odder gemmen. He wornt notting like gemman, take
he clothes off, and dat sort of star – he broad, chunky man.
―Well, den mass John and mass George dey talk and talk, and den dey tell me I
must git horses ready, and go ‗long o‘dem – and five hundred granadier gemmen joined
Braddick, and off we go. Well, sir, d‘ye mind me? We went ahead, trough de woods,
and over de mountains – we stopped at a place dey call Cumberland, week or ten days – I
disremember de ‗xact time – and den set off‘gin. Braddick halt de foot guard, and send
de gemmen granadiers agead. I went gemman‘s servant, wid mass John – well, sir – we
was quarter mile ahead, goin trough de wood, huckleberry – bushes up to de horse belly,
and when we got to a bit of a hill, ‗bout as big as fron de house (two or three hundred
yards) – if you had eyes to see so far, you would see forty miles, and we seed rise up all
round – gemmen got off horses, and ‗gan to consult. Neber seed nobody. I didn‘t know
what de debbil the matter, not I. Presently all mounted, come back to Braddick, and dare
dey was, telling what dey had seed – and dare stood Braddick, listening wid all he ears,
he rifle in he right hand, wid he britch on de ground – he rub he toe in de leeves, like he
raking up something – he look at he toe, and seem mighty consarned, he never say a
word. When dey done talking, he put he blowpipe to he mouth, and march was de word.
De gemmen granadiers look mighty spicious, but neber said notting as I hear. Gemmen
granadiers fall back – foot guards to de front. When we got to dat place – huh! We seed
de smoke, we hear de pop-pop-pop, but we seed nobody. De riggler‘s drap, drap, drap –
Braddick neber bark one cannon, but he look ris‘lute. I took de bridle of my horse, an I
git behind de tree – I Cod, I was Skeered – d‘ye mind me? I was, I tell you. Braddick
put he blowpipe to he mout – ‗Hurra, my boys, lose de saddle, or win de horse,‘ he bawl
out, and den, ‗Oh boys! I‘m gone,‘ and den I seed no more of Braddick on his legs – he
down – but I seed mass George take hold one dem brass pieces same as if it was a stick –
he look like de debbil – he put one hand on the muzzle so – he sling di sheet lead from
dat and de toutch-hole – he put – d‘ye mind me? Dis hand on de muzzle, and dis on de
britch – he pull wid dis and he push wid dis – and he wheel it round jis like nottin. He
tear de ground up same as a bar shear (a kind of plough.) De powder-monkey jump wid
de fire, and den de cannon bark, I tell you. Dey fit and dey fit, and den de ingens holler;
when de thirty pieces of brass cannon bark, de trees fly and de Ingens come down, I tell
you. Dat place dey call Rock Hill, and dare day left five hundred men behind.
―Mass George he sometime arter go mong de Ingens agin – dis arter Braddick‘s
war. John Washington was at Mount Vernon, and I was dare wid him. One Sunday
morning, coming from stable, I seed a man riding up de road, wid his horse all in a ladder
of sweat. Says, I what‘s de matter? Says he, ‗I don‘t know, but old misses in mighty
trouble, and sent for mass John, he up?‘ I say, don‘t know – it was half hour by sun.
When mass John got de letter, he come out and say, ‗Jerry, keep your gray horses up in
de stable, feed um well, and be ready to set out to-moorw morning, at crack o‘day.‘
Afore light, every ting ready, and we set off, and dough we found mighty trouble to get
across de ferry, at Colchester, it was so cold and frozen, we got to Dumfies to breakfast,

317

and same evening got to he mother‘s. When we come in sight of de home, we seed de
old lady comin out on two sticks – ―
―Two sticks‖ – what do you mean?
―Two sort of crutches, she hurt her foot or ancle, and was lame, ‗bout dat time.
She never say how you do, nor notting, but ‗O, Johnny Washington! Johnny
Washington, have you heard any new of – George Washington? His time‘s run out, no
papers, no news, no notting of him. He‘s dead – he‘s dead – I know he‘s dead – go and
seek him, dead or alive – bring his bones, if notting else.‘
―We rest one day at Mrs. Washington‘s, and one at Major Lewis‘s, over in
Fredricksburg, and den we set out. We rested one night at Aldie, at one Billy West‘s. In
de morning we started by time it was light, and got up to Colonel Sn[?]igge‘s to breakfast
almost fifteen mile. De snow was up to our knees, and dare wornt no much of a road any
how, and so we had hard work to get along, I tell you. But mass John so fond of he
brodder George, and de old lady, he go foot sooner dan turn back. Well, it was gitting fur
in de day, I was afore, on a horse, mass John was coming close behind, when I look up do
road, and I seed a man coming down de mountain, wid his right leg over de pummel of de
saddle, woman fashion, wid a broad piece of paper in his lap reading, and de bridle-rein
loose in his fingers. He was dressed in a sort of a round jacket, wid moccasin gaiters, his
beard mighty long. He cock his eye, and tinks I, I know him, and when mass John come
up, he jump off he horse, and cry out. ‗Why, John, don‘t you know me?‘ and den I seed
‗twas mass George, sure enough. And den dey stop in de road and talk, talk, and mass
George (the gin‘ral mind me!) he call de man wid de horses, and Tom‘s horse was fairly
covered wid leather, and he make dem open de saddle-bags, and, I Cod, if he didn‘t twist
a ting about two or tree times and made a table, and ebery ting he had, down to pepperbox, and ebery ting, and dare dey eat, and dare day drink dough it was so cold. I Cod, I
had to put my meat and bread in my pocket – and dare was dat man wid notting but his
roundabout jacket, and dare wor his great-coat close by on de pummel of he saddle. I
Cod, dat man he no more mind cold dan a stone fence – d‘ye mind me? Mass George he
set off for Mount Vernon, and we took de road to Fredericksburg agin, and we got dare, I
recklect same as yesterday, on Wednesday night, and dey neber know‘d notting about it,
till we got dare. Dat same night, I went over to Major Lewis‘s massa gin me great parcel
letters to carry over to him. Major Lewis in de door, and seed me comin to de house.
―‘Hollo, Jerry,‘ he say, ‗you hear any ting of Col. Washington?‘ he wornt no
gin‘ral den.‖
―Lord, yes, massa,‖ I say, ―I seed him.‖
―‘You seed him?‘‖
―Yes, massa, I seed him.‖
―‘I ‗blieve you lie, you rascal,‘ he say.‖
―Well, massa, you see if I lie den. I seed him same as I see you, and he be here
to-morrow, for I hear him say so. Well, den I hand him de letters, and he say sure
‗nough, well, I mightly glad – he holler to Bob to bring me dram – and den I tell him all
‗bout how we meet him. Friday the gin‘ral came dashing down de road, wid Miles
Richardson on anoder horse behind him. Miles he go always wid him whereber he go.
And den dare was such rejoicing, for de old lady was fondest of George of all de boys.
Dis was arter he come from Braddick‘s war, long time. Dey say he gaged to be married

318

den, and when he go away, he leave word, if dey no hear from him in nine months, dey
must give him up, and de nine months had den gone. He went out dat spring.‖
Where had he been, do you know?
―Been to camp, but wha ‗xacly, I don‘t know. I tell you what I see, not what I
hear – behold you! The gin‘ral had a face like he mother, and she was old Martram
Ball‘s daughter. I don‘t ‗blieve old Matty Ball every have any odder child – ‗least I neber
hear o‘none. He live at Fleet‘s Bay, down in Lancaster county. I have seeming
rec‘lection of he father, dough I can‘t say ‗xacly. I live, when a boy, close by down
dar at Norming, midway mass John Bushrod, he not so tall as any of he sons.
―I went along wid de gin‘ral when he go down to get married, and Miles
Richardson and me had all de trunks in a little wagon. We stopped at Dumfries to feed,
and de gin‘ral went on afore us – well sir, jist as we cross de creek, at de mills, going up
dat hill, smash come down de left-hand fore wheel – I Cod, says I, Miles here a job, and
so we takes de trunks and puts dem into Mr. Allen‘s ornary – Miles he stay behind, and I
sot off for Fredericksburg, ‗long wid de horses and de odder man. Lord, sir! When old
misses see me come widout de trunks, she was stuffed, I tell you – so she says, take my
two duns, Jerry, and start by daybreak, wid de two fore wheels o‘ de carriage, and bring
de trunks and wagon.
―When I seed she was in sich a fluster ‗bout de trunks, I goes off and I gets de
wheels and de duns, and off I goes a cracking, I tell you. When I got back, I found de
wheels wouldn‘t fit, and de road so bad, I turn de horses in to get a mouthful, and Miles
and I set to work and lashed de trunks, and Mr. Allen, who kept de ornary, make his boys
help us, for dey was monstrous heavy, on to de axeltree, and bed of de fore wheels.
Miles he got on top of um, and jist as we set off, says I to Mr. Allen, what o‘clock is it?
And he tell me it wanted tree hours or more to daylight. We had den twenty-four miles to
go, but we moved – dem horses, ah! Dey was fellows, I tell you – dem same duns neber
done notting but go in old misses carriage – Ned could hardly handle dem fellows, dey
was so pranktous – and she wouldn‘t let um ever go to mill, and when dey was turned
out, she always had um turned out in de bottom land, below de house, whare she could
see um all de time. I let um go – Miles he could hardly hold on – but I put on, I tell you, I
did that. I was mighty proud, I tell you, when jis as I turned into de gate, I seed de red
daybreak way off yonder. I left de tings and horses in de yard, and went to de house –
firs person I meet was de old lady.
―‘Come, Jerry,‘ she say, ‗make haste, you ought bin gone long ago.‘
―Lord, misses, I done bin, says I.‖
―‘You done bin? Den you kill your horses.‘
―No, misses, says I, horses an‘t hurt – dough, I Cod, I left um smoking, and I was
skeered a trifle, all de time, I tell you – misses an‘t hurt.
―‘Well, says she, I might glad – you tired, Jeery, come in and leave de tings where
dey is.‘
―Arter awhile de gin‘ral he come out and say, neber mind de tings, bring um all
over as dey are to Major Lewis‘s at Fredericksburg, When we got dare, he say, put on
boys to Colonel Lomax‘s, I be dare tonight – take care of your horses. I come on behind,
and pay de reck‘ning. Den Miles, he ride on de trunks and drive, and I ride on a fine
horse belonging to massa. We stop at de Bowling green, and fed our horses, left de
gin‘ral to come on and pay de reck‘ning, and put off. Says Miles, ‗I tell you what, dese

319

horses tired, and I am debilish cold, how far we got to go?‘ You know as wel as I, says I,
and den we soon come to Colonel Lomax‘s gate, and I look back an I seed de gin‘ral a
coming, standing up in he stirrups, dashing on wid he two servants behind him. I hill
(held) de gate for him to get trough –
―‘Dat‘s right boys,‘ says he – and den he stop and say, ‗Jerry, dat de horse your
massa raise at Prospect Hill?‘
―Yes, says I, dis de feller.
―We stopped at Colonel Bob Lomax‘s all night. De gin‘ral send word for us to be
up and off betimes in de morning to York, and tired as I was, I couldn‘t sleep, ‗fore God,
I tought de night was a fortnight long. Well, next morning, we puts out before de crack
o‘day, and just about sundown de horses look so bad, we stop to bait, a mile dis side
York river – I didn‘t tink we was so near, I would have gone on.
―De gin‘ral he come dashing by, standing in he stirrups. ‗Hitch up,‘ says he,
‗boys, and push on – you an‘t got over a mile to de ferry, and its most night – push on,
and I‘ll go and call de ferry over.‘
―And so on we went. When we got to de ferry, all de boats, de horse-boat and de
foot-boat, gone t‘oder side. It was dark den – de gin‘ral he walk back and forward to
keep warm – he blowed de conchy, and we hollered, and at last we see de foot-boat a
coming over – de river look mighty ugly, all white, and de wind blowing like great guns,
and it was a freezing hard, I tell you. When de foot-boat totch de shore, de gin‘ral slung
he great coat to Tom Bishop, he giv de boat one push wid he square barrelled rifle, and
one push wid he foot. He jump in and say, pull away boys – and when dey seed who dey
had got in de boat, dey did put it to it, dey did – d‘ye hear me? Dey did. Captain Smith
and Captain Dandridge kept de ferry, and Captain Smith de ornary, t‘oder side. Come on
dark night afore de horse-boat come over, and dar we war, no star – ebery ting black but
de river – six hours in de boat, half leg deep in water – come on darker and darker – de
men pull and pull, but de shore seem as if he done gone – de gin‘ral over long ago – d‘ye
mind me? I hear one man say, ‗Tom, we shall be drown‘d‘ – I was scared, but I keep up
– de water splash over de boat – I hear de concy blow – God, ‗twas same as a dram of a
cold morning. De people seed we didn‘t come, and got skeered. I stood upon de head of
de boat, wid de bridle-reins of my horse over my shoulder – if de boat sink, I hang to de
horse, I say to mysef. Den, I seed something black a one side – I move over dat side – de
boatman say, don‘t come dis way – I shout out, ‗come on, come on,‘ and den I hear de
people in de firs boat shout – and den a rope fall bang, right over my horse. I snatch hold
on um, and gave um a twist round de ring, right between my legs, and when dey draw de
rope taut, den I feel de boat go ahead. When we go to shore, I feel glad, I tell you – ‗twas
Christmas Eve, an I was most froze – I had pair of gloves, knit wid rabbit‘s fur inside,
and I Cod, dey war fairly froze. I was neber so nigh being drown‘d in my life.
―As we drive by de kitchen door of de ornary, I see de light trough de crack ob de
door, and says I, come, Bishop, ‗let‘s go in, for fore God I can‘t stand it. I knock – come
in, say somebody, - and den dare war ebery ting snug enough; presently de gemman
come out – ‗Ho! Boys,‘ say he, ‗cold travelling.‘ I seed de long-bottom glass in he hand,
and spoke up. Yes sir, says I, cold travelling. How fur might it be to massa Custis‘s?
‗Oh, you jis dare,‘ says he, and he pours out a glass; ‗go round my yard, and dare you
right at de house. Where you from to-day?‘ Colonel Bob Lomax‘s, say I. When I hear I
was so nigh, I was fierce ‗nough, for I was always like a hog, all jaw.

320

―As we pass de winder, I see in, and I seed de gin‘ral in de big chair, jis so – and
dare was de lady jam up to him, jis so – an‘ he had de lady‘s little daughter on he lap.
Aha! You feller, say I to mysef, dat what you come for trough de cold, eh!
―Presently madam come out to de door, wid de maid wid her candle. She call de
servant, and he come – one great Guinea negger, wid he face jis like you draw currycomb
all ober it. She say, take dem men in and treat um well, and tell Jack take care de trunks.
And so we went into de laundry and den you may depend de tortoise shell bowl come
[ou]t full – eh! Boys!
Nex day I hear de people say de gin‘ral got he nose frost-bit; and when I seed it
look red, I right glad, cause he ought to have some ob de pain, as he got all de fun –
ha!ha! I went out to see my horses, and I was in fair misery for de water had frozen on
um, and dey look so bad; de people hadn‘t taken good care on um. De gin‘ral he come
out and say –
―Well, Jeremy, how you horse do?‖
―Oh, toloreble say I.
―‘Well, says he, ‗Jeremy, stay rest yourself long as you please, and take holyday.
I shan‘t want your horses, and if I want a carriage, I can borrow de lady‘s to go to
Williamsburg. But do you stay and rest.‘
―Oh, says I, I no want rest. I got wife at home. I rather go spend Christmas dare.
I got notting buy wheels to take back, and so I tink to go home tomorrow.
―Says he, ‗Jerry, hold your hand.‘
―He put he hand in he pocket. I hold one hand, he full um. When I see dat, I hold
t‘oder – he full dat, too. And when I go to de stable, I count it out in my hat. Aha! D‘ye
mind me, sir! He had gin me pounds.
On another occasion, Jeremy said:
―De gin‘ral, he care notting for de cold; be hard as a bull, and sometime when de
gemmen, Colonel Ramsy, Colonel Carlisle, and de rest ob um, use to come down from
Belhaven, he go out to shoot deer we um. I recklect one day he send for me, and tell me,
go git de white mare and come wid him, de odder gemmen all ready. I didn‘t know what
dey war going about, but I neber say a word. When we got to a place near Dorrel‘s Hill,
called Hell Hole, dey all stop. De gin‘ral put he hand in he pocket an draw out a little
bell. He tie um round de gray mare‘s neck, and say – ‗Now, Jerry, you go ahead in a
walk, and don‘t say a word, no matter what you see; don‘t be afraid, nor open your lips.‘
I went on about twenty yards ahead, and presently I seed a great buck come jumping
along. He stop, he look sideways at me – he lif up one leg – bang! I hear de rifle, and
den he drop. I was fit to tumble off de horse, for all I know he might shoot me, too, I
Cod. Presently dey all come up. De gin‘ral an‘ I lift de deer on to de mare, an‘ I lead her
home; he want me to git up, but I say, no, tank you.
―He, gin‘ral, mighty man for horse. He had a horse dey call Starling – he was
wicked debil – de gin‘ral raise him at he plantation down at Muddy Hole. He no let
nobody ride or break him. When he tree year old, he bring him one Sunday morning, and
say he gying to ride him. I look out; I ‗xpect ebery minute he git he neck broke, but when
he sling he leg over, he dare, no git him off. He mighty man for bad horse. I don‘t say
no better dan he, but I neber seen none.‖

321

Source: James Kirke Paulding, Letters from the South, 2 vols. (1817; reprint, 1835), 1:
191-205

Part III—Letters and Journals:
Whites and a Free Black Write About Slavery

July 5, 1726—William Byrd II to the Earl of Arrery
William Byrd II describes himself as the patriarch of his family and notes that it is his
responsibility to manage the work of his laborers. Compare the tone of this letter to the
letter Byrd wrote to the Earl of Egmont in July 1736 in the ―American Diversity‖ section.
…I have a large family of my own, and my doors are open to every body, yet I
have no bills to pay, and half-a-Crown will rest undisturbed in my pocket for many
moons together.
Like one of the patriarchs, I have my flocks and my herds, my bond-men and
bond-women, and every soart of trade amongst my own servants, so that I live in a kind
of independence on every one, but Providence. However, this soart of life is without
expence yet it is attended with a great deal of trouble. I must take care to keep all my
people to their duty, to set all the springs in motion, and to make every one draw his
equal share to carry the machine forward.
Source: Marion Tinling, ed., The Correspondence of the Three William Byrds of
Westover Virginia 1684-1776, 2 vols., (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia,
1977), 1:355.

1773 to 1774—The Journal of Philip Vickers Fithian
Philip Vickers Fithian, a native of New Jersey and a graduate of Princeton, spent a year
as the tutor to Robert Carter‘s children at Nomini Hall.
Thursday December 23, 1773
….when the Woman who makes my Bed, asked me for the key of my Room, and on
seeing the young Man sitting with me, she told him that her Mistress had this afternoon
given orders that their Allowance of Meat should be given out to them to-morrow.—She
left us; I then asked the young man what their allowance is' He told me that excepting
some favourites about the table, their weekly allowance is a peck of Corn, & a pound of
Meat a Head! —And Mr Carter is allow'd by all, & from what I have already seen of
others, I make no Doubt at all but he is, by far the most humane to his Slaves of any in
these parts! Good God! are these Christians? —When I am on the Subject, I will relate
further, what I heard Mr. George Lees Overseer, one Morgan, say the other day that he
himself had often done to Negroes, and found it useful; He said that whipping of any kind

322

does them no good, for they will laugh at your greatest Severity; But he told us he had
invented two things, and by several experiments had proved their success. —For
Sulleness, Obstinacy, or Idleness, says he, Take a Negro, strip him, tie him fast to a post;
take then a sharp Curry-Comb, & curry him severely til he is well scrap'd; & call a Boy
with some dry Hay, and make the Boy rub him down for several Minutes, then salt him,
& unlose him. He will attend to his Business, (said the inhuman Infidel) afterwards! —
But savage Cruelty does not exceed His next diabolical Invention—To get a Secret from
a Negro, says he, take the following Method—Lay upon your Floor a large thick plank,
having a peg about eighteen Inches long, of hard wood, & very Sharp, on the upper end,
fixed fast in the plank—then strip the Negro, tie the Cord to a staple in the Ceiling, so as
that his foot may just rest on the sharpened Peg, then turn him briskly round, and you
would laugh (said our informer) at the Dexterity of the Negro, while he was releiving his
Feet on the sharpen'd Peg!—I need say nothing of these seeing there is a righteous God,
who will take vengeance on such Inventions!—Miss Priscilla and Nancy returned in the
evening.

Wednesday, January 26, 1774
At Supper from the conversation I learned that the slaves in this Colony never are
married, their Lords thinking them improper Subjects for so valuable an
Institution!—

Thursday, March 24, 1774
At Breakfast Mr Carter entertained us with an account of what he himself saw the
other Day, which is a strong Representation of the cruelty & distress which many among
the Negroes suffer in Virginia! Mr Carter dined at Squire Lees some few Weeks ago; at
the same place, that day, dined also Mr George Turburville & his Wife—As Mr Carter
rode up he observed Mr Turburvilles Coach-Man sitting on the Chariot-Box, the Horses
off—After he had made his compliments in the House, He had Occasion soon after to go
to the Door, when he saw the Coachman still sitting, & on examination found that he was
there fast chained! The Fellow is inclined to run away, & this is the method which This
Tyrant makes use of to keep him when abroad; & so soon as he goes home he is delivered
into the pityless Hands of a bloody Overseer!—In the Language of a Heathen I query
whether cunning old Charon will not refuse to transport this imperious, haughty
Virginian Lord When he shall happen to die over the Styx to the Elysian Gardens; lest his
Lordship in the passage should take affront at the treatment, & attempt to chain him also
to the Stygean Galley for Life!—
Or, In the language of a Christian, I query whether he may be admitted into the
peaceful Kingdom of Heaven where meekness, Holiness, & Brotherly-Love, are
distinguishing Characteristicks?

Monday, April 4, 1774

323

After Supper I had a long conversation with Mrs Carter concerning Negroes in Virginia,
& find that She esteems their value at no higher rate than I do. We both concluded, (& I
am pretty certain that the conclusion is just) that if in Mr Carters, or in any Gentlemans
Estate, all the Negroes should be sold, & the Money put to Interest in safe hands, & let
the Lands which these Negroes now work lie wholly uncultivated, the bare Interest of the
Price of the Negroes would be a much greater yearly income than what is now received
from their working the Lands, making no allowance at all for the trouble & Risk of the
Masters as to the Crops, & Negroes.—How much greater then must be the value of an
Estate here if these poor enslaved Africans were all in their native desired Country, & in
their Room industrious Tenants, who being born in freedom, by a laudable care, would
not onlyly inrich their Landlords, but would raise a hardy Offspring to be the Strength &
the honour of the Colony.

Friday, July 8, 1774
—O yes, says Mrs Oakly, I know Dadda Gumby at Williamsburg. I think you look as
brisk, as hearty & as young now as you did ten years ago—Gumby—I & my old Woman,
here Master, are the two oldest Negres in Mr Carters Estate. Here we live, Master, on
our worthy Landlords Bounty—The Nurse, Betsy, & Harriot were at Gumby's House
which stands about twenty Rod from the Garden—I was walking, with a Book in my Fist,
musing & stumbling along—I saw them, I went up, & with a lower Bow than I should
give to a Nurse, if Women are plenty, says I, pray Mrs Oakly do you know Dadda
Gumby? We stood chattering with the old African, or rather he stood chattering with us,
relating one story after another, leaving some of his Narrations half untold, beginning
others in the middle having entered into the true Spirit of Loquacity—

Wednesday, July 13, 1774
I drew off this morning for Dadda Gumby a List of his Children, & their respective
ages—He himself is 94—For this office I had as many Thanks, As I have had blessings
before now from a Beggar for Sixpence—Thank you, thank you, thank you Master, was
the language of the old Greyheaded pair.—Call on us at any time, you shall have Eggs,
Apples, Potatoes—You shall have every thing we can get for you—Master!—In this
Torrent of Expressions of Gratitude I was rung to Breakfast; I bow'd to the venerable old
Negroes, thank'd them in my Turn for their Offers, & left them—
Source: The Letters and Journal of Philip Vickers Fithian: A Plantation Tutor of the
Old Dominion, 1773-1774, ed. Hunter Dickinson Farish, (Charlottesville: University
Press of Virginia for Colonial Williamsburg, Incorporated, 1957), pp. 38-39, 59, 84-85,
92, 134-135,140.

324

August 19, 1791—Benjamin Banneker to Thomas Jefferson
Sir, I have long been convinced that if your love for yourselves, and for those inestimable
laws, which preserved to you the rights of human nature, was founded on sincerity, you
couldnot but be solicitous, that every individual, of whatever rank or distinction, might
with you equally enjoy the blessings thereof; neither could you rest satisfied short of the
most active effusion of your exertions, in order to the promotion from any state of
degradation, to which the unjustifiable cruelty and barbarism of men have reduced
them….
Source: Benjamin Banneker to Thomas Jefferson, August 19, 1791. Early American
Imprints (Microprint), 1639-1800.

August 30, 1791—Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Banneker
Philadelphia, Aug. 30, 1791
SIR, - I thank you sincerely for your letter of the 19th instant and for the Almanac it
contained. No body wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature
has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of men, and that
the appearance of a want of them is owning merely to the degraded condition of their
existence, both in Africa & America. I can add with truth, that no body wishes more
ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition both of their body &
mind to what it ought to be, as fast as the imbecility of their present existence, and other
circumstnaces which cannot be neglected, will admit. I have taken the liberty of sending
your Almanac to Monsieur di Condorcet, Secretary of the Academy of Sciences at Paris,
and member of the Philanthropic society, because I considered it as a document to which
your whole colour had a right for their justification against the doubts which have been
entertained of them. I am with great esteem, Sir Your most obedt humble servt.
Source: Merrill D. Peterson, ed., The Portable Thomas Jefferson, (New York: Penguin
Books, 1975), pp. 454-55.

October 12, 1803—Doctor Robert Carter to his children, Hill, Anne, Lucy, and Thomas
Carter
Doctor Carter discusses his feelings about slavery and the slave trade.
Hill, Anne, Lucy and Thomas Carter,
My dear children,
…

325

Being married at the early period before mentioned, my mind had not so fully
developed as to enable me to anticipate the mode of life which was likely to be ultimately
congenial with my character, when it should have attained that maturity of which it was
susceptible. My Father had spared no expense in attempting to give me as liberal an
education as our country and my capacity would admit of, and being anxious that I
should betake myself to the mode of life commonly resorted to by men of independent
fortunes in this country gave me a plantation on one of the branches of York River
consisting of one thousand or twelve hundred acres of land and a competent number of
slaves and stocks of various kinds, intending after his death to make my estate at least
equal to that of his other sons, and perhaps superior, which last, I can safely declare I
never solicited or wished.
From the earliest point of time when I began to think of right and wrong, I
conceived a strong disgust to the slave trade and all its barbarous consequences. This
aversion was not likely to be diminished by becoming a slaveholder and witnessing many
cruelties, even at this enlightened day, when the rights of man are so well ascertained.
Yes, my dear children, habit and education, especially when abetted by sordid interest
will make beasts of men.
But I have not time to enlarge upon this subject, in this place—it is at best but too
unpopular a subject in your native State my dears. Suffice it to say, for the present that
my short trial of the agricultural line digusted me entirely with the mode prectised in
southern States. Nay, almost obliterated the recollections of those pleasing sensations
which most people must have experienced upon contemplating the happy husbandman,
embosemed in his harvest field, collecting the well earned fruits of his industry,—or
melted in pleasing sympathetic melancholly by the mingled melody of his distant lowing
herds.
With some little activity of mind I could not tolerate a mode of life, at once at
variance with my conscience and secluded from every ray of scientific or rational social
enjoyments which afforded the only antidote to that gloomy state of mind, (called by the
French ennui) which sooner or later takes place unless we fall into common worldly
habits which may or may not be pernitious to our temporal and eternal happiness or
unless we engage in some interesting pursuit worthy of the character we ought to be
ambitious to establish.
…
5th Be humane to your slaves, and dependents. Tho it has ever been a wish near
my heart to have avoided entailing the miseries of slavery upon my children yet from
circumstances which I could not entirely control it seems likely that you are to inherit this
misfortune. Partial emancipation as it has been conducted in this state has certainly been
attended with inconveniences to society, in a variety of respects, but the circumstance
which has tended most to suspend my determination on this subject, is, that a freed man
in this state, is often placed in a situation less desirable by emancipation, than by holding
him in slavery, under humane treatment.
And this I am free to acknowledge was the chief argument with me (as I never
professed emancipation, so far as I was personally concerned, either until I was in a
situation to give the subjects of it, something to begin with without injuring my children,

326

or until my country had taken some steps towards this desirable end, so as to benefit the
slave with injury to society at large.
But if I may judge of the future by the past, I cannot suppose that this happy
temper of mind will very soon prevail in Virginia, or any State to the Southward of it.
Source: Shirley Papers, Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

February 17, 1804—Henry St. George Tucker to St. George Tucker
Henry St. George Tucker took a slave boy named Bob with him to Winchester where he
intended to practice law. The uprooted Bob became despondent beyond anything young
Tucker had witnessed. Despite his emotional bond with Bob, Tucker continued to use
terms like ―savage‖ and ―brute‖ when referring to blacks.
I enclose a short note from Bob to his mother. Poor little fellow! I was much affected at
an incident last night. I was waked from a very sound sleep by a most piteous
lamentation. I found it was Bob. I called several times before he waked. "What is the
matter, Bob?," "I was dreaming about my mammy Sir"!!! cried he in a melancholy & still
distressed tone: "Gracious God!" thought I, "how ought not I to feel, who regarded this
child as insensible when compared to those of our complexion." In truth our thoughts
had been straying the same way. How finely woven, how delicately sensible must be
those bonds of natural affection which equally adorn the civilized and savage. The
American and African-nay the man and the brute! I declare I know not a situation in
which I have been lately placed that touched me so nearly as that incident I have just
related.
Source: Mrs. George P. Coleman, ed. Virginia Silhouettes: Contemporary Letters
Concerning Negro Slavery in the State of Virginia, To Which is Appended A Dissertation
on Slavery with A Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of It in the State of Virginia,
(Richmond: Press of the Dietz Printing Co., 1934), pp. 9 -10.

Part IV—Travel Accounts

1732—Diary of William Hugh Grove
William Hugh Grove‘s diary provides one of the most informative descriptions of the
colony written in the first half of the eighteenth century. He was well-traveled and must
have been fairly affluent in order to finance his trips, but other than that little is known
about him. Grove left England for a visit to Virginia in April 1732. Arriving in

327

Yorktown on June 23, he traveled to Williamsburg where he dined at the Palace with
Governor Gooch. His brief stay in the capital ended on June 28 when he departed
Yorktown by boat and sailed up the York River. What impressed Grove most about
Virginia were the landscape, the flora and fauna, and the people of the colony. Unlike
Europe, civilization, though present, had yet to dominate the colonial landscape; the
wonders of Virginia were still in the realm of nature. Grove‘s observations on different
groups of people in Virginia society—the gentry, blacks, and Indians, for example—are
important because they were written at a time for which no other systematic comparison
of these segments of the population exist.
The Negroes are all Slaves brought in or born here. I have been on board 2 ships from
Guinea and Angolo. One had near 500 Negroes. The men are Stowed before the
foremast, then the Boys between that and the mainmast, the Girls next, and the Grown
Women behind the Missen. The Boyes and Girles [were] all Stark naked; so Were the
greatest part of the Men and Women. Some had beads about their necks, arms, and
Wasts, and a ragg or Piece of Leather the bigness of a figg Leafe. And I saw a Woman
[who had] Come aboard to buy Examine the Limbs and soundness of some she seemed to
Choose.
Dr. Dixon, with whome I went, bought 8 men and 2 women on board the Ship Consigned
to Col. More and Mr. Lyde, and brought them on Shoar with us, all stark naked. But
when [we had] come home [they] had Coarse Shirts and afterwards Drawers given [to]
them. [They] cost L.20 [per] head
They allow them on shipboard only horsebeans. Here they are allowed a peck of Indian
Corn per Week, which stand the master in 26sh[illings] per annum each, and broun
Linnen at 6d per yard [for] 2 shirts [and] 2 drawers [is] 10 yds, [costing a total of] 5s;
shoes, 1 pair [at] 3s; all [together] will Cost about per annum [blank]. They also allow
them to plant on Sundays or [at] night, for they Work from Sunrising to setting. 6000
plants of Tobacco, which wil[l] make 1000 lbs. weight, beside their Share of Corn is a
Slaves task.
Source: Gregory A. Stiverson and Patrick H. Butler, III, eds., ―Virginia in 1732: The
Travel Journal of William Hugh Grove,‖ Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 85
(1977): 18-21, 31-32.
1742—Edward Kimber‘s Observations
Edward Kimber‘s Itinerant Observations in America, first published serially from August
1745 through December 1746 in the London Magazine, contains a vivid record of life in
the colonies. At twenty-three, Kimber left England to visit America. Though no
evidence survives to identify his specific reasons for making the journey, some of his
poems about the experience hint that he came to America to join the army and fight the
Spanish. One of his stops included Yorktown. He arrived in the last week of November
1742 and stayed until December 23. He stayed long enough in Virginia to visit

328

Williamsburg, and he was not impressed. Kimber‘s excursion ended in the first week of
July 1744, when he returned to London almost two years after his trip began.
…The Negroes live as easily as in any other Part of America, and at set Times have a
pretty deal of Liberty in their Quarters, as they are called. The Argument, of the
Reasonableness and legality, according to Nature, of the Slave-Trade, has been so well
handled on the Negative Side of the Question, that there remains little for an Author to
say on the Head; and that Captives taken in War, are the Property of the Captor, as to Life
and Person, as was the Custom amongst the Spartans; who, like the Americans,
perpetuated a Race of Slaves, by marrying them to one another, I think, has been fully
disprov‘d: But allowing some Justice in, or, at least, a great deal of Necessity for,
making Slaves of this sable Part of the Species; surely, I think, Christianity, Gratitude, or,
at least, good Policy, is concern‘d in using them well, and in abridging them, instead of
giving them Encouragement, of serveral brutal and scandalous Customs, that are too
much practis‘d: Such is the giving them a Number of Wives, or, in short, setting them up
for Stallions to a whole Neighbourhood; when it has been prov‘d, I think,
unexceptionably, that Polygamy rather destroys than multiplies the Species; of which we
have also living Proofs under the Eastern Tyrants, and amongst the Natives of America;
so that it can in no Manner answer the End; and were these Masters to calculate, they‘d
find a regular Procreation would make them greater Gainers. A sad Consequence of this
Practice is, that their Childrens Morals are debauch‘d by the Frequency of such Sights, as
only fit them to become the Masters of Slaves. This is one bad Custom amongst many
others; but as to their general Usage of them, ‗tis monstrous and shocking. To be sure, a
new Negro, if he must be broke, either from Obstinacy, or, which I am more apt to
suppose, from Greatness of Soul, will require more hard Discipline than a young Spaniel:
You would really be surpriz‘d at their Perseverance; let an hundred Men shew him how
to hoe, or drive a Wheelbarrow, he‘ll still take the one by the Bottom, and the other by
the Wheel; and they often die before they can be conquer‘d. They are, no Doubt, very
great Thieves, but this may flow from their unhappy, indigent Circumstance, and not
from a natural Bent; and when they have robb‘d, you may lash them Hours before they
will confess the Fact; however, were they not to look upon every white Man as their
Tormenter; were a slight Fault to be pardon‘d now and then; were their Masters, and
those adamantine-hearted Overseers, to exercise a little more Persuasion, Complacency,
Tenderness and Humanity toward them, it might, perhaps, improve their Tempers to a
greater degree of Tractability. Such Masters, and such Overseers, Maryland may with
Justice boast; and Mr. Bull, the late Lieutenant-Governor of Carolina, is an Instance,
amongst many, of the same, in that Province: But, on the contrary, I remember an
Instance of a late Sea Officer, then resident in a neighbouring Colony, that for a mere
Peccadillo, order‘d his Slave to be ty‘d up, and for an whole Hour diverted himself with
the Wretch‘s Groans; struck at the mournful Sound, with a Friend, I hasted to the Noise,
where the Brute was beginning a new Scene of Barbarity, and belabour‘d the Creature so
long with a large Cane, his Overseer being tir‘d with the Cowskin, that he remained
without Sense and Motion. Happily he recover‘d, but alas! remain‘d a Spectacle of
Horror to his Death; his Master deceas‘d soon after, and perhaps, may meet him, where
the Wicked cease from troubling, and the Weary be at rest: Where, as our immortal Pope
sings:

329

No fiends torment, no christians thirst for gold.
Another, upon the same Spot, when a Girl had been lash‘d till she confess‘d a Robbery,
in mere Wantonness continu‘d the Persecution, repeating every now and then these
christianlike, and sensible Expressions in the Ragings of his Fury, ―G-d d-mn you, when
you go to Hell I wish G-d would d-mn me, that I might follow you with the Cowskin
there.‖
Slavery thou worst and greatest of Evils! sometimes thou appearest to my
affrighted Imagination, sweating in the Mines of Potosi, and wiping the hard-bound Tears
from thy exhausted Eyes; sometimes I view the sable Livery under the Torture of the
Whip, inflicted by the Hands, the remorseless Hands of an American Planter: At other
Times, I view thee in the Semblance of a Wretch trod upon by ermin‘d or turban‘d
Tyrants, and with poignant, heart-breaking Sighs, dragging after thee a toilsome Length
of Chain, or bearing African Burdens. Anon I am somewhat comforted, to see thee
attempt to smile under the Grand Monarque; but, on the other Side of the Alpes, thou
again resum‘st they Tears, and what, and how great are thy Iberian Miseries! In Britain,
and Britain only, thy Name is not heard; though has assum‘d a new Form, and the
heaviest Labours are lightsome under those mild Skies!
Source: Edward Kimber, Itinerant Observations in America, ed. Kevin J. Hayes,
(Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1998), pp. 47-49.

1773—The Tour of John F. D. Smyth
John F. D. Smyth was orphaned at a young age. When he did not have enough money to
finish his medical training in Scotland, Smyth decided to try his luck in the Chesapeake.
He paid for his journey across the Atlantic by serving as a ship‘s surgeon. He arrived in
Charles County, Maryland, in about 1772. After failing to establish a medical practice,
Smyth became a tenant farmer—he rented both land and slaves. Smyth was a Loyalist
who fled to the Backcountry in 1775.
Instead of retiring to rest, as might naturally be concluded he (the slave) would be glad to
do, he generally sets out from home, and walks six or seven miles in the night, be the
weather ever so sultry, to a negroe dance, in which he performs with astonishing
agility…until he exhausts himself, and scarcely has time, or strength, to return home
before the hour he is called to toil next morning.
Source: John F. D. Smyth, A Tour in the United States of America, (1784; reprint,
London: The New York Times and Armo Press, reprint 1968), volume 2.

330

1774 to 1777—The Journal of Nicholas Cresswell
Nicholas Cresswell, born in Edale, England, was 24 when he went to America in 1774.
Cresswell made the journey because he believed that ―a person with a small fortune may
live much better and make greater improvements in America than he can possibly do in
England.‖ Sailing from Liverpool, he went to Virginia, and returned to Edale in 1777.
….went to see a Negro Ball. Sundays being the only days these poor creatures have to
themselves, they generally meet together and amuse themselves with Dancing to the
Banjo. This musical instrument (if it may be so called) is made of a Gourd something
in the imitation of a Guitar, with only four strings and played with the fingers in the
same manner. Some of them sing to it, which is very droll music indeed. In their songs
they generally relate the usage they have received from their Masters or Mistresses in a
very satirical stile and manner. Their poetry is like the Music - Rude and uncultivated.
Their dancing is most violent exercise, but so irregular and grotesque. I am not able to
describe it. They all appear to be exceedingly happy at these merry-makings and seem as
if they had forgot or were not sensible of their miserable condition.
Source: Nicholas Cresswell, The Journal of Nicholas Cresswell, 1774-1777, (New
York: The Daily Press, 1928), pp. v, vi, 18-19.

1785 to 1787—Travels of Luigi Castiglioni
Luigi Castiglioni, of Milan, Italy, visited the individual states from Massachusetts to
Georgia from 1785-1787. His two volumes, drawn from direct observations and
secondary sources, consist of information on the topography, history, institutions,
customs, agriculture, and industry of these states. Castiglioni‘s comments are strikingly
similar to those of John F. D. Smyth‘s A Tour in the United States of America (1784), p.
46. Castiglioni noted that he took his description from American Museum 1, no. 3
(March 1787): 214-16.
But instead of retiring to rest, as it might naturally be concluded he would be glad to do,
he generally sets out from home, and walks six or seven miles in the night, be the weather
ever so sultry, to a negro dance, in which he performs with astonishing agility, and the
most vigorous exertions, keeping time and cadence, most exactly, with the music of a
banjor (a large hollow instrument with three strings), and a quaqua (somewhat
resembling a drum), until he exhausts himself, and scarcely has time, or strength, to
return home before the hour he is called forth to toil the next morning.
Source: Luigi Castiglioni‘s Viaggio: Travels in the United States of North America
1785-87, ed. Antonio Pace, (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1983), p. 195.

331

1793 to 1798—Travels of M. L. E. Moreau de Saint-Mery
M. L. E. Moreau de Saint-Mery (1750-1819) was born in Martinique, educated in France
as a lawyer, was a leading figure of the French Revolution, and then fled to America in
1793, where he stayed until 1798. That year he returned to France, where again he
became involved in the government, and died in 1819.
The following excerpt was written in 1794.
Although they are never allowed to forget their dependent state, the free people of color
and the slaves are not strangers to the pleasures of life, the dance and finery.
It is chiefly on Sunday that they take advantage of the last. On that day they don their
finest clothes, including boots and knickerbockers, and the women put on their brightest
dresses and their prettiest shoes. They repair, particularly the Methodists, to church
where their voices blend with those of the whites; the evening is spent in dancing, for
which the Negroes have a mania.
At Christmas and Easter, when slaves are given three days vacation, they vie with each
other in every form of indulgence--including, unfortunately, drunkenness.
Source: M. L. E. Moreau de Saint-Mery, Moreau de St. Mery‘s American Journey
[1793-1798], tran. And ed. Kenneth Roberts and Anna M. Roberts, (Garden City, New
York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1947), p. 60.

1795 to 1797—Travels of Isaac Weld
Isaac Weld, an Irishman, came to America in 1795 at age 21. He wished to examine
―with his own eyes into the truth of the various accounts which had been given of the
flourishing and happy condition of the United States of America.‖ Travelling for two
years, he explored the resources of both the United States and Canada. He mixed with
the best American society and met George Washington. Yet he returned home in 1797,
―without entertaining the slightest wish to revisit.‖ His Travels, the product of a ―very
youthful pen, unaccustomed to write a great deal,‖ was published in 1799. The press and
public, eager for news of America, enthusiastically received the work.
The large estates are managed by stewards and overseers, the proprietors just
amusing themselves with seeing what is going forward. The work is done wholly by
slaves, whose numbers are in this part of the country more than double that of white
persons. The slaves on the large plantations are in general very well provided for, and
treated with mildness. During three months, nearly, that I was in Virginia, but two or
three instances of ill treatment towards them came under my observation. Their quarters,
the name whereby their habitations are called, are usually situated one or two hundred

332

yards from the dwelling house, which gives the appearance of a village to the residence
of every planter in Virginia; when the estate, however, is so large as to be divided into
several farms, then separate quarters are attached to the house of the overseer on each
farm. Adjoining their little habitations, the slaves commonly have small gardens and
yards for poultry, which are all their own property; they have ample time to attend to
their own concerns, and their gardens are generally found well stocked, and their flocks
of poultry numerous. Besides the food they raise for themselves, they are allowed liberal
rations of salted pork and Indian corn. Many of their little huts are comfortably
furnished, and they are themselves, in general, extremely well clothed. In short, their
condition is by no means so wretched as might be imagined. They are forced to work
certain hours in the day; but in return they are clothed, dieted, and lodged comfortably,
and saved all anxiety about provision for their offspring. Still, however, let the condition
of a slave be made ever so comfortable, as long as he is conscious of being the property
of another man, who has it in his power to dispose of him according to the dictates of
caprice; as long as he hears people around him talking of the blessings of liberty, and
considers that he is in a state of bondage, it is not to be supposed that he can feel equally
happy with the freeman. It is immaterial under what form slavery presents itself:
whenever it appears, there is ample cause for humanity to weep at the sight, and to lament
that men can be found so forgetful of their own situations, as to live regardless of the
feelings of their fellow creatures.
Source: Isaac Weld, Travels Through the States of North America, ed. Joseph J. Kwiat,
(New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1968), 1:148-149.

Part V—The Family Life of Slaves

Family Life in Africa
Kinship is the key to understanding African society, using the word to refer to
descendants of a common ancestor or people who share a physical (sexual) relationship.
The family was a basic unit of the kinship structure, within which relatives were often
known simply as father, mother, brother, sister. An individual's mother's brother's son or
father's brother's son was considered a brother. Kinship was the bond that cemented
human relationships in the society and instilled harmony, security, co-operation and a
sense of community therein. Since the place of each person in the society was unique,
kinship gave everyone identity, meaning, function and purpose. Two basic lineage
structures existed in Africa: a patrilineal system and a matrilineal one. In the patrilineal
system, descent was traced through the father, who remained the authority figure even
when the child became an adult. In the matrilineal system, descent was traced through

333

the mother, and the mother's brother had the ultimate authority over his sister's children.
Kinship groups beyond the family were viewed as a lineage; several lineages formed a
clan and many clans formed a unitary group or state.
…
The kinship group was an entity that continued through time and grew and expanded
through marriage and childbirth. The manner of acquiring spouses varied greatly in
African societies, but marriage often involved the payment of bride-price, a transfer of
goods and services which had more symbolic value than economic importance and did
not give the man any absolute rights over the woman. While polygamy was common,
there also were many monogamous marriages.
Marriage was never considered complete without procreation. Africans believed
that without the birth of children the chain of being had been broken, and so they were,
and are, highly valued. The names given to children in some African societies
underscore this importance. Among the Yoruba of Western Nigeria, names like
Owotomo, "money is not as valuable as children", Omodumbi," children are sweet to
have", Omololu," children are the summit of achievement", and Omoniyi, "children are
the source of prestige",attested to the value of children. Birth was and is an occasion
celebrated by appropriate rites in all African communities. Even before the new-born
arrived, preparations were made in anticipation of the event and pregnant women
observed certain rites and taboos.
A person normally had to be initiated into the group at an appropriate time,
usually at puberty, the ceremony being significant in making that individual a full
member of the community. Some societies held initiation rites for both sexes, while
other such rites were confined to women.
Among the Mende of Sierra Leone all young people were initiated into adulthood:
the men joined the Poro association and the women belonged to the Sande. (The Poro
association was also found among people in Liberia and Guinea.) Mende boys were not
regarded as mature adults until they had been initiated into the Poro, a ritual which
involved being taken to the Poro compound in the bush for several weeks of training and
instruction in Mende traditions, customs, the endurance of hardship, self-discipline, cooperation and respect for one's elders. These rites were secret and initiates took an oath
of secrecy. The end of the training symbolized the change in status of those taking part
and made them full members of the society. Women were similarly initiated into the
Sande association.
The system of beliefs and thoughts that ordered the life of each African society
included recognition of a supreme God, although African religious systems are often
mistakenly generalized in terms such as animism, paganism, fetishism and polytheism.
Africans were not animists in the sense of believing that every object had a soul; they did
believe that spirits used certain objects as their abode and exerted influence through these
objects. Paganism is a Western term commonly referring to practices and beliefs of those
who were not Jewish, Christian or Muslim, and, as such, is too vague to apply to African
religion. A fetish was originally a work of art or object such as a religious charm, but the
fact that Africans made use of religious charms should not be allowed to categorize their
religious systems. Neither can African religion be adequately described as polytheistic-

334

rather than worshiping many co- ordinate or several gods, Africans recognize a Supreme
Being who is above all and is the Creator of any other gods, and is given various names
in different areas of the continent. African societies viewed God the Creator as being
essentially a life-giving and just spirit, devoid of form. He was everywhere, therefore
there were no shrines and temples dedicated especially to Him; there were no feast days
set aside for Him or priests appointed to serve Him. The essence of the worship of God
was African societies' acknowledgment of His presence and their expression of
dependence upon Him.
In addition to their Supreme God, Africans venerated their ancestors. Death, like
other rites of passage, was a public affair, when the community was brought together to
give the deceased person a proper burial. Many societies believed that the dead entered
into a spiritual state of existence, so ancestors were revered, the dead being believed to be
able to guard, protect or even punish their descendants. Protection manifested itself
through prosperity, fertility, and abundant crops. Punishment took the form of epidemics,
illness, misfortune and even death. Ancestors who had lived exemplary lives were often
singled out for special reverence. Because Africans believed that their ancestors were
alive and visited the living, they attempted to keep in touch with them through offerings
of food and drink placed on their tombs.
The African pantheon contained other divinities who were created by God to fulfil
specific functions, and who could be male or female or good or evil and had abodes in
natural phenomena and animals. Some of the divinities were recognized as unique. Of
these, the spirit of the earth ranked after God. Since everyone had access to the earth, no
temples, shrines or priests were dedicated to it, but sacrifices were made on special
occasions, such as the beginning of the planting season. Spirits or deities inhabited
bodies of water of all kinds, and such spirits had priests and shrines and were worshiped
and offered sacrifices.
Although all divinities were capable of doing both good and evil, certain deities
were considered harmful because they were antagonistic toward people. Among the
Yoruba of Western Nigeria, Eshu was known as such a deity, and Sasabonsam was the
evil spirit among the Akan of Ghana.
In addition to evil spirits, Africans believed in the mystical forces of witchcraft
and magic. Witches were usually women and, occasionally, children who used their
powers to harm those they did not like. Belief in witches may have rendered misfortune
and adversity more understandable by blaming them on external forces. Magic, also
employed to understand the environment, could be used for beneficial purposes.
Medicine men used it to attempt healing, and rainmakers used it to encourage rain. Used
for anti-social purposes African society called it black magic.
Religion pervaded the lives of all African communities, determining moral and
ethical values, and its ultimate function was the establishment and maintenance of
harmony, peace and prosperity for the benefit of the society. . . .
Source: Edward Reynolds, Stand the Storm: A History of the Atlantic Slave Trade,
(London: Allison & Busby, 1985), pp. 15-18.

Slave Families in the Chesapeake

335

How frequently masters sold or bequeathed their Afro-American slaves and where they
sent them affected black household composition. Three points seem clear. First, planters
kept women and their small children together but did not keep husbands and teenage
children with their immediate family. Slave owner after slave owner bequeathed women
and their increase to sons or daughters. However, children of Chesapeake slave owners
tended to live near their parents. Thus, even when members of slave families were so
separated, they remained in the same neighborhood. Second, slaves who lived on small
farms were separated from their families more frequently than those on large plantations.
At their death small slave owners typically willed a slave or two to the widow and to each
child. They also frequently mortgaged or sold slaves to gain capital. If a slaveowner
died with many unpaid debts, his slaves had to be sold. Finally, relatively few slaves
were forced to move long distances. More slaves were affected by migration from the
Chesapeake region to the new Southwest in the nineteenth century than by long-distance
movement in the region before the Revolution. These points should not be
misunderstood. Most slaves who lived in Maryland or Virginia during the eighteenth
century experienced forced separation from members of their immediate family sometime
in their lives, and about twenty-six thousand tidewater slaves (a quarter of all the region's
slaves) were forced to move to Piedmont or to the valley of Virginia between 1755 and
1782, usually over such long distances that they could no longer see their kindred. More
than two-thirds of all of tidewater's slaves, however, probably lived close enough to visit
most family members.
. . .Slave families in the eighteenth-century Chesapeake were often unstable, but
African-Americans learned to cope with displacement and separation from kindred with
some success. Slaves created flexible kinship networks that permitted slaves to adjust to
separation. Most slaves were either members of a kin-based household or could call
upon kindred on their own or nearby quarters for aid and encouragement. A girl who
grew up in a two-parent household on a large plantation, for instance, might be sold in
her teens to a small planter, marry a slave from a neighboring farm, and raise her children
with minimal help from her husband. She would have learned about alternative childrearing methods from playmates whose fathers lived elsewhere and would have been
familiar with the nocturnal movement of men to visit their families. Her husband's
kindred could provide some help and friendship if they lived nearby. If she longed for
her old home, she could run away and visit, knowing that kindred and friends would hide
her from the whites.
In sum . . . slave kinship networks provided Afro-Americans with an alternative
system of status and authority and thereby set outside limits to exploitation by the master.
A slave had not only a place in the plantation work hierarchy, mostly determined by the
master, but a position within his kin group. Slave culture and religion developed within
this system: blacks participated as kindred at work and in song, dance, celebrations,
prayer, and revivals at home.
Source: Allan Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in
the Chesapeake, 1680-1800, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the
Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1986), pp. 359, 380.

336

Slave Families in Loudoun County, Virginia
Contrary to popular views of family stability, the familial history of slaves in
colonial and antebellum Loudoun and throughout Virginia offers compelling evidence
that many slaves did not have a nuclear structure or "core" in their families. There also is
very little evidence that suggests that a nuclear family was the slave's sociocultural ideal.
Virginia slave families, while demonstrating much diversity in form, essentially were not
nuclear and did not derive from long-term, monogamous marriages. The most
discernible ideal for their principal kinship organization was a malleable extended family
that, when possible, provided its members with nurture, education, socialization, material
support, and recreation in the face of potential social chaos that the slaveholder imposed.
Matrifocality, polygamy, single parents, abroad spouses, one-, two-, and three-generation
households, all-male domestic residences of blood, marriage, and fictive kin, single- and
mixed-gender sibling dwellings—these, along with monogamous marriages and coresidential nuclear families, all comprised the familial experience of Virginia slaves like
James Monroe's Daniel. Beneath this overwhelming record of diversity, however, the
extended slave family remained the consistent norm and the most identifiable ideal. . .
The primary role of the slave woman within her family, while more predictable
and "stable" than that of the slave man, also was uniquely different from that of free
women. She never was able to give the needs of her husband and children great
attention, much less first priority. Even though most slave children were part of
matrifocal families, the slave woman's most important duty was the labor she performed
for her master, not her family. This responsibility claimed so much of her time and
energy that childbearing was limited, while childrearing necessarily was a task she shared
with a number of other females.
Slave marriages, even monogamous ones, rarely were uncompromised. While
slave couples committed to monogamy may have been devoted to one another and able to
sustain feelings of love and respect over time, feelings sufficient to lead them to marry
legally after emancipation, many did not have the opportunity to express their feelings for
more than a few years while enslaved. Across time and space, the frequent and
indiscriminate separation of slave spouses, temporarily and permanently, denied them the
opportunity to live together, to share the responsibilities of their households and children,
and to provide each other with sociosexual outlets.
Free people of color, by law and custom, had more control of their family lives
and greater domestic stability than slaves. Their free status guaranteed them at least the
possibility of "traditional" monogamous marriages, nuclear families, and other functional
familial structures. Their race and its stigma, nonetheless, had incredible impact on every
aspect of their communities, and especially their family life.
Source: Brenda E. Stevenson, Life in Black and White, Family and Community in the
Slave South, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 160-161.

337

John Custis and Jack
John Custis's February 3, 1747/8 letter to his son, Daniel, mentioned a special slave.
Generally held to be the planter's son, his "dear black boy Jack" was inordinately
important to the elderly man, who was plainly willing to express to Daniel this emotional
tie. Besides the deed of manumission also given here, Jack received a significant bequest
from Custis, who included both plans for a house and details about its furnishings among
his arrangements for the boy's future.
. . . I wish you would determine to come down often, wch I am sure would bee very much
to your advantage, besides my satisfaction the Jorny is nothing, to A young man; my dear
black boy Jack [is] [torn] sick; wch make me very melacholly; and if please God [h]e
[torn] I should do otherwise than well, I am sure I should soon follow him; it would break
my heart, and bring my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave my lif being wrapt up in his; .
..
Source: John Custis IV to Daniel Parke Custis, February 3, 1747/8, quoted in Jo Zuppan,
―Father To Son: Letters from John Custis IV to Daniel Parke Custis,‖ Virginia Magazine
of History and Biography 98 (1990): 87-89.

****

And whereas by my deed of Manumission recorded in the county Court of York I have
freed and set at liberty my negro boy Christened John otherwise called Jack born of the
body of my slave Alice Now I do hereby ratify and confirm the said deed of manumission
unto the said John otherwise called Jack . . .and I hereby strictly require that as soon as
possible after my decease my executor build on the land I bought of James Morris
Scituate near the head of Queen's Creek in the county of York for the use of the said
John otherwise called Jack a handsome strong convenient dwelling house according to
the dimensions I shall direct and a plan thereof drawn by my said friend John Blair
Esquire and that it be compleatly finished within side and without and when the house is
compleatly furnished with one dozen high Russia leather chairs one dozen low Russia
leather chairs a Russia leather couch good and strong three good feather beds bedsteads
and furniture and two good black walnut tables I desire that the house fencing and other
appurtenances belong to the said plantation be kept in good repair and so delivered to the
said negro John otherwise called Jack when he shall arrive to the age of twenty years I
also give him when he shall arrive to that age a good riding horse and two able working
horses...I also give [Mrs. Anne Moody] the picture of my said negro boy John otherwise
called Jack It is my will and I desire that my said negro boy John otherwise called Jack
live with my son until he be twenty years of age and that he be handsomely maintained
out of the profits of my estate given him
Source: Custis Family Papers, Virginia Historical Society.

338

George Calvert and Eleanor Beckett
Like many other slaveowners, like some of his own ancestors, George Calvert had
another family. We can be sure of at least one slave mistress, and he probably had others.
There were children from his liaisons, and Calvert, a man not given to freeing his slaves,
set them free. There is no evidence that Rosalie knew of his relationships with his female
slaves; certainly she never mentioned anything of the sort in her letters. It is difficult to
imagine, however, that she did not know. Her slaves knew, and for a number of years
Calvert's wife and his mistress lived on the same plantation.
George Calvert's relationship with his slave mistress, Eleanor Beckett, began long
before he met Rosalie Stier. After his father's death in 1788, George, age twenty, became
master of Mount Albion plantation, and there he spent a long bachelorhood, not marrying
Rosalie until he was thirty-one. At Mount Albion Calvert began his affair with Eleanor
Beckett. Evidently the relationship became emotional as well as sexual, for eventually he
freed her, his children by her, and other members of her family as well. After his own
marriage, he arranged a suitable marriage for Eleanor. When she was widowed, he
moved her and her family to Montgomery County and made costly arrangements for their
well-being. Like his Lord Baltimore ancestors, he did not deny his illegitimate offspring
or the woman who had borne them.
There are only fragments of information about Eleanor Beckett. Apparently she
was an Indian-Negro mulatto belonging to the Calverts, and sometimes she was called
Charlotte, sometimes Nellie. Her first child with George Calvert was probably Anne,
born in 1790, and the second was Carolina, born in 1793. Both used the Calvert surname
in later years. Three more children came along to Eleanor—Cyrus, Charlotte, and John.
They were also probably George's children, but we cannot be sure, and we do not know
what surname they used.
The legal record begins in 1801 when, two years after his marriage to Rosalie,
George Calvert freed ten of his slaves, including "Charlotte" Beckett and her five
children, Anne, Caroline, Cyrus, Charlotte, and John. In 1822, soon after Rosalie died,
George Calvert returned to court to clarify the record, explaining that the "Charlotte
Beckette" he had freed twenty years before had been "christened" as "Eleanor Beckett"
and reaffirming that she and all her children were forever free.
It was difficult in Maryland for manumitted blacks to maintain their free status,
and evidently people were raising questions, because Calvert kept returning to the court
to reaffirm the freedom of Eleanor and her children. In 1824, Calvert thought it
necessary to repeat the manumission of Eleanor Beckett's second daughter, Caroline, age
31, along with her seven children—his own grandchildren—George, age 11; Caroline
Elizabeth, 9; John Henry, 8; Henrietta Maria, 6; Thomas Adolphus, 5; Marietta, 2; and
Richard, one month.
We can wonder about his thoughts as he freed the grandchild apparently named
for him by his mulatto daughter who herself bore the same name as his first-born
daughter by Rosalie. The following year he reaffirmed the manumission of Eleanor's
first daughter, Anne, then age 35, and her six children: Theophilus, 11; Louisa, 10;
Lucian, 8; John, 6; George Washington, 5; and Lucretia, 2.
A remarkable family account, handed down through four generations and
published in 1927 by Nellie Arnold Plummer, a black great-granddaughter of Eleanor

339

Beckett, supplements the legal record. Nellie Arnold Plummer descended from one of
Eleanor Beckett's later children, after Eleanor lived with an Englishman named William
Norris. Nellie Arnold Plummer recounted the family memoir:
Nellie [Eleanor] Beckett, an Indian-Negro mulatto, a slave of the Calverts,
married William Norris, an Englishman, who had to serve Calvert for seven years
for debt. On finding that his wife was bearing children for Calvert as well as his
own, noting his helplessness to correct matters, he died of a broken heart. Norris,
with Philip Brashears and two apprentices, made all the shoes worn on the
Riverdale [sic] plantation. Norris had two sisters who accompanied him to
America. The sisters went to Montgomery County, Maryland, while their
brother's time was bought by George Calvert, Riverdale [sic], Prince George's
County, Maryland. The Calvert children of Nellie Beckett-Norris were so white
that they were sent to Pennsylvania to live. From there Caroline, who had
become Mrs. Crompton [sic], took her children and her six sisters to Monrovia,
Liberia, Africa, with other mulattos who wished to be free.
No record remains of William Norris's bondage to George Calvert or his service
at Riversdale, but a link between the two men exists in the record of George Calvert's
manumissions. In 1822 Calvert freed two young mulatto women, Charlotte and Sophia
Norris, both born about 1803. Several years later, Calvert freed Matilda Norris, a "bright
mulatto" born about 1805. These could have been Eleanor Beckett's daughters by
William Norris or by Calvert while she was living with Norris. In 1827 Calvert freed a
mulatto male named William Beckett, about twenty-one, perhaps another of Eleanor's
children.
In all, George Calvert freed thirty-three slaves during his lifetime. Twenty-nine
of these bore surnames or are identifiable by family group, and twenty-three were
members of the Beckett-Norris family.
Source: Mistress of Riversdale: The Plantation Letters of Rosalie Stier Calvert, 17951821, ed. and tran. Margaret Law Callcott, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1991), pp. 379-381.

Part VI—Slaves and the Cycle of Family Life

Birth and Infancy
African customs of nursing were different from those of Europeans. In Africa women
often nursed children for more than three years, abstaining from sexual relations during
that period. Black women continued these patterns in the Caribbean slave communities,
as did seventeenth-century blacks in the Chesapeake.
Source: Joan Rezner Gundersen, ―The Double Bonds of Race and Sex: Black and White
Women in a Colonial Virginia Parish,‖ Journal of Southern History 52 (1986), p. 361.

340

Childrearing
To an even greater degree than poor white parents, enslaved mothers and fathers also
lacked a propertied foundation for parental authority. Depending upon his or her
occupation, skill, and personal relationship to a white master, however, an enslaved
parent might have some impact upon a child's future. A woman who performed work as
a cook, nurse, or seamstress, for example, had limited opportunities to place her female
children in a similar position within the household; this pattern may have been more
likely by the later eighteenth century, as the numbers of enslaved women engaged in
domestic work increased. She might also be able to press a claim for the training of a son
in some craft that would ensure that child's future release from agricultural labor. An
enslaved father engaged in tasks that brought him in frequent contact with his white
master might similarly have been able to advance his son or daughter to indoor work.
Source: Kathleen M. Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs:
Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia, (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1996), pp. 348349.

****

For the first months of life, a newborn infant stayed in the matricentral cell, that
is, received his identity and subsistence from his mother. . . . Eventually, the child left its
mother's lap and explored the world of the hut and quarter. In the evenings, he ate with
his family and learned to love his parents, siblings, and other kinfolk. During the day the
young child lived in an age-segregated world. While parents, other adults, and older
siblings worked, children were "left, during a great portion of the day, on the ground at
the doors of their huts, to their own struggles and efforts." They played with age mates or
were left at home with other children and perhaps an aged grandparent. Siblings and agemates commonly lived together or in nearby houses. . . Black children began to work in
the tobacco fields between seven and ten years of age. For the first time they joined fully
in the daytime activities of adults. Those still living at home labored beside parents,
brothers and sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts, and other kinfolk. (Even on smaller
plantations, they worked with their mothers.) Most were trained to be field hands by
white masters or overseers and by their parents. Though these young hands were forced
to work for the master, they quickly learned from their kinfolk to work at the pace that
black adults set and to practice the skills necessary to "put the massa on."

341

Source: Allan Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in
the Chesapeake, 1680-1800, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the
Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1986), pp.372-373.

Black Marriage and Married Life
Marriage was far less important for slave women than for white women; slave
women, unlike their white counterparts, neither shared property with their husbands nor
received subsistence from them. After the relationship was consummated, the woman
probably stayed with her family (parents and siblings) until a child was born, unless she
could form a household with her new husband. Childbearing, and the child rearing that
followed, however, were highly important rites of passage for most slave women. Once
she had a child, she moved from her mother's or parent's home to her own hut. The
bonding between slave mother and her child may have been far more important than her
relationship with her husband, especially if he lived on another plantation. Motherhood,
moreover, gave women a few valued privileges. Masters sometimes treated pregnant
women and their newborn children with greater than usual solicitude. For example,
Richard Corbin, a Virginia planter, insisted in 1759 that his steward be "Kind and
Indulgent to pregnant women and not force them when with Child upon any service or
hardship that will be injurious to them." Children were "to be well looked after."
Source: Allan Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in
the Chesapeake, 1680-1800, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the
Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1986), p. 375.

****

The mulatto fellow William, who has been with me all the War is attached (married he
says) to one of his own colour a free woman, who, during the War was also of my family.
...
I had conceived that the connection between them had ceased, but I am mistaken; they
are both applying to me to get her here, and tho' I never wished to see her more yet I
cannot refuse his request. . . . as he has lived with me so long & followed my fortunes
through the War with fidility.
Source: The Papers of George Washington, Confederation Series, ed. W. W. Abbott,
(Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1992), 2:14.

342

Old Age
Harsh life experience matured them [slaves], and whereas some found their sense
of self by opposing masters and slave-breakers (as did Frederick Douglass), others were
"broken" in spirit or "adjusted fully" to the demands of harsh slave masters. Many,
however, found a middle way, a mature acceptance of life's harsh reality, that gave them
some pride of accomplishment and some self-respect. When they reached old age they
might well achieve a new stature in their own, in other blacks', and in whites' estimation.
And this new position changed their attitude and their possibilities in regard to work. As
Dick said of his own expertise: "I ought to know these things; I served my time to it."
Landon Carter has left us with very detailed pictures of several of his slaves; the
life of Jack Lubber, one of the black people he was intensely involved with, in some ways
paralleled Dick's later development. Lubber had probably been born on a Carter estate.
At any rate, he had spent many years on Carter's plantations and Carter had been directly
involved with him. In the early phases of his life his pattern was very different from
Dick's. Lubber was one of the slaves Carter had trusted and mistrusted. He had selected
him as an overseer and then had been certain that he had lied, stolen, and allowed the
other slaves to evade their "responsibilities." While he was an overseer Carter wrote,
"Jack Lubber is a most lazy as well as stupid old fellow grown." He is "too easy with
those people and too deceitful and careless himself." When Jack Lubber was "retired,"
with but limited tasks assigned him in the fruit orchard, Carter's view of him altered
radically. . .In their joint old age Carter was ready to listen to Lubber and found both his
use of time and his advice prudent.
As Lubber aged, Carter "aged" him even more. By 1774 he was writing that he
had "suffered him to follow his own will now 9 or 10 years," although the diary records
that he was still an overseer in 1770. Carter surveyed his slave's life, and as Lubber
approached death Carter had nothing but praise for him: "As honest a human creature as
could live, who to his last proved a faithful and a Profitable servant to his Master."
Carter now "remembered" that in 1734 Lubber was foreman of his Mangorike field gang,
but was aging and slowing down, and that in 1754 he made him overlooker of five hands
at the Fork Quarter "in which service he so gratefully discharged his duty as to make me
by his care alone larger crops of corn, tobacco, and Pease twice over than I had had by
anyone. . .and besides shoats and piggs used by my house." Carter apparently forgot that
he had earlier written that Lubber was "a Devil," "an old sun of a Bitch," a drinker, a
cheat, and a liar. Carter claimed to have relieved Lubber of "abuse" from his own greatgrandchildren, who were in his crew, and brought him and his wife, "our old midwife, to
my henhouse at home, where I received until about 3 year ago the good effects of his
care." He then allowed him "to live quite retired" for what turned out to be his last three
years. "But ever active as his life has been he then became a vast progger in Catching
fish, Beavers, Otters, Muskrats, and Minxes with his traps, a Constant church man in all
good days," and he tended as well to his own garden. He died after getting a severe chill
while trying to catch a minx that was destroying Carter's fowls.
The longer Lubber had lived, the more Carter had valued him. In part this was
due to Lubber's changed status and behavior. "A constant church man," he may have
seemed to have had Christian values. On his own he was enormously active, and as an
old man he had much more respect from other blacks. But it was also due to Carter's

343

changing perception of Lubber because of his age. Slaveowners often perceived their
elderly slaves as older than their own records should have informed them. In some cases
slaves "aged" unnaturally from inventory to inventory; one year they were seventy, the
following year they might well be seventy-five. By "ageing" a slave, the owner reduced
the social distance between them and could allow himself to treat the black differently.
Aged slaves were widely regarded as "fellow creatures" by white people,
inasmuch as respecting them was not seen as dangerous to the master-slave system. In
fact, respecting them served the owner's interests, as they were often held responsible for
order and stability in the slave community. Moreover, they often seemed to share the
owner's attitude toward time and work. Charles Dabney's slaves assumed such shared
values when, in 1769, they sent the oldest slave to air their grievances with their owner.
They believed "a complaint from him would be listened to." They, as their African
parents, respected age and believed their owner would as well. Indeed, in the English
tradition out of which Charles Dabney's family came, it was expected that "the old were
to rule," although given the radical social change underway in England, and the
widespread disdain for those over sixty, the reality fell far short of the old ideal. In
Virginia, blacks reinforced the old values of time, work, and respect for the elderly.
Source: Mechal Sobel, The World They Made Together: Black and White Values in
Eighteenth-Century Virginia, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 41-43.

****

Excerpts from Landon Carter‘s Diary
June 12, 1771
I walkt out this evening to see how my very old and honest Slave Jack Lubber did to
support life in his Extreme age; and I found him prudently working amongst his melon
vines, both to divert the hours and indeed to keep nature stirring that indigestions might
not hurry him off with great pain. I took notice of his Pea vines a good store and askt
him why he had not got them hilled; his answer was the Prudence of Experience, Master,
they have not got age enough and it will hurt too young things to Coat them too closely
with earth. . . .
Old Lubber's observation about his pease being too young to be hill[ed] comforts
me about mine between the barley which I cannot get a while hoe and earth up.

June 25, 1774
I fear my very old Slave and fellow creature Jack Lubbar is now going to Pay the debt of
nature. About a fortnight ago as he has during his extreme age been subject to tender and
indeed sore shins, by his going to fish along the creek side, as he ever has done ever since
I suffered him to follow his own will now near 9 or 10 years, he somehow hurt his leg.

344

This brought on a fever; but being of a natural strong constitution with very little medical
care his fevers were removed and his leg restored sound, and to Perfect the cure I have
him gentle Apperients to take, this set him about lively and even to walk upright again;
and then he made traps to catch a Mink that destroyed my fowls, and in doing this of his
own head I fear he got wet and catched cold by going into the swamp. . . .I believe the old
man is going. Farewell to as honest a human creature as could live; Who to his last
proved a faithful and a Profitable servant to his Master as every remembered Conduct
must testify.
Poor Jack is cold in his extremities. Farewell, I may say, thou good and faithful
Servant to me.
Source: Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, ed. Jack P. Greene,
2 vols., (Richmond: Virginia Historical Society, 1987), 1:574-575, 2:834.

Part VII—Free Blacks

Selection from Kathleen M. Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious
Patriarchs
A few free black husbands and fathers quietly resisted the racism that overflowed
from the slave system by turning the increasingly formalistic legal climate, which offered
protection to established free male property holders, to their advantage. Their success as
landowners and masters of households, although limited, testified to the discrepancies
between identities produced in the courtroom and those generated through daily
interaction in a community. The most successful of these free black men owned
property, wrote wills, married, fathered children, and regularly used the county courts to
collect debts and record deeds for sales and purchases. . . John Rawlinson, a substantial
York County shoemaker born in 1725, also amassed considerable property before his
death in 1780. In addition to eight houses and lots in Williamsburg, Rawlinson could
boast a horse, saddle and cart, and "old Negro fellow," a looking glass, and a spinning
wheel among his possessions.
. . . In addition to transmitting freedom to their progeny, free black women also
provided their children with crucial links to other free people, creating the sinews of
emerging free black communities. The free Afro-Virginian children of white mothers, in
contrast, usually entered free black social networks, not by right of birth, but only to the
degree that they were able to form their own alliances. . .
As free parents, black women often formed the first line of defense against
encroachments upon the freedom of children, making possible free black family and
community life. Many free woman may have participated in relationships unrecognized
by white courts and churches, either because marriage ceremonies were not conducted
according to white law or because white or enslaved black men could not legally become
their husbands. Some women, in addition, may have entered these sexual relationships
unwillingly, leaving them without partners when children were born. Both the failure of
courts to recognized the presence of men in the lives of these women and the actual

345

absence of men in some cases resulted in a legal burden of mammoth proportions. Often
the only adult kin capable of intervening in their children's fate, free black women
provided their offspring's main protection against slavery.
Despite legal harassment, free black women turned to the courts both to arrange
apprenticeship terms and to protect children from exploitative and abusive white masters.
In doing so they were similar to mothers in the poorest white families, where poverty was
often a consequence of widowhood or pregnancy outside wedlock. Yet there were
important differences in the way the courts treated white and free black mothers. White
mothers appearing in court on behalf of white children usually offered routine consent to
the apprenticeship agreement, specifying the skills the child should be taught. Even
when the child's father was black, a white mother retained a customary right to object to
the terms under which her child was bound. Free black women seem to have had greater
difficulty in establishing their right to voice consent to a child's apprenticeship
arrangement. The failure of the 1723 law to require that the children of mulatto women
be bound by legal indenture may have been the prime reason for this difficulty. Such
children remained extremely vulnerable to being treated as slaves unless their mothers
initiated procedures for legal indentures.
By making their children's indentures a matter of public record, some black
mothers may have hoped to stave off attempts by the unscrupulous to turn young AfroVirginia servants into slaves. . .
When masters failed to provide adequate food, clothing, and training, or in other
ways abused a bound child, free mothers found it necessary to intervene. Although the
situation varied depending on the county, several women appear to have viewed the
courts as their best remedy. In Norfolk and Lancaster Counties, where free black social
and economic networks were less dense, women intervened on behalf of their children
more often than in York County, where a sizeable number of free black people lived in
and near Williamsburg. . .
Some free women tried to protect their children by keeping them in the same or
an adjacent neighborhood, making it easier for a mother to act quickly in cases of abuse
and increasing the chances that white neighbors could testify to the child's free birth and
subsequent treatment should such testimony be necessary. Not the least of a mother's
motives may have been the desire to remain in close contact with children over whom she
would otherwise have very little control. When servant Mary West of York County bore
two sons while serving a thirty-one-year term to Sarah Walker, her sons were subject to
the same punishment of extended service. Whether by West's urging or her own
initiative, Walker requested the court to allow her to keep the boys at her house until they
turned thirty-one, "being the term of y[ea]rs their mother was bound for." Mary Banks of
York County lived near her mother and managed to make the same arrangements for her
own children, who appear to have grown up on an adjacent Yorkhampton plantation.
If free children were lucky, their mothers lived long enough to protect them
during their years of service and to help them secure their freedom at the very end of the
term. Very often a child's only hope for freedom, a mother could be a powerful advocate.
Although fraught with numerous obstacles for petitioners, the legal system may
have provided the best means for free black women to protect their children from slavery.
In several cases, a woman's use of the courts succeeded not simply in securing freedom
for herself and her children but in creating a public record of a family's free condition that

346

subsequently may have facilitated her descendants' claims. The late-eighteenth- and
early-nineteenth-century York County free black register is filled with names from a
hundred years earlier, including Rawlinsons, Bankses, Jespers, Cannadys, and Poes.
Although many of the these individuals were indeed the actual descendants of an earlier
generation of free women, others had simply adopted their surnames.
In a society based on racial slavery, a free black mother's protection of her
children was not only good for her child, but also in her own self-interest. Families
provided primary social identities, legal protection, and economic sustenance. Not least,
they imbued daily life with meaning. Lacking kin, an individual could only hope to
cultivate friends who would take an interest in his or her prosperity.
…
Although many associations among free black and white people resulted from
reluctant decisions by Afro-Virginians who found their choices constrained, other contact
was voluntary, perhaps even mutually satisfactory. . . Like many other free black men
and women in Williamsburg, shoemaker Rawlinson depended upon the business of white
neighbors as well as of other free Afro-Virginians in the area. Mary Roberts, a woman
from York County's Hampton Parish, described as a "mulatto," earned part of her income
from white people by providing midwife services to their servants and slaves.
By the mid-eighteenth century, significant populations of free Afro-Virginians
lived in Yorktown, Williamsburg, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and several other towns, making
community life possible. . . In York County, economic opportunity in Williamsburg's
large houses and workshops may have drawn many free black people to the area from
more rural environs.
Although dependent in many ways upon important economic and social networks
with white people, free Afro-Virginian life in York County by the middle of the
eighteenth century had become more firmly rooted in the interactions of free black people
with each other and with slaves. Free women like Elizabeth Armfield assisted in the
births of enslaved women's children. As guardians, Afro-Virginian men like John
Rawlinson supervised the upbringing of orphaned children and watched over their
estates. Free black people also represented each other in court, as when Jane Savey acted
on behalf of Ann Gwin in a suit against two other Afro-Virginian women, Elizabeth and
Martha Armfield. In addition to these connections, free black people forged ties with
other free people of color through barter, the extension of credit, and patronage of each
other's businesses. Later in life, free Afro-Virginians married and bore children, knitting
together their families of origin. The Gillets, Macklins, Robards, Cannadys Bankses,
Saveys, and Combes found themselves intertwined by the third quarter of the eighteenth
century. The networks of free black people standing as witnesses for each other and
posting security grew denser, as did the suits for debt, trespass, and assault and battery.
At the end of their lives, free people witnessed each other's wills, died in each other's
homes, and left inheritances to siblings, children, godchildren, and other kin.
Source: Kathleen M. Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs:
Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia, (Chapel Hill: University of North

347

Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1996), pp. 225,
229-232, 235, 236-237, 240-241.

Part VIII—Religion

1789—Olaudah Equiano Discusses Ibo Religious Practices
In his narrative published in 1789, Equiano described the religious life of the Ibo, from
the region around Benin where he lived until brought to Virginia in 1757 at age twelve.
As to religion, the natives believe that there is one Creator of all things, and that
he lives in the sun, and is girded round with a belt, that he may never eat or drink; but
according to some, he smokes a pipe, which is our own favorite luxury. They believe he
governs events, especially our deaths or captivity; but, as for the doctrine of eternity, I do
not remember to have ever heard of it: some however believe in the transmigration of
souls in a certain degree. Those spirits, which are not transmigrated, such as their dear
friends or relations, they believe always attend them, and guard them from the bad spirits
of their foes. For this reason, they always, before eating, as I have observed, put some
small portion of the meat, and pour some of their drink, on the ground for them; and they
often make oblations of the blood of beasts or fowls at their graves. I was very fond of
my mother, and almost constantly with her. When she went to make these oblations at
her mother's tomb, which was a kind of small solitary thatched house, I sometimes
attended her. There she made her libations, and spent most of the night in cries and
lamentation. I have been often extremely terrified on these occasions. The loneliness of
the place, the darkness of the night, and the ceremony of libation, naturally awful and
gloomy, were heightened by my mother's lamentations; and these concurring with the
doleful cries of birds, by which these places were frequented, gave an inexpressible terror
to the scene.
We compute the year from the day on which the sun crosses the line; and, on its
setting that evening, there is a general shout throughout the land; at least, I can speak
from my own knowledge, throughout our vicinity. The people at the same time made a
great noise with rattles not unlike the basket rattles used by children here, though much
larger, and hold up their hands to heaven for a blessing. It is then the greatest offerings
are made; and those children whom our wise men foretel will be fortunate are then
presented to different people. I remember many used to come to see me, and I was
carried about to others for that purpose. They have many offerings, particularly at full
moons, generally two at harvest, before the fruits are taken out of the ground; and, when
any young animals are killed, sometimes they offer up part of them as a sacrifice. These
offerings, when made by one of the heads of a family, serve for the whole. I remember
we often had them at my father's and my uncle's, and their families had been present.
Some of our offerings are eaten with bitter herbs. We had a saying among us to any one
of a cross temper, That if they were to be eaten, they should be eaten with bitter herbs."
We practised circumcision like the Jews, and made offerings and feasts on that
occasion in the same manner as they did. Like them also our children were named from

348

some event, some circumstance, or fancied foreboding, at the time of their birth. I was
named Olaudah, which, in our language, signifies vicissitude, or fortune also; one
favoured, and having a loud voice, and well spoken. I remember we never polluted the
name of the object of our adoration; on the contrary, it was always mentioned with the
greatest reverence; and we were totally unacquainted with swearing, and all those terms
of abuse and reproach which find their way so readily and copiously into the language of
more civilized people. The only expressions of that kind I remember were "May you rot,
or may you swell, or may a beast take you."
I have before remarked, that the natives of this part of Africa are extremely clean.
This necessary habit of decency was with us a part of religion, and therefore we had
many purification‘s and washings; indeed almost as many, and used on the same
occasions, if my recollection does not fail me, as the Jews. Those that touched the dead
at any time were obliged to wash and purify themselves before they could enter a
dwelling-house. Every woman, too, at certain times, was forbidden to come into a
dwelling-house, or touch any person, or anything we eat. I was so fond of my mother I
could not keep from her, or avoid touching her at some of those periods, in consequence
of which I was obliged to be kept out with her in a little house made for that purpose, till
offering was made, and then we were purified.
Though we had no places of public worship, we had priests and magicians, or
wise men. I do not remember whether they had different offices, or whether they were
united in the same persons, but they were held in great reverence by the people. They
calculated our time, and foretold events, as their name imported, for we called them Ahaffoe-way-cah, which signifies calculations or yearly men, our year being called Ahaffoe. They wore their beads, and, when they died, they were succeeded by their sons.
Most of their implements and things of value were interred along with them. Pipes and
tobacco were also put into the grave with the corpse, which was always perfumed and
ornamented; and animals were offered in sacrifice to them. None accompanied their
funerals, but those of the same profession or tribe. They buried them after sunset, and
always returned from the grave by a different way from that which they went.
Source: Philip D. Curtin, ed., Africa Remembered: Narratives by West Africans from the
Era of the Slave Trade (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), pp. 69, 78-80.

1749 to 1763—The Sermons of the Reverend Thomas Bacon
Slaveholders in Virginia and elsewhere in the Chesapeake were slow to take an interest in
the conversion of their slaves to Christianity. Based on the vague notion that no Christian
might lawfully hold another Christian as a slave, masters at first wondered if their
baptized slaves would go free. Even after the Virginia General Assembly passed a law in
1667 declaring that baptism did not necessitate manumission, however, masters were still
reluctant to ―Christianize‖ their slaves. Some feared that religious training would make
slaves ―proud and saucy,‖ more difficult to control, as the idea of equality before God
sank in. Others feared that slaves taught to read the Bible might take inspiration from
biblical tales of flight and rebellion. And, too, many a slave holder remained utterly
indifferent to slaves‘ spiritual needs.

349

The Reverend Thomas Bacon (c. 1700-1768) arrived in Maryland in 1745. An ordained
Church of England minister, he served first in St. Peter‘s Parish, Talbot County and later
in All Saints Parish, Frederick County. Like some of his fellow clergymen in Virginia,
Bacon ministered diligently among the slaves in his parish, yet he never questioned the
institution of slavery itself. Between 1749 and 1763, Bacon published his sermons
addressed to masters on their duties toward their slaves, as well as two sermons addressed
specifically ―to a Congregation of Black Slaves, at the Parish Church of St. Peter‘s, in the
Province of Maryland,‖ in which he spelled out the obligations of slaves to their masters.
Both Bacon the man and his sermons were known in Williamsburg. Bacon himself was in
Williamsburg in 1751 drumming up subscriptions for a charity school in Maryland.
Peyton Randolph and Councilor John Blair among others made contributions. William
Hunter, printer of the Virginia Gazette, sold printed copies of a charity sermon of
Bacon‘s for the benefit of the Maryland school. In July 1751, Bacon preached in
Williamsburg (―My Yoke is Easie‖) and dined with John Blair. By October he was back
and again preached. In November, he dined with the Council. In the 1760s, the Bray
Associates sent Mrs. Ann Wager copies of Bacon‘s sermons to masters and slaves to use
at the Negro School in Williamsburg. Long after Bacon‘s death, these same sermons
were reprinted and imitated by nineteenth-century defenders of slavery.
Special Collections at the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library has copies of an eighteenthcentury edition of Bacon‘s sermons as well as a version republished about 1813 by
William Meade, later the Episcopal bishop of Virginia.
Excerpt from a sermon that the Reverend Thomas Bacon addressed to masters:
Masters, give unto your Servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have
a Master in Heaven...Colossians IV.I.
Thus hath our heavenly Father thought fit to establish the ordinary Course of his
divine Providence for the common Benefit of his Children: – and thus hath he laid the
Foundation of Justice and Equity between Man and Man, by making each, in his several
Station, conducive to the Preservation ad Benefit of the Whole, and in return, to receive
Protection and Assistance from others.
...
Things are too often judged to be right or wrong, not from the Nature of the Facts,
but from the Difference of People‘s Circumstances: – so that what shall be approved of in
the Behaviour of one, shall be highly condemned in another, only because the first is
perhaps a rich or a free Man, and the latter a poor Man, or it may be a Slave: – whereas
Almighty GOD makes no such Distinctions, for with him there is no respect of Persons . .
. For when we die, and are laid down in the common Bosom of the Earth, all outward
Distinctions vanish . . .

350

Next to our Children, and Brethren by Blood, our Servants, and especially our
Slaves, are certainly in the nearest Relation to us. – They are an immediate and necessary
Part of our Households, by whose Labours and Assistance we are enabled to enjoy the
Gifts of Providence in Ease and Plenty: – and surely we owe them a Return of what is
just and equal for the Drudgery and Hardships they go through in our Service. – This
Nature and plain unassisted Reason might teach us. – But when we farther consider it as
a positive Command of Almighty GOD, who is our as well as their Master in Heaven it
must needs receive a vast additional Force, and convince us, that our want of Love and
Gratitude to these poor serviceable Creatures, must be attended with the highest Dangers;
– the Danger of bringing the Wrath and Indignation of our heavenly Master upon our
Heads . . .
To speak at large upon all the different Branches of the Duty of Masters to their
Servants and Slaves, and to shew in every Particular what is just and equal towards them,
would extend far beyond the Limits of my present Design . . . I shall therefore confine
myself to one, and that indeed a principal Branch of this Duty, viz. The indispensable
OBLIGATION every Master and Mistress lies under, of bringing up their SLAVES in
the Knowledge and Fear of Almighty GOD.

****

Excerpt from a sermon that the Reverend Thomas Bacon addressed to slaves:
Knowing, that whatsoever good Thing any Man doth, the same shall he receive of the
LORD, whether he be Bond or Free. Ephesians VI. 8.
I am struck with an awful Dread and my Heart Trembles within me, lest any one
of these precious Souls, for which our Saviour died, should be lost through my
Carelesness.
...
These Considerations, my dear Christian Brethren, have long employed my
serious Thoughts, and put me upon various Methods of performing this great and
important Duty, which I owe to the poorest Slave, as well as the richest and most
powerful among my Parishioners.
...
And now, my dear BLACK Brethren and Sisters, I beg that you will listen
seriously to what I shall say.—You all know what Love and Affection I have for you, and
I do believe that most of you have the like Love for me, as you have always found me
ready to serve you, when you wanted my Help.

351

Now, from this great general Rule, namely, that you are to do all Service for your
Masters and Mistresses, as if you did it for GOD himself, there arise several other Rules
of Duty toward your Masters and Mistresses, which I shall endeavour to lay in order
before you.
...
1. And in the First Place, You are to be obedient and subject to your Masters in all
Things—For the Rules which GOD hath left us in the Scriptures are these-----Servants,
obey in all Things your Masters according to the Flesh, not with Eye-service as Menpleasers, but in Singleness of Heart, fearing GOD. . . .
2. You are not to be Eye-Servants.—Now Eye-Servants are such as will work hard, and
seem mighty diligent, while they think that any Body is taking Notice of them; but when
their Masters and Mistresses Backs are turned, they are idle, and neglect their Business. .
..
3. You are to be faithful and honest to your Masters and Mistresses, ---not purloining (or
wasting their Goods or Substance) but shewing all good Fidelity in all Things. . . .
4. You are to serve your Masters with Chearfulness, and Reverence, and Humility.—You
are to do your Masters Service with good Will, doing it as the Will of GOD, from the
Heart, without any Sauciness or answering again. . . .
Source: Thomas Bacon, Four Sermons upon the Great and Indispensable Duty of All
Christian Masters . . . With Two sermons preached to a congregation of Black slaves,
(London: J. Oliver, 1750, pp. 27-32 and 8-10, 32-37.

1756 to 1818—Slaves Draw Strength From Religion
The following excerpts from Mechal Sobel‘s The World They Made Together: Black and
White Values in Eighteenth Century Virginia detail ways in which Virginia slaves drew
strength from religion in the face of the rigors of slavery

March 2, 1756—Account of Samuel Davies in Hanover County, Virginia
Sundry of them [the Negroes] have lodged all night in my kitchen; and, sometimes, when
I have awaked about two or three a-clock in the morning, a torrent of sacred harmony
poured into my chamber, and carried my min away to Heaven. In this seraphic exercise,
some of them spend almost the whole night.
****

352

I was told that I was one of the elected children and that I would live as long as God
lives. I rejoice every day of my life for I know that I have another home–a house not
made with human hands. A building is waiting for me way back in eternal glory and I
have no need to fear.
****
1818—Letter from Hannah to her master, Thomas Jefferson
we all ought to be thankful for what he has done for us we ought to serve and obey his
commandments that you may set to win the prize and after glory run
Source: Mechal Sobel, The World They Made Together: Black and White Values in
Eighteenth-Century Virginia, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp.
184, 201, 215.

January 1758—Elizabeth Jones to Thomas Jones Junior
Elizabeth Jones, the widow of Thomas Jones of Hanover County, indicates that she does
not approve of slaves being exposed to ―new Light principals‖ or becoming itinerant
preachers in this January 1758 letter to her son.
Dear Tom
I was sorry to find by your Letter that you disapproved so much of my putting
Watt to Davis nay it even made so great an impression on me, that I had almost resolved
to send him back to you again, but on consideration that he was very young: and that
while I live I should be very watchful of there [their] corrupting him with there [their]
new Light principals: and if I die I hop you‘l take him entirely under your care and
direction which is what I shall earnestly desire but I think he would not be safe there, for
they are a [subtle crew] and when they find he has quick parts a good membor and a glib
Tongue which are all necessary qualification for an Itenerant preacher, they will leave no
stone unturned to bring him over….
Source: Elizabeth Jones to Thomas Jones, Jr., January 8, 1758, Roger Jones Family
Papers, Library of Congress, reel 3, frame 1501.

1767 to 1785—Black Baptist Preachers
Moses and Gowan Pamphlet were two of a number of black Baptist preachers in the
eighteenth century. Two of the runaway preachers detailed in the following
advertisements preached in Williamsburg—Jemmy, also known as James Williams, in
1775 and Tim, also known as James Traveller, in 1783.

353

July 18, 1767
…Runaway, about the 15th of December last…Hannah…She pretends much to the
religion the Negroes of late have practised, and may probably endeavour to pass for a free
woman, as I understand she intended when she went away, by the Negroes in the
neighbourhood. She is supposed to have made for Carolina….
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., July 18, 1767.

September 28, 1767
PRINCE GEORGE, Sept. 28, 1767.
RUN AWAY from the subscriber, the 22d of this instant, three slaves, viz. JUPITER,
alias GIBB, a Negro fellow, about 35 years of age, about 6 feet high, knock kneed, flat
footed, the right knee bent in more than the left, has several scars on his back from a
severe whipping he lately had at Sussex court-house, having been tried there for stirring
up the Negroes to an insurrection, being a great Newlight preacher. ROBIN, about 25
years of age, a stout fellow, about 6 feet high, has a film over one of his eyes, a sore on
one of his shins, and is brother to Gibb. DINAH, an old wench, very large, near 6 feet
high; she has a remarkable stump of a thumb, occasioned by a whitlow, by which the
bones of the first joint came out, and is mother to the two fellows. They carried with
them a variety of clothes, among the rest an old blue duffil great coat, one bearskin do. a
scarlet jacket, and a fine new linen shirt. It is supposed they will endeavour to make their
escape to the Southward. Whoever takes up, and conveys to me the above slaves, shall
have a reward of 50 s. for each of the fellows, and 20 s. for the wench, if taken in
Virginia; if in any other govermnet, 5 l. for each of the fellows, and 40 s. for the wench,
paid by
GEORGE NOBLE.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., October 1, 1767.

September 23, 1768
Charles City, Sept. 23, 1768.
RUN away from the subscriber, the 11th inst. A Negro fellow named Charles, about 5
feet 8 or 9 inches high, of a yellow complexion, speaks slow and soft, and is about
twenty-seven years of age, an artful cunning fellow; had with him when he went away
sundry cloaths, but of what sort more than common I cannot remember, only a bearskin
great coat, and a large pair of silver shoe buckles. He is a sawyer and shoemaker by
trade, and carried with him his shoemaker‘s tools. The said fellow reads tolerably well,
and is a great preacher, from which I imagine he will endeavour to pass for a freeman.
He is outlawed, and I hereby offer a reward of fifteen pounds for his head, severed from

354

his body, or ten pounds if brought alive. He ran away on the 16th of February 1765, and
was absent near two years.
CHARLES FLOYD.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Rind, ed., October 27, 1768.

September 23, 1769
Charles City, September 23, 1769.
RUN away from the subscriber, on the 11th inst. A Negro fellow named Charles, about 5
feet 8 or 9 inches high, of a yellow complexion, speaks slow and soft, and is about 27
years of age, an artful cunning fellow, and had with him when he went away, sundry
cloaths, but of what sort more than common I cannot tell, only a bearskin great coat, and
a large pair of silver shoe buckles. He is a sawyer and shoe maker by trade, and carried
with him his shoemaker‘s tools. The said fellow reads very well, and is a great preacher,
from which I imagine he will endeavour to pass for a free man. I hereby offer a reward
of three pounds, if taken in the colony, or if out of it five pounds, paid by
SARAH FLOYD.
N.B. The said fellow run away the 16th of February 1765, and was absent near two
years.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Rind, ed., February 16, 1769; see also Virginia Gazette,
Purdie and Dixon, eds., April 18, 1771.

January 3, 1771
THREE POUNDS reward if taken in Virginia, if out of the colony FIVE POUNDS.
RUN away from the subscriber, in Chesterfield the 10th of November, 1770, a Mulatto
lad named PRIMUS, about 18 years old, he squints a little, and has a scar, I think, over
the left eye, just in the edge of his hair, which was done when very young and I do not
remember whether it is plain to be seen at this day, he chews tobacco very much, walks
and runs very upright, is a dark Mulatto, and his face appears rough, with small bumps,
he is about 5 feet 5 inches high, of a slender make, though well proportioned; he carried
with him a very good snaffle bridle, and his working cloaths are as followeth, viz. two
new oznabrig shirts, two pair breeches, one of plains, the other hempen rolls, which were
his last year‘s breeches, a pair of new shoes and plad hose; he may perhaps change his
name, and attempt to pass for a free man, or get off in some vessel; I therefore forewarn
all persons from carrying him out of the colony, or employing him in any kind of
business, and will give the above reward of 3 l. if taken in Virginia, or 5 l. if out of the
colony, to any person who will apprehend the said runaway, and convey him to me in
Chesterfield, about 4 miles below Warwick. He is a cunning artful lad, and I would
advise the person who takes him up, to put hand-cuffs on him to prevent his making his
escape, and I will be at the expence of the irons. He is suspected to be about Mr. Allen

355

Cocke‘s in Surry county, as he is well acquainted with some of his Negroes and has
married into his family. He was a preacher at 16 years of age, for which he has been
severely whipped; he sometimes has fits, or I believe rather affects to have them,
occasionally, as it suits him.
SETH WARD.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Rind, ed., January 3, 1771.
February 27, 1772
RUN away from the Subscriber, in Chesterfield, a likely Virginia born Mulatto Lad
named PRIMUS; about nineteen or twenty Years of Age, five Feet seven or eight Inches
high, squints a little with one Eye, has a Scar on his Forehead, occasioned by a Stroke
from a Stick when a Boy, he is very active, runs and walks upright, and is very artful. He
has been a Preacher ever since he was sixteen Years of Age, and has done much Mischief
in his Neighbourhood. I expect he will endeavour to pass for a Freeman, and perhaps
may change his Name. Whoever takes up the said Lad, and conveys him to me, in
Chesterfield, on the James River, or to my Overseer (John Traylor) on Appamattox River,
shall have THREE POUNDS Reward if he is taken in Virginia, and FIVE POUNDS if
out thereof, besides what the Law allows.
SETH WARD.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., February 27, 1772; see also, Virginia
Gazette, Rind, ed., February 27, 1772.
September 8, 1775
RUN away from the Subscriber in Dinwiddie, the 5th day of April last, a dark mulatto
man named JEMMY, 5 feet 9 or 10 inches high, well made, has remarkable long feet, the
middle toes longer than the rest, which they ride over, has lost part of one of his fore
teeth, which occasions the next to it to look blue, is a very artful fellow, and will probably
endeavour to pass for a freeman; he is very fond of singing hymns and preaching, and has
been about Williamsburg, ever since he went off, passing by the name of James
Williams. Whoever apprehends the said slave, and secures him so that I get him again,
shall have 40s. reward, and if delivered to me in Dinwiddie, 4 l.
DAVID WALKER.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., September 8, 1775.

March 3, 1777
RUN away…a negro man slave named SAM…he is a carpenter by trade, and is a good
cooper. He can read print, pretends to a deal of religion, has been a good fiddler, and is
acquainted with many parts of Virginia…
William Green.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., May 9, 1777.

356

May 1, 1778
RUN away from the subscriber, living in Brunswick county, two negro fellows formerly
the property of the Rev. John Dixon, viz. JACK, a large likely fellow about five feet
eleven inches high, dressed in a Virginia cloth jacket and breeches, with a furred cap.
NAT, about five feet ten inches high, with thin lips, pretends to be very religious, and is a
Baptist teacher. They got away last night at Capahosick ferry, ironed together. I will
give FIFTY DOLLARD reward for each to any person that will secure them in
Williamsburg jail.
TURNER BYNAM.
N.B. I expect they will be lurking about Mr. John Dixon‘s quarters in Gloucester.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., May 1, 1778.

May 21, 1778
FORTY DOLLARS REWARD,
For apprehending the following slaves, and securing them so that I get them again, or
twenty dollars for each, viz. Sam, a negro fellow about thirty five years old, five feet six
or seven inches high, his complexion a little yellowish, has thick lips, and a scar from his
under lip down his chin, occasioned by the cut of a whipsaw, is fond of liquor, and when
drunk talks loud and pert, but the contrary when sober. He had on an old pale blue cloth
coat, buckskin breeches, patched in several places, and shoes and stockings; he also
carried with him a Dutch blanket, a jacket of Virginia cloth, white filled with black wool,
and kersey wove, with red cuffs, and several other clothes. Tom, a white mulatto lad,
about eighteen or nineteen years of age, five feet six or seven inches high, his lips thick,
and has a surly look, has bad fore teeth, gray eyes, his hair cut on the crown of his head,
and of a rusty brown colour, has a clumsey lounging walk, and pretends to be religious.
He has with him sundry clothes, a white Virginia cloth jeans coat, a green cloth coat with
a blue narrow cape, blue button holes, and metal buttons, an old mixed Wilton coat, two
narrow striped Virginia cloth jackets, white breeches, and good shoes and stockings. He
is a simple fellow, and I am persuaded was enticed away by Sam. They ran away from
me the 19th instant, were seen at Williamsburg the 21st, and at York on the 23d. I suppose
they intend to get on board some vessel, as they said they were watermen, or on board the
men of war. Sam is an artful cunning fellow, and if not put in irons when taking will
make his escape.
JAMES BELSCHES.
CABIN POINT, May 21, 1778.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., June 19, 1779.

357

December 31, 1782
TEN POUNDS REWARD.
RAN away from the subscriber, the 22d. inst. a negro man named HARRY, about
thirty years of age, five feet eight or nine inches high, of a yellowish complexion,
and well made. He is an artful fellow, can read very well, and pretends to be very
religious. He took with him a red coloured coat, a blue velvet ditto, and sundry
other cloaths that I cannot recollect. As he was raised in King and Queen county,
it is probable he is lurking about there now, or in Williamsburg. I forewarn all
persons whatsoever from employing or harbouring the said negro at their peril. I
will give the above reward to any person that will deliver the said negro to me, or
five pounds if secured in any public jail so that I may get him again.
WILLIAM ROAN.
RICHMOND, December 31, 1782.
Source: Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, Nicholson and Prentis, eds., January
18, 1783.

October 25, 1783
Twenty Five Dollars Reward.
RUN away from the subscriber in June, 1782, a likely negro fellow name TIM,
about thirty years of age, five feet seven or eight inches high, and well made; he
had on and took with him, a Kendall cotton jacket, two osnabrig shirts, a pair of
country cloth trowsers, and other clothes that I cannot recollect; it is probable he
has changed his clothes before this. He is an artful fellow, has a very smooth way
of speaking, and I am told has changed his name to James Traveller, passes for a
free man, and pretends to be a Baptist preacher: he has been lately seen near
Williamsburg. Any person delivering him to me, shall receive the above reward,
and if secured so that I get him again, fifteen dollars.
CATESBY JONES.
Source: Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, Nicholson and Prentis, eds., October
25, 1783.

August 6, 1785
Twenty Six POUNDS REWARD.

358

RUN away from the subscriber in Louisa county, four negroes, viz. Jack a black
fellow, about thirty five years old, five feet six or seven inches high, has lost two
of his fore teeth, and limps when he walks, occasioned by having had one of his
thighs broke; he has been run away about three years, and some time last spring
was taken by a certain John Rancy of Prince George county, and brought within a
few miles of home, and broke from him by violence, had on at that time, a
blackcloth coat and cloth jacket and breeches, and a very good hat; he is
remarkable for affecting religious conversation, and has commonly passed in
King William, Charles City, and Prince George counties, and in Williamsburg, by
the name of Free Jack. Jane, a young negro woman, about nineteen years of age;
she went away last spring, is about five feet four or five inches high, of a yellow
complexion, rather slim made; her dress I cannot well discribe. Frank, who went
away at the same time, is a boy, about twelve years old, slim made and very well
grown, of a brown complexion, brother to the above negro woman. Robin, a
likely young fellow, about twenty four years of age, five feet ten or eleven inches
high, a long well made fellow, has lost one or more of his fore teeth, or a yellow
complexion, has a pouting lip, and had on a negro cotton jacket and breeches, it is
very likely he will change his dress, as he has other cloaths. I will give fifteen
pounds for Jack, five pounds for Robin, and three pounds each for Jane and
Frank, if brought home to me, or half the above rewards if secured (so that I get
them again) in any public jail, or other place of security. I hereby forewarn all
masters of vessels from carrying the above slaves out of this state, or otherwise
employing them.
JOHN NELSON.
Source: Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, Nicholson and Prentis, eds., August 6,
1785.

Michael A. Gomez on ―Muslims in Early America.‖
This essay is a preliminary study of Islam in early African American history.
Because of the limited data available at this stage of research, the arguments presented
are necessarily more tentative than conclusive; nonetheless, available evidence does
permit several statements on Muslims in early America. First of all, their numbers were
significant, probably reaching into the thousands. Second, Muslims made genuine and
persistent efforts to observe their religion; and even though they perpetuated their faith
primarily within their own families, in some cases they may have converted slaves who
were not relatives. Third, Islam and ethnicity were important in the process of social
stratification within the larger African American society. And finally, cultural
phenomena found in segments of the African American community, such as ostensibly
Christian worship practices and certain artistic expressions, probably reflect the influence
of these early Muslims.
...

359

The study of Muslims in the American colonial and antebellum periods has yet to
be undertaken seriously because materials on the subject are scarce. This scarcity of
primary data is a function of two factors. First, colonial and antebellum observers, who
were ignorant of the Islamic faith, did not accurately record the variegated cultural
expressions of African slaves. The cumulative evidence suggests that such observers
could distinguish the Muslims from other slaves but had neither the skills nor the interest
to record detailed information about them. The other factor contributing to the scarcity of
data is the reluctance of the descendants of these early Muslims to be forthright in
answering questions about their ancestors.
...
The evidence for the presence of Muslims in colonial and antebellum America
comes from both sides of the Atlantic. On the African side, the historical research
provides a reasonably clear picture of the political and cultural milieu out of which
American-bound captives emerged. Several different types of sources yield information
on the presence and activities of Muslims upon landing in the New world: the ethnic and
cultural makeup of the African supply zones; the appearance of Muslim names in the
ledgers of slave owners and in the runaway slave advertisements in newspapers;
references to Muslim ancestry in interviews with ex-slaves and the descendants of
Muslims; stated preferences for certain ―types‖ of Africans by the slaveholding
community; recorded observations of Islamic activity; and profiles of certain Muslim
figures. Within the last genre are documents written in Arabic by Muslims themselves, a
rare phenomenon. While very general statements can be ventured as estimates of the
Muslim population in America, the data on this subject are almost entirely qualitative, so
that attempts at quantification are only speculative at this point.
...
The appearance of incontestably Muslim names in the runaway notices is
relatively infrequent. More commonly, owners seeking the return of their slaves
associated them with particular supply zones (e.g., Gambia or Senegal), or they provided
an ethnic identity (Mandingo or Fula, for example). In the case of either supposed area of
origin or ethnic derivation, one cannot conclusively argue that the individual in question
is Muslim, but—given both the African background and the tendency of American
planters to conflate Muslims, ethnicity, and area of origin—the probability that many of
these people were Muslims is high.
Interestingly, examples of Muslim runaways come overwhelmingly from South
Carolina and Georgia, especially along the coast, and also from colonial Louisiana. This
is probably because Charleston (and Savannah to a lesser extent) was a preeminent slave
port and was surrounded by major slaveholding areas devoted to rice and indigo
cultivation. Similarly, rice (and secondarily indigo) was extremely important to early
Louisianians for their own use, and when the first two slavers arrived in Louisiana in
1719, they carried ―several barrels of rice seed and African slaves who knew how to
produce the crop.‖ That is, slave ships arrived with people from Senegambia, Gold

360

Coast, and Sierra Leone, who were noted for their skills in this type of agriculture and
therefore greatly in demand. In turn, these captives tended to come from islamized areas.
Given their preference for slaves from these areas and their distaste for Africans from the
Bight of Biafra, South Carolina and Georgia planters paid close attention to ethnicity. In
contrast, Virginians were not as discriminating. Their relative lack of interest in
ethnicity—rather than an absence of slaves from those locations—may help to explain the
scarcity of references by Virginians to Muslims from Senegambia and Sierra Leone.
Source: Michael A. Gomez, ―Muslims in Early America,‖ Journal of Southern History,
LX (1994), pp. 671-710.

1831—The Autobiography of Omar ibn Seid
Omar ibn Seid was a resident of North Carolina when he wrote his autobiography in
1831. He recounts details about his life in Africa, the events that led to his enslavement,
and his Muslim faith.
In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.—Thanks be to God, supreme in
goodness and kindness and grace, and who is worthy of all honor, who created all things
for his service, even man‘s power of action and of speech.
From Omar to Sheikh Hunter6
You asked me to write my life. I am not able to do this because I have much
forgotten my own, as well as the Arabic language. Neither can I write very
grammatically or according to the true idiom. And so, my brother, I beg you, in God‘s
name, not to blame me, for I am a man of weak eyes, and of a weak body.
My name is Omar ibn Seid. My birthplace was Fut Tûr,7 between the two rivers.
I sought knowledge under the instruction of a Sheikh called Mohammed Seid, my own
brother, and Sheikh Soleiman Kembeh and Sheikh Gabriel Abdal. I continued my
studies twenty-five years, and then returned to my home where I remained six years.
Then there came to our place a large army, who killed many men,8 and took me, and
brought me to the great sea, and sold me into the hands of the Christians, who bound me
and sent me on board a great ship and we sailed upon the great sea month and a half,
when we came to a place called Charleston in the Christian language. There they sold me
6 Omar does not identify ―Sheikh Hunter.‖
7 Futa Toro is located along the middle Senegal valley in West Africa.
8 Probably a reference an invasion of Futa Toro in 1806-1807 by the combined armies of
Bundu, Kaara, and Khasso.

361

to a small, weak, and wicked man, called Johnson, a complete infidel, who had no fear of
God at all. Now I am a small man, and unable to do hard work so I fled from the hand of
Johnson and after a month came to a place called Fayd-il.9 There I saw some great
houses (churches). On the new moon I went into a church to pray. A lad saw me and
rode off to the place of his father and informed him that he had seen a black man in the
church. A man named Handah (Hunter?) and another man with him on horseback, came
attended by a troop of dogs. They took me and made me go with them twelve miles to a
place called Fayd-il, where they put me into a great house from which I could not go out.
I continued in the great house (which in the Christian language, they called jail) sixteen
days and nights. One Friday the jailor came and opened the door of the house and I saw a
great many men, all Christians, some of whom called out to me, ―What is your name? Is
it Omar or Seid?‖ I did not understand their Christian language. A man called Bob
Mumford10 took me and led me out of the jail, and I was very well pleased to go with
them to their place. I stayed at Mumford‘s four days and nights, and then a man named
Jim Owen,11 son-in-law of Mumford, having married his daughter Betsey, asked me if I
was willing to go to a place called Bladen.12 I said, Yes, I was willing. I went with them
and have remained in the place of Jim Owen until now.
...
Before I came to the Christian country, my religion was the religion of
―Mohammed, the Apostle of God—may God have mercy upon him and give him peace.‖
I walked to the mosque before day-break, washed my face and hands and feet. I prayed
at noon, prayed in the afternoon, prayed at sunset, prayed in the evening. I gave alms
every year, gold, silver, seeds, cattle, sheep, goats, rice, wheat, and barley. I have tithes
of all the above-named things. I went every year to the holy war against the infidels. I
went on pilgrimage to Mecca, as all did who were able.—My father had six sons and five
daughters, and my mother had three sons and one daughter. When I left my country I
was thirty-seven years old; I have been in the country of the Christians twenty-four
years.—Written A.D. 1831.
Source: ―Autobiography of Omar ibn Said, Slave in North Carolina, 1831,‖ American
Historical Review, XXX (July 1925):787-795.

Part IX—Slaves in Other Regions of Virginia
9 Fayetteville.
10 Sheriff of Cumberland County, of which Fayetteville is the county seat.
11 James Owen (1784-1865), a member of Congress from North Ccarolina, 1817-1819,
and afterward president of the Wilmington and Raleigh Railroad and major-general of the
militia.
12 Bladen, North Carolina.

362

Selection from Ira Berlin, Many Thousands Gone
More significantly, over the course of the war the number of slaves in the Upper
South increased by natural means. In Maryland the slave population inched up from
80,000 at the beginning of the war to 83,000 in 1783, as did Virginia‘s—from about
210,000 at the commencement of the war to 236,000 at its end. Despite all of the
wartime turbulence that increased mortality and allowed some slaves to escape, the
Chesapeake‘s slave population continued to increase at an annual rate of about 2 percent.
In the last quarter of the century, the slave population of the Chesapeake had nearly
doubled. As more children were born to slaves on plantations and as some states,
following the North, banned importation, the Chesapeake became a net exporter of
slaves.
The steady expansion of the slave population in the Upper South during the
wartime years allowed many nonslaveholders to enter the slaveholders‘ ranks. Between
1782 and 1790 the proportion of propertyholders owning slaves increased from 47 to 60
percent in Charles County, Maryland, and it followed a similar path in other rural
jurisdictions, so that two-thirds of white householders held slaves. But the greatest
growth in slaveholding came not among new entries to the owning class, but among the
grandees, whose expanding holdings swelled the population of the great plantation towns.
On many estates, the number of slaves exceeded the number of workers needed. George
Washington spoke for his class when he observed that it was ―demonstratively clear that
… I have more working Negroes by a full moiety, than can be employed to any
advantage in the farming system.‖
Enjoying a surfeit of bound labor, Chesapeake planters became the great
opponents of the African trade, smugly condemning both Lower South planters who were
eager to repopulate their plantations after the disruptions of the war and the northern
merchants who were equally eager to supply them. In condemning the international slave
trade while embracing the interstate trade, Upper South planters could lament slavery as
an evil that had been foisted upon them by their former British overlords while
reaffirming their commitment to chattel bondage.
Indeed, the internal slave trade proved to be a source of enormous profit, what one
Maryland newspaper called ―an almost universal resource to raise money.‖ Planters not
only collected quick cash from the sale of ―excess‖ slaves, much of which was promptly
invested in the region‘s expanding industrial economy, but it also provided them an
opportunity to reconfigure their labor force in ways that improved productivity. Edward
Lloyd, the largest slaveowner on Maryland‘s eastern shore, regularly sold a portion of his
holdings—generally teenaged children—to keep his plantation workforce at what he
believed to be the appropriate level. The practice was adopted by many others, as even
the most conscientious masters found it necessary to reduce the size of their holdings
periodically. Smaller planters followed suit, although some of them migrated with their
slaves to seek new opportunities in the West. Yet others migrated cityward.
The migration to the Virginia piedmont, begun before the war, continued in its
aftermath. But the Blue Ridge could not contain the ambitions of the Chesapeake
planters and farmers, who spilled into the Great Valley of the Shenandoah and up to the

363

edge of the Alleghenies. Before long they had vaulted into Kentucky and Tennessee, and
some were headed down the Mississippi with slaves in tow. By century‘s end, slaves
whose ancestors had worked the tobacco fields of the Chesapeake for a hundred years or
more were growing hemp in Kentucky and Tennessee, cotton in the Lower South, and
sugar in the lower Mississippi Valley. In 1790 Kentucky counted 13,000 slaves, almost
all of them from the Chesapeake region. Ten years later the total was nearly 40,000.
Other slaves could be found in Tennessee, Missouri, and Louisiana. The exodus
accelerated in the first decade of the nineteenth century. In all, an estimated 115,000
slaves left the tidewater region between 1780 and 1810. The long-distance migrations
from the tidewater to the piedmont and from the seaboard states to Kentucky and
Tennessee created havoc as thousands of slave families were dismembered and
communities set adrift.
Source: Ira Berlin, Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North
America, (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1998), pp. 264-265.

****

The Experience of a Slave Woman Named Kate
The experience of a slave woman named Kate, who was imported from Africa to
piedmont Virginia at the time of the Revolution, illustrates the changing face of slavery
after 1750. Slave life in the rapidly growing piedmont region differed significantly from
demographic conditions in the early tidewater: Women and children made up a large
proportion of African immigrants, slaves were concentrated on middle-sized plantations,
and many slaves had little contact with their white masters.
On Monday, May 25, 1772, a young African woman, one of many slaves aboard
the Polly, stepped onto Virginia soil at Bermuda Hundred, a Chesterfield County village
close to the confluence of the James and Appomattox rivers. Perhaps she caught a
glimpse of Shirley, the imposing brick manor house majestically sitting beyond the
James. Would her fate fall there? she may have wondered. Had she arrived in Virginia a
half century earlier, she would probably have landed at a wharf along the York River or
the Rappahannock, perhaps destined to live the rest of her life in the tidewater region.
But in the years after 1750 most Africans brought to Virginia were taken up the James to
be sold at ports like Bermuda Hundred. Most were then marched into the interior, where
planters eagerly sought their labor on newly settled piedmont plantations and quarters. In
this regard, the fate of this African woman was typical.
No doubt, many planters and merchants were drawn to Bermuda Hundred on May
25 by newspaper notices advertising the Polly's 450 "fine healthy SLAVES." Among
them was Paul Carrington, holder of several local offices and a member of the House of
Burgesses for Charlotte County. He bought 50 slaves with intent to resell them in the
Southside. As the king's attorney in several counties and a professional lawyer,

364

Carrington traveled regularly in this rapidly expanding subregion. He must have been
aware of the Southside's insatiable demand for labor. Perhaps he also found
encouragement in the slave prices. Richard Hanson, a Petersburg area merchant,
expressed surprise at the owners of this consignment, Burnley and Braikenridge,
"breaking the price so low £60 to £67.10 privilege. . . as the People expected to give £65
to £67.10 privilege. . . . They likewise abated £3 pr inch in the small slaves."
Nevertheless, "considering the sum large and a considerable risque in the health & life of
the Slaves," Carrington took on three silent partners. With their financial support he
could proceed more securely in the resale of his purchases. Carrington led the Africans
to his plantation near the junction of the Roanoke and Little Roanoke rivers in southern
Charlotte County. He ultimately kept only one of them for his own use; he estimated her
age as eighteen years old; he named her Kate.
Initially, Kate lived at Carrington's home plantation. She was accompanied for at
least some months by other Africans from the Polly, since the credit crisis of 1772, the
effects of which were felt in Virginia that summer, undoubtedly hampered sales. By the
fall, however, Carrington had apparently sold about thirty-five of his Africans, for he then
bought winter clothing for only fourteen. What ties Kate developed to her shipmates
cannot be determined, nor can the number of men, women, or children in this dwindling
group. More critical to Kate's future were the five adult slaves who already could call
this plantation home. Two were men, both named Will. One, aged about forty-two, had
been purchased about a decade earlier; the other, at least half his age, only two years
before. The three adult women included Barbara, acquired five years earlier and, at age
twenty-four, the mother of a two-year-old daughter named Sarah; Amey, given as a
young girl to Carrington by his father-in-law Clement Read, now twenty-five years of age
and the mother of three boys, Lewis, Hampton, and Amos; and Nell, born in July 1754,
now almost eighteen, about the same age as the African newcomer. Kate lived among
these slaves—some Africans, some Virginians—for about a year and a half.
By residing on the manor plantation Kate came into close contact with whites.
When she arrived, Carrington, a widower, was raising five children—two girls and three
boys—who ranged in age from eight to sixteen years. It is impossible to gauge the
impact on Kate of these early encounters with her owner, his children, and white visitors.
What is clear is that this close contact with her master and his family was short-lived.
By November 1773 Carrington had transferred Kate to his Twittys Creek
plantation a mile or so up the Little Roanoke from his home. There she joined eight other
adults: five men and three women. One of the women was an African named Dicey,
who, in the spring of 1763, had been judged by the Lunenburg court to be twelve years
old. Since that time, she had given birth to three children, two of whom had died.
Perhaps she helped Kate bring her first child into the world, a son named Byas, born in
February 1774, twenty-one months after his mother's arrival in Virginia, the father
unknown. Another woman, Belinda, had turned seventeen in the fall of 1773. She, too,
was pregnant and would give birth to her first child, Ryly, one month before Kate. The
age of Tabb, the remaining woman, was never recorded, but she was probably middleaged, since she was exempt from field labor (being put instead to spinning) and never
bore a child while a Carrington slave. She had been purchased, along with two other
Twittys Creek slaves—Robin, the thirty-three-year-old head of the quarter, and Toby,
aged twenty-five—from Benjamin Harrison in 1770. The other men at this quarter

365

included Hampton, about twenty-eight years old, purchased from Edward Branch in late
1770; George, nearly thirty-four, who came into Carrington's possession in the fall of
1767; and Jack, in his early thirties, possibly an African, bought from the merchant
Thomas Tabb in September 1762. All nine adults therefore had been in Carrington's
service no more than a few years, a decade or so at most.
Kate's transfer to Twittys Creek apparently removed her from continual contact
with whites. With the possible exception of one year, Carrington did not employ a white
overseer at this quarter. In fact, he soon referred to it as "Robins." When he gave one
thousand acres to his youngest son, Paul Carrington, Jr., in July 1786, the land included a
parcel on the east side of the Little Roanoke above Horsepen Creek, including the mouth
of Twittys Creek "and the plantation called Robins." Robin himself became the
possession, but not yet the property, of the younger Carrington. By January 1782 Kate,
who seems to have remained at Robin's, was the mother of three more children; two girls,
Lucy and Anitta, and a boy, Abram. Together with Byas, Kate and her three younger
children most likely passed into the ownership of Paul Carrington, Jr., at his marriage in
August 1785. At that point she disappeared from the senior Carrington's records.
The story of Kate's first decade in piedmont Virginia is tantalizingly inconclusive
at its most critical junctures. How had this young African woman withstood the horrors
of the Middle Passage? How did she view her new surroundings and master? How did
she react to the sale of her shipmates? What friendships did she strike up with the slaves
on Carrington's home plantation and Twittys Creek quarter? Did she form a special
relationship with Nell at the former residence and Dicey at the latter? Was it an African
from the Polly, one of the two men named Will at the home quarter, or some other person
who fathered her first child? Who fathered her next three? There are no answers to these
questions. It is impossible to penetrate the veil of silence.
We can, however, place the known facts of Kate's life in broader context. For one
thing, Kate was part of a large stream of people flowing into the piedmont region. An
understanding of this remarkably rapid settlement, which shifted the center of black life
from tidewater to piedmont about the time Kate arrived in Virginia, will enlarge her tale.
Second, it is not too farfetched to speak of the Africanization of the piedmont during the
third quarter of the eighteenth century. Kate played a small role in that broader story.
Third, Kate's life encourages us to explore the demographic profile of the piedmont slave
population. While large numbers of women and children appeared late among tidewater
slaves, they were important to piedmont settlements from the first. Finally, the setting
that awaited most of the region's black settlers will be investigated. It will be argued that
remarkably early in piedmont settlement most slaves found themselves on middle-sized
estates, with a fair degree of autonomy from whites. Kate's situation was not unusual.
Thus we move beyond Kate's story to explore the people of a region and the emergence
of black community life.
...
What, then, is the import of Kate's story when placed in this larger context? In
some respects, Africans like Kate who reached the piedmont in the third quarter of the
eighteenth century replicated many of the experiences of their predecessors in the
tidewater during the previous half-century. As before, these newcomers contributed to

366

extremely rapid population growth: in certain places at certain times, the adult slave
population was heavily African; as waves of immigrants moved into the region,
imbalances between men and women occurred, making stable family life difficult to
achieve; and, in the early years of settlement, most new arrivals resided on small
plantations and quarters.
Thus there were similarities between this later piedmont and earlier tidewater
slave experiences, yet the differences are more striking. Even the composition of African
immigrants seems to have changed. African girls, and perhaps women, formed a larger
proportion of newcomers than ever before. Because of this, and because of a similar
trend among creoles, the numbers of slave men and women moved rapidly toward
equality. In addition, children formed a significant proportion of the piedmont's slave
population from the beginning. The opportunities for family life were therefore not
negligible. Moreover, women and children were important to production in the piedmont
at an early stage in the region's development. Whether they gained any material
advantages from the early assumption of these field work responsibilities is an open
question. Finally, before long, most Africans and creoles found themselves on middlesized, not small, estates, often in neighborhoods where many other slaves resided. At the
same time, the chances to live beyond the control of a white master were greatest in the
earliest years of piedmont settlement, in marked contrast to the tidewater pattern.
Kate's situation can hardly be described as fortunate. Nevertheless, she and many
other immigrants like her at least enjoyed more favorable demographic and social
conditions than had their predecessors in the tidewater. Newcomers like Kate discovered
it much easier to find a mate; they had more children; they were less isolated from fellow
slaves; they played a central role in the primary productive activity of the region, which
may have afforded them some advantages; and some even lived beyond the purview of
whites. The demographic constraints that existed for generations in the oldest tidewater
counties disappeared in a matter of decades on the frontier.
Source: Philip D. Morgan and Michael L. Nicholls, "Slaves in Piedmont Virginia, 17201790," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XLVI (April 1989): 211-215, 246-247.
"Sustaining the Bonds of Kinship in a Trans-Appalachian Migration, 1790-1811"
Gail S. Terry explores how slaves owned by John Breckinridge and Mary "Polly" Cabell
Breckinridge adapted to their relocation from Albemarle County to Kentucky at the turn
of the century. John Breckinridge, who later served as a United States senator from
Kentucky and attorney general of the United States, came from a prominent Shenandoah
Valley family and Polly Breckinridge from a powerful Piedmont clan. Their marriage in
1785 had combined slaves from the respective families under a new roof. The excerpts
below illustrate how individual slaves resisted the resettlement before slowly adjusting to
their new situation.
The years immediately preceding the first migration to Kentucky in 1790 proved
disruptive ones for the Breckinridge and Cabell slaves because of the transfer of
individuals to these newly created households [formed by marriages within the two
families]. But even as they were being dispersed and recombined or reassembled with

367

slaves acquired from other sources, members of the original Cabell and Breckinridge
slave communities retained some contact with each other. They had lived in their earlier
locations long enough to establish ties of friendship and kinship; authorized and
unauthorized visits sustained these ties, as did some shifting of slave personnel among the
white households. The Cabell slaves included several skilled boatmen who moved
tobacco and other produce down the James River to Richmond, and these men may have
conveyed information from slaves attached to one household to those in another. In spite
of the process of dispersal, the Cabell and Breckinridge slave communities retained a
notable degree of cohesion.
Cohesion did not necessarily translate into stability or satisfaction for individual
slaves, however. The reaction of John Breckinridge's slave George provides some insight
into the effect of this redistribution of slaves on individual blacks. In 1772 John's father
had bequeathed the young slave to his twelve-year-old son, and by 1785 George and ten
other blacks had lived and worked on the Breckinridge family farm for more than a dozen
years. In the early 1780s, he accompanied his master on journeys to college in
Williamsburg and to the General Assembly in Richmond, but after serving as an escort,
George always returned to the farm in Botetourt County. George responded to the
wrenching changes that John Breckinridge's marriage brought by running away. He
returned to the Botetourt farm, where John's mother sheltered him for nearly three
months. She finally allowed George to return to Albemarle with the man John had sent
to fetch him, but she pleaded with her son not to whip the slave because she had promised
that he would not and because running away marked George's "first offense."
George's story reveals both the intertwining of the lives of masters and slaves and
the extent to which they experienced the same events differently. For John Breckinridge,
the move to Albemarle County represented opportunity—the chance to establish his own
family, household, and farm and to further a promising legal career. For George, it meant
disruption; it removed him from the community where he had grown up, from friends,
and perhaps from family. Running away reunited him with this community.
Breckinridge interpreted the incident as a deliberate attempt to ruin him: "If the
ungrateful rascal has [run away] I can never forgive him. He has left my Harvests ready
to cut & my corn in weeds . . . He has almost broke me up after my treating him so kindly
as I have always done since he came" to Albemarle. For her part, Breckinridge's mother
tried to use the incident to her own advantage; she sheltered George in the hope that her
son would come to retrieve him and to visit her. For each of the three principals
involved, the incident had a different meaning, and each tried to shape events to his or her
own advantage, even though their society did not accord them equivalent powers of
agency. The same dynameic emerges in a close examination of the migration to
Kentucky.
...
Over the course of his lifetime John Breckinridge acquired slaves from several
sources. He inherited a few from his parents; he purchased a few; and he received many
from his wife's father. Joseph Cabell's death in Virginia in 1798 triggered a redistribution
of his remaining slaves and initiated another migration of Cabell slaves to Kentucky. In
his will Cabell added to and confirmed previous gifts of slaves to his son and sons-in-law

368

and reserved the thirty-five slaves not given to them for the use of his widow, Mary,
during her lifetime. Shortly after his death, however, Cabell's heirs persuaded Mary
Cabell to give up her life interest in most of these slaves. Under the terms of the
agreement with her son and sons-in-law, she retained the right to choose five slaves to
serve her, and John Breckinridge gained an additional eight slaves: Allen, Mike, Isabel
and her son Jacob, Abram, and Violet and her children Bill and Sarah.
Violet was among the five slaves Mary Cabell chose to keep with her, and
Violet's subsequent experience illustrates the pain and emotional distress that owners'
migration decisions could cause for individual slaves, even when a nucleus of the old
slave community was transferred to a new location. In February 1799 Allen, Mike,
Isabel, Abram, and Bill made their way from the Cabell place to the house of one of John
Breckinridge's brothers in Botetourt. By then, Isabel was more than seven months'
pregnant, and not until four months later, after she had given birth, did the group set out
for Kentucky. Missing from the migrants were Violet and her daughter Sarah because,
according to Mary Cabell, "violit would not agree to part with her. so then i proposed for
her to go with her daughter . . . however she said she would not go to Cantucky nor let
Sarah untill I deyed unless Stephen her husband could go with them."
Violet's declaration provoked a battle of wills with John Breckinridge and his kin
that lasted for more than a decade. Initially, the Cabell men in Virginia arranged for
Breckinridge to purchase Stephen from Nicholas Cabell, their uncle and Mary Cabell's
neighbor. John rejected this solution, however, and Violet, Sarah, and Stephen remained
among the Virginia Cabells. In 1803, when Polly Cabell Breckinridge and her children
visited her mother and then returned to Kentucky, Violet and Sarah again stayed behind,
although Mary Cabell later regretted her decision not to force Sarah to go with them. In
1807 Sarah, still in Virginia, had her first child.
Some time after this date, Violet's situation changed. Polly Breckinridge's
daughter, visiting her Cabell relatives in Virginia, wrote to her mother that "Aunt Violet
has just made me open My letter to send love to you her daughters & sons & husband &
to say if you will only let her go out [to Kentucky] she has Money enough to be on her
expences & that she is very anxious to go out & do what she can for you." Violet had
had at least one son, Bill, in Kentucky since 1799, and by 1807 her daughter Jenny was
there as well. Precisely when and how Stephen came to be in Kentucky remain
undetermined, but clearly his presence there changed his wife's mind about moving.
At some time during their mother's last illness, about 1810, Elizabeth Cabell
Lewis wrote from Virginia to her sister Polly Breckinridge in Kentucky. "I am glade to
find from your letter that Sarah & her children are to be taken from here," Elizabeth
confided. "[S]he is one of the most indifferent creatures I ever saw. She has two fine
children the second is very sick I have it at the house & am trying to Nurse it up a little.
Old Violet is here also. She says she is sick, that Mrs. Hoyle [the woman to whom Violet
had been hired out] is very kind to her, but that she will not be confined so much for no
flesh, that she can prove she is free & so she is one of the most provoking old creatures i
ever saw. do when she come[s] out put her to live with her daughter Jenny & task her to
cotton so much In a day. She will ruin all your house servants if she stays near them
don't let her stay near the house, you may rely on this."
Elizabeth Cabell Lewis's diatribe against Violet and her daughter should not
obscure Violet's unhappiness at being separated from the majority of her family. She

369

tried various strategies to get to Kentucky. First she issued a plea to Polly Cabell
Breckinridge; then she tried to establish her right to freedom; and, finally, perhaps she
simply made herself disagreeable to Elizabeth Lewis in the hope that she would send her
west. After Mary Cabell's death in 1811, her daughters continued to make plans to
transport Violet to Kentucky, but these arrangements fell through. The next year Polly
Cabell Breckinridge's daughter, visiting in Virginia, tried to set up an escort to Kentucky
for Violet, but she failed. In the summer of 1812, Violet was still in Virginia vowing that
she would not "go from here to anywhere but to Kentucky." Whether she actually got
there remains undetermined.
Her status as a slave deprived Violet of the ability to decide where she would live,
but she, like George, used the avenues open to her to try to influence those who could
make that decision. Violet's most effective leverage came from her relationship with
Mary Cabell. Although the source and duration of the bond between the two women
remain obscure, it clearly enabled Violet to persuade her mistress to keep her and Sarah
in Virginia while Stephen was there. Mary Cabell apparently lacked the power to keep
Stephen in Virginia, however; and Violet's persuasive abilities had limits. By the time
Stephen was transferred to Kentucky, Cabell's health had begun to fail, and Violet had
less success negotiating with Mary's daughter Elizabeth Cabell Lewis. Polly Cabell
Breckinridge and her daughter proved more responsive to Violet's requests, but they also
failed to effect an immediate transfer to Kentucky. John Breckinridge had died in 1806,
and as a widow Polly had the legal authority to bring Violet to Kentucky, but she
certainly did not act promptly.
...
More than just "chords of memory" bound at least a few of the CabellBreckinridge slaves to their trans-Appalachian kin. A process of serial migration among
families in their owners' extended kin network enabled some slaves to retain ties of
kinship and friendship in Kentucky. In other cases, mistresses and slaves cooperated in
sustaining connections among both white and black families by passing along
information in letters or by word of mouth during visits. The migration of the CabellBreckinridge slaves represented only one of several possible experiences of forced
migration in the early republic, and it certainly ranked among the more favorable of them.
After the first decade of the nineteenth century, the domestic slave trade carried
increasing numbers of African Americans into the interior, and after 1820, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky became a net exporter of slaves to the Lower South. The
history of the Cabell-Breckinridge migration remains a single story imbedded in the
broader history of the territorial expansion of slavery in the United States. This
migration's wider significance lies in what it adds to scholars' understanding of the ways
that individual masters, mistresses, and slaves hammered out the particulars of slavery in
a variety of contexts, including migration, and in what it reveals about the means by
which slaves tried to transcend an oppressive system.
Source: Gail S. Terry, "Sustaining the Bonds of Kinship in a Trans-Appalachian
Migration, 1790-1811," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 102 (1994): 460462, 465-467, 476.

370

Part X—The Participation of Slaves in the Economy

Selection from Ira Berlin, Many Thousands Gone
The time slaves spent working their owners‘ crop meant time lost tending their
own gardens and provision grounds. The slaves‘ independent economy shriveled as the
great planters expanded their domain. Whereas seventeenth-century planters had gladly
allowed slaves to feed and clothe themselves, the new grandees—eager to cloak
themselves in the patriarch‘s mantle and to maximize the time slaves spent in their
fields—issued weekly rations and seasonal allotments of clothing, taking pride in the
largess they bestowed on their slaves. Plantation slaves generally maintained gardens,
raised barnyard fowl, and hunted and fished to supplement their allowance. But few
cultivated provision grounds where they grew tobacco in competition with their owners,
or kept hogs or cattle. If they did, they did so illegally, for in 1692 the Virginia
legislature ordered owners to confiscate ―all cattle, hoggs marked of any negro or other
slave mark, or by any slave kept.‖ When planters failed to act, the slaves‘ estate became
the property of the parish church wardens and ―forfeited to the use of the poore.‖
Under such conditions, the slaves‘ economy only rarely reached beyond the
boundaries of their owners‘ estates. Chesapeake slaves traded among themselves and
occasionally offered some barnyard fowl to their owners, who—in a grand gesture—
bestowed a few coins along with injunctions about frugality and the like. Those slaves
who traded independently generally did so clandestinely, shrinking the distance between
legitimate trade and theft—at least in their owners‘ eyes. As far as is known, none
followed Emanuel Driggus‘s lead to request—and receive—judicial authorization to
trade on their own. Instead, slaves became ―the general Chicken merchants‖ of the
Chesapeake. Their petty trade could rarely generate the income necessary to purchase
freedom, as had Francis Payne and John Graweere in an earlier age.
…
Although the slaves‘ economy never equaled the level achieved in the seventeenth
century when slaves traded in cattle and tobacco, it grew substantially after midcentury,
with slaves dealing among themselves, with their owners, and with white
nonslaveholders for cash and kind.13 Once again, planters complained about itinerant
traders dealing with slaves and encouraging theft. The new laws that followed only
reiterated the old and did little to address the planters‘ lament beyond documenting the
reinvigoration of the slaves‘ economy.
The proceeds of their independent production permitted slaves to enrich their
families‘ diet and expand their wardrobes. They purchased clothes beyond the standard
issue of shoes, shirt and trousers or shift, and waistcoat. To prevent his slaves from
13 For information about the participation of slaves in the Williamsburg economy see the
sections on Foodways Programs, the Governor‘s Palace, the Randolph House, and the
Wythe House.

371

―buying liquor with their fowls,‖ one Virginia planter ―obliged them to buy linnen‖ to
make their clothes. It was an ingenious scheme, and yet another way to put the slaves‘
independent production in the planters‘ service, but, much to their chagrin, slaveholders
were astounded to find their slaves dressing the gentleman, complete with watches in
their pockets, powdered wigs on their heads, and silver buckles on their shoes. Although
slaveholders appreciated and profited from the work of the skilled, many came to regret
the creation of a new generation of slaves who, in the words of one slaveowner, had ―an
extra measure of pride‖ or, as another slaveholder expressed it, had ―more Sense than
Honesty.‖ A visitor to North Carolina found that slave men used their earnings to ―buy
Hats, and other Necessaries for themselves, as Linnen, Bracelets, Ribbons, and several
other Toys for their Wives and Mistresses.‖
The slaves‘ economy made for a new sociability that transformed relations
between master and slave and among slaves. Slaves presented chickens, eggs, melons,
items of handicraft, and even small gifts to their friends, families, and occasionally
owners. Such exchanges marked a leveling up of relations, as even the greatest
paternalist understood that when their slaves presented them with a gift, the terms of the
relationship shifted, however subtly. But if gifting strengthened the hand of some slaves
in dealing with their owners, if left others at a loss. Indeed, participation in the exchange
economy created new divisions within slave society, as access to the market
distinguished the haves from the have-nots.
Source: Ira Berlin, Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North
America, (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1998), pp. 119, 137-138.
Selection from Lorena S. Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove
One can get some sense from the Burwell family account books of when, and
eventually of how thoroughly, the Carter's Grove slaves took advantage of growing
opportunities for petty trade with the master and other neighboring gentry families, and
surely also with townspeople, slaves residing on adjacent plantations, and free black and
poor white families in the area. The Burwell records are inadequate for tracing the early
development of this trade. By the late 1770s and early 1780s, when Nathaniel Burwell II
began recording frequent small cash transactions with his bondspeople, it is clear that the
slaves were already active and knowledgeable, though still tightly circumscribed,
participants in a lively local cash-based trading economy.
This was surely a development that neither Robert (―King‖) Carter nor even his
grandson Carter Burwell envisioned, and one of which they would likely not have
approved. Only on rare occasions in the late 1740s and early 1750s did Carter Burwell
trust any of his slaves with cash to cover incidental expenses they might incur while
traveling or conducting business. The £2. 3d. given to ―my Negroes at Shenandoa‖ in
1745 and 10s. 10d. given to Pompey at Neck of Land in 1749 were exceptional. So were
tips of 1s. 3d. paid to ―Major Taliaferro‘s boy‖ in 1745 and the ―governor‘s coach man‖
two years later. Burwell also seldom trucked with neighbor's slaves. His accounts record
only 7s. 11d. paid to ―Potter‘s Bob‖ for chickens and ten shillings paid to neighbor
William Diggs‘s blacks for unspecified goods or services. From Carter Burwell‘s records

372

one would suppose that the slaves seldom if ever managed to trade independently in
goods and almost never laid hands on any cash.
Had Lucy Burwell‘s household accounts survived, however, we might have a
somewhat different perspective. The 16s. 1d. Carter Burwell paid to his brother Robert‘s
cook in 1749 and the 3s. 9d. he paid the next year to the Carter‘s Grove cook to cover her
purchases of fowls for the family table are likely the tip of the iceberg. Other period
plantation records suggest the beginnings of a regular, owner-sanctioned trade in fowls
and eggs between neighborhood slaves and gentry households. The archaeological
evidence from Rich Neck and Kingsmill points to the same conclusion: area slaves were
acquiring consumer goods and accumulating hard currency by one means or another.
Probably the Carter‘s Grove and Kingsmill workers took advantage of the increasingly
frequent trips they made to Williamsburg to deliver or peddle produce for their owner to
trade on their own account.
Years of relaxed oversight between Carter Burwell‘s death and Nathaniel Burwell
II‘s majority likely opened up other opportunities, although executor William Nelson‘s
accounts offer little corroborating evidence. However, even the little suggests much.
Would Nelson have handed over cash to Billy, Daniel, Tom, and three unidentified slaves
to cover their traveling expenses from Carter's Grove to western quarters on Bull Run in
Prince William County or to the Frederick quarters on the Shenandoah if he was not
certain that these men already knew the value of a coin and the customary charges they
should pay for food, forage, and ferriage along the way? The domestics who were hired
out to work in Williamsburg also would have had more opportunities to learn about cash
transactions, to earn money by working on their own time, and to collect tips than did
those living in the country.
Nathaniel Burwell II‘s daybooks confirm the extent to which the Carter‘s Grove
slaves became involved in the local economy as the Revolution ended and the relatively
sophisticated level of financial knowledge that some had acquired. Between 1775 and
1786 he recorded cash transactions with thirty-four of his own bondsmen and women.
Burwell also entrusted cash to Billy and Bristol from King‘s Creek and to Hugh Nelson‘s
Jack. Almost all of the individuals with whom Nathaniel recorded transactions lived on
the home plantation, and most of them were wagoners, millers, artisans, or domestics.
Whatever trading networks field workers on outlying quarters developed seem not to
have involved many exchanges with the master.
Nathaniel‘s records provide no more than a glimpse into the home farm workers‘
trading activities, because he was often absent in the west, and his wives usually handled
the housekeeping accounts. From the beginning of their marriage, Nathaniel regularly
handed over cash to Susannah to pay for produce and other household goods she
purchased from slaves or free peddlers who brought their wares to Carter‘s Grove. Surely
Nathaniel‘s second wife, Lucy, controlled a similar housekeeping fund, as well as her
share of proceeds from the quarter dairies. Susannah‘s and Lucy‘s household accounts
would likely document an increasing trade between Carter‘s Grove slaves and others
from neighboring farms with the plantation mistress in poultry, eggs, fish and shellfish,
fruits, and vegetables.
The master‘s dealings were not restricted to simple exchanges of a few pence or
shillings for produce the slaves sold Burwell or for goods that they bought from him.
Hard coin remained in short supply, and Nathaniel sometimes resorted to borrowing

373

money from domestics Nelly, Old Nanny, and Billy to cover small, unexpected
household purchases. He also made small loans—usually repaid within a month or two—
to Nanny, Sukey, Caesar the barber, and Harry to finance independent purchases. In
addition, Burwell regularly trusted some of the men, including Sam, Joe, Tom, and
Daniel, with cash to cover their expenses en route when they left the county, sometimes
on journeys of several weeks. A few of the slaves began retailing goods for the master,
for which the customers paid cash on the spot. Occasionally some of the bondsmen
handled several pounds‘ worth of cash at a time. Amos at Mill Quarter, for example, was
selling butter for cash in 1778, and Cyrus collected £5 2s. for cider he marketed in 1783.
In addition, in the 1780s, whenever the white miller was absent, miller Gregory collected
payments from customers who brought grain to be ground at Burwell‘s mill or else came
to purchase flour, cornmeal, cider, or whisky.
Thus, between the 1740s and 1780s, many of the Burwell slaves had acquired an
accurate knowledge of the customary prices of locally traded goods and services, the
values of the various denominations of European coins periodically in circulation, and
Anglo-American conventions regarding the lending and borrowing of money. For people
who theoretically could own nothing, this knowledge surely was gained over the years
from some combination of observation, barter transactions sanctioned or at the least
tolerated by the owner, and unsanctioned trades in goods or cash negotiated outside the
view of owners or supervisors. By the 1780s, Nathaniel Burwell apparently was forced to
accept his slaves‘ incongruent, independent participation in a market economy as an
accomplished fact. Perhaps, by becoming more involved in their internal trading, he
hoped to maintain some control over it.
Source: Lorena S. Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove: The History of a Virginia
Slave Community, (Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1997), pp.
183-186.

1758 to 1817—The Records of John Glassford and Company
The records for the store that John Glassford and Company operated in Colchester,
Virginia, between 1758 and 1817 indicate that several slaves made purchases. Jack, a
slave who belonged to Mr. Linton‘s estate, bought a wide range of items—hinges, nails,
liquor, fabric, thread, hats, stockings, meat (beef and pork), powder and shot for his gun,
sugar, salt—at the store between November 1760 and August 1769. Jack sold eggs, hired
out his horse, built coffins and furniture, repaired buildings and bridges, ran errands, and
did masonry work to pay for his purchases.
The following excerpt from the records kept by John Glassford and Company details
Jack‘s debts and credits between November 1760 and December 1761.
Negro Jack belonging to Mr Lintons Estate
Dr
To Balance from Liber A

179

1.7.2½

374

Nov. 9 To [?] Rum 17/6 11th bro: threds 1/9 15th To 1 pint Rum 1/
Feby 3 To ½ Gallon Rum 3/ March 20th to ¼ Rum 2/
May 30th ¼ Rum 1/9
t
Aug 22 To ¼ Rum 1/6 2lb Sugar 1/6 30th To 2 old stripd &
flowred Lawn 14/
Septr 16 To 2 [?] HL hinges 3/ 250 3d Nails 1/3 1 yd ferret 6d 1 Bottle
Turlingtons Balsam 8/6
Decmr 4 To 4lb Shott 2/ 4 flints 8d

Cr
Septr 16

By Cash
145
By House Expences 1 Doz & 9 Eggs 159
By Ballance to Liber G

folio 159
Housekeeping Expences ...
Nov. 21 To Negro Jack for 1 Doz & 9 Eggs

114

0.4.3
0.6.9
0.17.0
0.13.3
0.2.8
£3.11.1½

0.5.0
0.0.10½
3.5.3
£3.11.1½

0.0.10½

Source: John Glassford & Co. Records for Virginia, Colchester Store Ledger B (17601761), folio 114; originals at the Library of Congress (CWF Microfilm M-1442.8).

Sue, a slave owned by Mr. Grayson, also had an account with John Glassford and
Company between November 1760 and December 1761.
Negro Sue belong to Mr Grayson
To Balance from ledger A
Nov 22 To 1 Chest Lock 1/3
Cr
Dec 10 By Housekeeper Expenses 16 Chickgs & 3 Fowls 5
Dec By Ditto for sundry Cabbages
159

0.11.0
0.1.3
£0.12.3
0.6.10
0.5.5
£0.12.3

folio 5
Housekeeping Expenses
1760 Dec 10 To Negro Sue for 16 Chickings & 3 Fowls 79

0.6.10

folio 159 Housekeeping Expenses
1761 Dec 29 To Negro Sue for Cabbages

0.5.5

Source: John Glassford & Co. Records for Virginia, Colchester Store Ledger B (17601761), folio 79; originals in the Library of Congress (CWF Microfilm M-1442.8).

375

The Material World
This section includes information on Material Culture of Slaves, African-American
Archaeology, and Slave Housing in the Eighteenth Century.

****
Martha Katz-Hyman—―In the Middle of this Poverty Some Cups and a Teapot‖:
Furnishing the African-American Presence at Colonial Williamsburg
Curators and historians use many sources to learn about the material culture of
eighteenth-century Virginia. Most of these concern themselves exclusively with objects
purchased and used by its European residents, but information about slaves‘ material
world is found in many of the same sources. These sources fall into four major
categories: legal records, personal records, business records, and archeological
recoveries.
Because slavery was a function of legal status, public documents contain a great
deal of information about slaves and their ownership but relatively little information
about material goods. Probate inventories, which are the primary documents in planning
Exhibition Building furnishings, are of limited use in this instance because they do not,
except in very rare cases, record slaves‘ personal property14 but rather record what

14 Slaves were legally the property of their owners and technically could not own
property themselves. However the fact that slaves‘ personal property does not appear in
probate inventories is probably due to one of the following factors: 1) slaves‘ personal
goods were considered by both blacks and whites to belong to the slaves and therefore
not subject to inventory; 2) white owners felt that the items owned by their slaves were
of no value and therefore did not include them in probate inventories; or 3) slaves‘
personal items were included in the value listed for the slave himself/herself.

376

masters provided for their overseers or for slaves to do their work.15 Some masters left
a favored slave a bed, tools of their trade, money, or even their time, in their wills, but
this was unusual.16 Trial proceedings, primarily those from the surviving records of
Virginia‘s oyer and terminer courts, reveal, through the lists of stolen goods, what slaves
thought were valuable and useful goods to steal.17
Personal records—letters, diaries, and travelers‘ accounts—have a wealth of
information about slaves, their lives, and their material world. Although seen through the
eyes of white observers, they give important information that is not available in any other
format. In a letter written February 10, 1773, Thomas Everard ordered ―4 Strong Great
Coats for Negros 2 for men about the House and 2 for Lads Postillions‖ from merchant
John Norton in London. Joseph Ball, a Virginian living in London in the 1740s, wrote
often to his nephew and plantation overseer, Joseph Chinn, with detailed instructions
regarding the slaves on his plantation, ―Morattico,‖ in Richmond County. In February
1744, he directed that in case of illness, ―let them [the slaves] ly by a Good fire; and have
Fresh Meat & broth; and blood, and vomit them, as you shall think proper; though I think
both to be proper in most Cases. I would have no Doctor, unless in very Violent Cases:
They Generally do more harm than Good.‖ George Washington was concerned with his
slaves' clothing, for in 1788 he asked Clement Biddle in Philadelphia to purchase
―German and British Oznaburgs of the best quality, suitable for making Negroes shirts
and shifts.‖18

15 See, for example, the probate inventory for James Shields, taken between December
1750 and January 1751, which included ―At the Quarter,‖ ―45 head of old Cattle; 13
Yearlings and 5 Calves; 10 Head of Hogs; A parcel of Carpenters tools; 1 Bed &
furniture; 6 Dishes; 1 Iron Pot; 2 Mares and 2 Colts; 1 Whip Saw; 1 Cross cut Do. [ditto];
1 Gun; 1 Wheat Sifter; 5 Milk Pans; 1 Grindstone; a Parcel of Coopers Tools; 1 Case &
11 Bottles for Do.; 25 Negros; a Parcel of Corn Tobacco and Pease.‖ No value was
given. [York County Wills & Inventories 20, 1745-1759, pp. 198-200]
16 Charles Smith, the minister of Portsmouth Parish in Norfolk County, wrote the
following in his will, written in 1771 and recorded in 1773: ―…I give unto my Grand
Daughter Abigail Taylor Five Hundred & Twenty Pounds Currency & my Mollatto
woman Mary & my New Bible…I Give unto my Mollatto woman Mary three Months of
Her Time fifty Pounds in Money and my Old Bible with the Spinning and Weaving
Gears and implements in or about the house with her Clothes &c.‖ [Norfolk County
Records, Will Book No. 2, 1772-1788, p. 11, CWF Microfilm M-1365-21]
17 For example, see the proceedings of the trial of Will and Cambridge, who were found
guilty on February 14, 1747, of breaking and entering and stealing two pieces of linen
from Thomas Hornsby, 12 pairs of cotton stockings and 24 silk purses from Armistead
Burwell, and nine pairs of shoes from the Honorable William Gooch, Esq. [York County
Court Order Book, February 14, 1747, OW (19), 489-90]
18 Thomas Everard, Williamsburg, to John Norton and Sons, London, February 10, 1773,
in Frances Norton Mason, ed. John Norton and Sons: Merchants of London and
Virginia; Being the Papers from their Counting House for the Years 1750 to 1795

377

Frances Baylor Hill of ―Hillsborough‖ in King and Queen County, Virginia,
wrote in her diary in June, 1797, that she and her mother ―went over the river to see Phill
who was very ill when we got over he died in about an hour, his pour wife was greatly
distress'd I never was sorry'r for a negro in my life.‖ Some of these journals also record
payments made to slaves for goods and services. Philip Vickers Fithian, tutor to the
children of Robert Carter of Nomoni Hall in Westmoreland County, noted in January,
1774, that he ―gave Martha who makes my Bed, for a Christmas Box, a Bit,...I gave to
John also, who waits at Table & calls me to Supper a Bit.‖ Francis Taylor, an Orange
County, Virginia, planter, noted in his diary many monetary transactions in which he
bought chickens and produce from his slaves and paid them for extra work.19
Travelers to the New World, especially those who visited Virginia and other
southern states in the years right after the American Revolution, did not hesitate to
express their views on slaves and slavery. Very often these views included descriptions
of slaves and their living conditions. Julian Niemcewicz, a close friend of Polish general
and patriot Tadeusz Kosciuszko, wrote the following during a visit to Mount Vernon in
1798:
We entered one of the huts of the Blacks, for one can not call them by the name of
houses. They are more miserable than the most miserable of the cottages of our
peasants. The husband and wife sleep on a mean pallet, the children on the
ground; a very bad fireplace, some utensils for cooking, but in the middle of this
poverty some cups and a teapot. . . . A very small garden planted with vegetables
was close by, with 5 or 6 hens, each one leading ten to fifteen chickens. It is the
only comfort that is permitted them; for they may not keep ducks, geese, or pigs.
They sell the poultry in Alexandria and procure for themselves a few amenities.20
(Richmond: Dietz Press, 1937), pp. 300-301; Joseph Ball, London, England, to Joseph
Chinn, Virginia, Ball Letterbook, 1743-59, February 18, 1743/44, Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C. (microfilm M-21, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation); George
Washington to Clement Biddle, April 4, 1788, in George Washington, The Writings of
George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 39 vols., ed. John C.
Fitzpatrick (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931-44), 29:458.
19 Frances Baylor Hill, ―The Diary of Frances Baylor Hill of Hillsborough[,] King and
Queen County Virginia [1797],‖ ed. William K. Bottorff and Roy C. Flannagan, Early
American Literature Newsletter 2, no. 3 (Winter 1967): 33; Philip Vickers Fithian,
Journal and Letters of Philip Vickers Fithian: A Plantation Tutor of the Old Dominion
(Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1957), p. 54; Francis Taylor diary, 178699, Library of Virginia, Richmond (microfilm M-1759, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation). Used by permission of the Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.
20 Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz, ―Under Their Vine and Fig Tree: Travels through
American in 1797-1799, 1805 with Some Further Account of Life in New Jersey,‖ trans.
and ed. Metchie J.E. Budka, Collections of the New Jersey Historical Society at Newark
14 (Elizabeth, N.J.: Glassmann Publishing Co., 1965), pp. 100-101.

378

The accounts of eighteenth-century travelers to Africa offer insights into cultural
traditions that may have persisted in America. For instance, in 1745 Marchais, a French
traveller, observed on Guinea‘s Grain Coast:
These Houses resemble, pretty much, our Mountebanks Stages in Europe. The
Front is open, and the Floor has a Jutting-out of five or six Foot broad, where the
Negros, laid on Mats, pass the Day with their Wives and Family. The Walls of
these Chambers are of a red Clay near a Foot thick. The Roof, raised like a Tent,
is covered with Reeds, or Palm-Leaves, so close interwoven, as to admit neither
Sun nor Rain. To the Right and Left are two Estrades, or Benches, one Foot high
and four broad: On these they lay Mats a Foot thick, which they cover with
Cotton-Cloth, or Calico, and surround with Curtains of the same. At the upperEnd of this Room they place their Trunks, or Boxes, and hang their Arms upon
the Wall.21
Almost 100 years later, in 1830, the executors of Captain Hugh Crow of Liverpool,
England, published the memoirs of his travels to the west coast of Africa, and in
particular Bonny, the imperial capitol of the Ibo, the area from which many of Virginia's
slaves were taken. In these memoirs Captain Crow noted ―most of the hard articles such
as lead and iron bars, chests of beads, and marcelas (a kind of coin), they bury under the
floors of their houses. Much valuable property is secreted in that way.‖22 Here is
evidence that the root cellars found archaeologically at so many eighteenth-century slave
sites may in fact be an African cultural tradition that was brought to the New World and
survived.
Business records, including account books of both merchants and craftsmen, are
the third major source of information, and reveal the types of goods purchased in
Tidewater Virginia for slaves' use. Purchases of shoes, stockings, livery, hats, blankets,
and tools for the use of slaves are commonly found in these account books, and the
frequent use of the same descriptive terms for these goods—―Negro shoes,‖ ―plaid hose
for Negroes,‖ ―Negro cotton‖—indicates that these were common items whose definition
was well-understood by residents of the region. For example, the account books of
William Allason, a merchant in Falmouth, Virginia, reveal numerous sales of all kinds of
goods for the use of slaves: hoes, shoes, oznaburg, and plaid stockings to name just a few

21 Thomas Astley, comp., A New General Collection of Voyages and
Travels...Comprehending Everything Remarkable in Its Kind in Europe, Asia, Africa, and
America... (London: 1745; reprint, London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., 1968), 2:527-528
(page references are to reprint edition).
22 Hugh Crow (edited by the Executors), Memoirs of the Late Captain Hugh Crow of
Liverpool Comprising a Narrative of His Life Together with Descriptive Sketches of
theWestern Coast of Africa, Particularly of Bonny (Liverpool: G. and J. Robinson, 1830;
reprint, London: Frank Cass, 1970), p. 251.

379

items. Likewise, plantation account books record purchases for the slaves, such as
Robert Carter's purchase of shoes for the ―people‖ at Old Ordinary Quarter in November
1773.23
It is one of the anomalies of eighteenth-century Tidewater Virginia slavery that
even though slaves were regarded as property and bought and sold like livestock, they
were also active participants in the region‘s market economy. The pages of these same
account books also record payments made directly to slaves for goods and services and
record credit purchases slaves made for themselves. It is impossible to know the details
of cash sales to slaves because the records of such sales were usually not associated with
the name of a particular individual, but those slaves who ran credit accounts—and there
were more than just a handful—purchased a variety of goods. Between 1760 and 1768,
Colchester, Virginia, merchants Glassford & Company kept a running account with Jack,
a slave who belonged to Mr. Linton's estate in Colchester. Jack obtained, among other
things, textiles, liquor, knives, cooking equipment, and tools in exchange for his work as
a carter and carpenter. Another slave named Jack, also a carpenter, purchased an iron pot
from William Allason in 1776.24
Another type of business record were the advertisements for runaway slaves.
They constitute one of the best sources for information about the physical appearance and
skills of slaves and the clothing and goods they used. It is apparent from a close reading
of these advertisements that slaves wore a variety of clothing, from the basic ―uniform‖
of field hands, to the much more elaborate wardrobe worn by household and personal
servants. References in these advertisements to slaves ―clothed in the usual manner of
labouring Negroes‖ or to ―the usual negro dress‖ suggest that there was a general basic
standard for slave clothing. The more elaborate clothes listed in the advertisements (―a
pair of shoes with buckles;‖ ―new brown cloth waistcoat, lappelled, lined with white
taminy, and yellow gilt buttons;‖ ―white linen shirts...and osnabrug trousers‖) indicate
that slaves obtained a much greater variety of clothing than is generally assumed.25
23 William Allason Papers, 1757-1804, Falmouth [Va.] Store, Ledge G, September 1768October 1769, Library of Virginia (microfilm M-1144-8, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation); Robert Carter III, Nomini Hall Waste Book, 1773-83, September 18, 1773
(Special Collections, microfilm M-50, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation). The use, by
slave owners, of the term people for enslaved African Americans was common
throughout the Chesapeake in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
24 The account began in 1760 and ended in 1769. John Glassford and Company papers,
Records for Virginia, Colchester [Va.] Store (hereafter Glassford papers), Ledgers A-B,
D-I, November 9, 1760-August 26, 1769, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
(microfilm M-1442-8-11, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation); William Allason daybook,
June 11, 1773-June 18, 1777, Allason papers, Falmouth [Va.] Store (microfilm M-11444, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation).
25 Virginia Gazette (Purdie and Dixon), March 8, 1770, November 8, 1770, May 7,
1767, December 13, 1770, and Virginia Gazette (Hunter), July 15, 1752, all in Lathan A.
Windley, Runaway Slave Advertisements: A Documentary History from 1730s to 1790,

380

Because so many of these advertisements list slaves' skills, they are important
sources for determining what tools may have been at a slave quarter. In March 1770
Joshua Jones placed the following advertisement in the Virginia Gazette: ―RUN away
from the subscriber, In York county, about the 11th or 12th of November last, very black
Negro man named BEN...by trade a carpenter, and understands something of the coopers
business....He took with him sundry carpenters and coopers tools. I expect he will
endeavour to pass for a freeman, as he can read tolerably well....‖26 That Ben was a
carpenter and cooper means that there probably were tools for making at least hogsheads,
tubs, and other barrels; pails; and other such items, at the slave quarter where he lived and
presumably worked. Listing reading and writing as among his skills suggests that there
may have been writing implements or a book or two at the quarter. Thus a close
inspection of these advertisements provides clues to material goods not previously
thought to have been at a slave quarter.
The fourth major source of information about eighteenth-century Tidewater
Virginia slave material culture is archaeological recoveries. These objects, ranging from
seeds and bones (both animal and human) to intact ceramic vessels and pewter spoons,
reveal information about diet and culture that is not covered by documentary sources.
More information on archaeological recoveries as a source of information about
Tidewater slave material culture can be found in Ywone Edwards-Ingram‘s essay.
Two potentially valuable sources of information—one visual, one written—turn
out to be of limited help in understanding the material culture of eighteenth-century
Tidewater Virginia slaves. These sources are slave narratives and period illustrations.
Eighteenth-century slave narratives are rare and deal primarily with the experience of
slavery in an episodic way (i.e., there is little description of clothing, food, possessions,
etc.). They were thus of relatively little value in learning about material culture, although
they were very valuable in learning about experiences of enslaved Africans.27
vol. 1, Virginia and North Carolina (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1983),
respectively, pp. 78, 88, 52, 88, and 28. On slave clothing, see Linda Baumgarten,
―‗Clothes for the People‘: Slave Clothing in Early Virginia,‖ Journal of Early Southern
Decorative Arts 14, no. 2 (November 1988): 27-70, and Linda Baumgarten, ―Plains,
Plaid, and Cotton: Woolens for Slave Clothing,‖ Ars Textrina 15 (July 1991): 203-222,
for thorough documentation of the types of clothing worn by slaves, seasonal variations
in this clothing, special types of clothing won by slaves (such as livery), variations in
clothing between house slaves and field hands, and the lengths to which owners went to
make sure that this clothing was serviceable but obtained at the best price.
26 Virginia Gazette (Purdie and Dixon), March 22, 1770, in Windley, Runaway Slave
Advertisements 1:78-79.
27 Oloudah Equiano‘s narrative, The Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa the
African… (Reprint of 1837 ed.; New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969), although
very descriptive of African life, customs, and material culture, is not as useful in
understanding the material life of enslaved Africans.

381

Considerable time was spent attempting to locate prints, paintings and other visual
records of eighteenth-century Virginia slave life. There are many eighteenth-century
visual representations, both English and American, of individual slaves, but there are
almost no period visual sources that illustrate the environment in which slaves lived and
worked, the material goods they used in their everyday lives, or how these objects were
arranged within a particular living or working area.
All of these sources tell us a great deal about how slaves acquired their clothing,
food, and furnishings. Moreover, they give us some idea of how they were used.
Masters issued clothing, blankets, and food on a more-or-less regular schedule: clothing
was issued in the spring/summer and fall/winter, blankets in the fall, and food was issued
weekly or seasonally. Masters also supplied slaves with the tools and clothing necessary
to do their jobs, but these remained the property of the master, unlike issued items, which
both master and slave considered the slaves‘ property. Some slaves were fortunate to
receive hand-me-down clothing, cooking utensils, and even furniture from their masters,
but this was not common. Slaves made things for themselves and bartered and sold these
goods both to their masters and on the open market. Especially on rural plantations,
slaves had their own plots of land and grew their own produce and also took advantage of
nearby streams, rivers, and woodlands to catch fish and trap animals. They also acquired
goods by theft, a crime for which they were sometimes prosecuted and sometimes not.
And, in what will be a surprise for most visitors, slaves acquired goods by purchasing
them with money they earned from tips or gifts, from the sale of produce or animals
(primarily chickens), from the sale of their own products, like baskets, or their own labor.
With this cash they purchased a variety of goods, ranging from fabrics and ribbons to
tools, liquor, and food. All of these goods were the same types of things purchased by
whites and free blacks.
It is also important to understand that the condition of slavery did not mean that
all slaves lived in impoverished material circumstances. Slaves lived at all levels of the
economic ladder, in circumstances that ranged from the meanest poverty to the fairly
comfortable. Two examples illustrate this point. Aron Jameson, a slave of Joseph Ball,
was sent back to the colony from London in 1754. Ball wrote to Joseph Chinn that Aron
was bringing with him
…a small chest, & a box, containing a seabed, a Large Matress stuffed well with
flocks and stitched with tufts, and a bolster filled with feathers, the Mattress &
Bolster both besides their Ticks having Ozenbrigs cases; and two new coverleds,
and other old Bedcloths, and Three suits of wearing cloths (one new) and Two
pair of new shoes; and several pair of stockings, a pair of boots, and Twelve shirts
Eight of which are New, a small iron Pot & hooks and Rack to hang it on, an Iron
skillet, a copper sauce pan, an old Bridle & Saddle, a Cheese, a Narrow ax, a Tin
pint pot, Three hats, Twelve Neckcloths, two Handkercheifs, one Violin and some

382

spare strings, a small spit, an old pewter basin, Two pair of sheets, and several
other things which Aron very well knows of….28
In addition, Ball specified how Aron was to be treated and where he was to sleep:
I would have him used kindly Especially this year, and not put into the crop for
any part of a share; but I would have him work at the How but not constantly this
year, for perhaps he may not be able to bear it, not having been used to hard
Labor; but you may between whiles Imploy him about one odd Jobb or other;…
His Beding is Quite New & Clean and I would have it kept so; and to that End
would have him to ly in the Kitchin Loft when he is at Morattico; and in some
Clean Place when he is in the Forrest. I would forthwith after his arrival have one
of the worst of my old Bed steads cut short & fit for his Mattress, and have a cord
and hide to it. . . . He must have his own Meat to himself in a Good Little
powdering Tub to be made on purpose; and he must have his own fat & Milk to
himself and be allowed to Raise fowl.29
By contrast, Ferdinand-Marie Bayard described the following scene in 1791:
A box-like frame made of boards hardly roughed down, upheld by stakes,
constituted the nuptial couch. Some wheat straw and cornstalks, on which was
spread a very short-napped woolen blanket that was burned in several places,
completed the wretched pallet of the enslaved couple.30
In these two descriptions there is a great contrast in the physical circumstances of the
individuals: Aron has more property at his own disposal than many free white families of
the period, while Bayard‘s unnamed couple barely have a decent place to sleep. But their
legal status is the same: they are all the property of another person. This legal status, and
not their material status, is what made them slaves.
And, as we discuss slavery in eighteenth-century Williamsburg and
Tidewater Virginia, we need to understand that in the course of their daily work,
as slaves tended fields, prepared food, cleaned houses, did errands, sewed clothes,
constructed houses, joined furniture, printed newspapers, piloted boats, played
musical instruments, and administered medical treatments, all of the objects they

28 Joseph Ball, Stratford, England to Joseph Chinn, Morattico, Richmond County,
Virginia, "Letter Book, 1743-1759," April 23, 1754, Library of Congress, Washington,
D.C. (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation microfilm M-21); transcript in the Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation Library.
29 Ibid.
30 Ferdinand-Marie Bayard, Travels of a Frenchman in Maryland and Virginia With a
Description of Philadelphia and Baltimore in 1791..., trans. & ed. Ben C. McCary
(Williamsburg, Va.: Ben C. McCary, 1950), 13.

383

encountered each day were part of their material culture. This means that tools
from England, ceramics from China, fabrics from Europe, and goods made right
in Williamsburg were part of the material world of Williamsburg‘s enslaved
population. And once we understand that the entire range of available goods were
part of a slave‘s world, we also understand that slaves both used and owned
objects that were indistinguishable from those used and owned by the free whites
and blacks around them.
However, although we know, in a fairly specific way, how slaves acquired their
own possessions, we have very little information about how these things were arranged
and used in daily life. There are no known visual records of the interior of eighteenthcentury Virginia slave quarters, and the few surviving slave narratives from that period
do not really discuss the appearance of the interiors of these spaces. Even travelers‘
accounts, while superficially helpful in understanding some aspects of slaves‘ lives, fail
to adequately convey the material world in which slaves lived. In addition, we have only
a few clues—most of them archaeological—to tell us how these European objects might
have been used in non-European ways. With care, intelligent use can be made of later
cultural practices, stories, and songs to interpret now-lost customs and rituals. But we
cannot ―retrofit‖ the material culture of a later period on an earlier one, i.e., use the
existence of an object or an object-centered tradition to argue that it ―must‖ have its roots
in an earlier form. Therefore, although we now know a great deal about the material
culture of Tidewater Virginia‘s eighteenth-century enslaved population, there are still
many questions that remain.

****
Ywone Edwards-Ingram—―An Introduction to the Archaeology of African
Americans in Colonial Virginia‖
This introduction describes some of the main approaches and issues in the
archaeological study of African Americans in the Tidewater area of Virginia. Various
sites in other areas of Virginia and Maryland are included in the discussion which provide
material evidence and refine interpretations of sites in the Tidewater area. The
archaeology of African Americans is concerned with cultural, social, political, and
economic differences in the past. Emphasis is placed on understanding the complexities
of slavery and freedom through the material remains left by African Americans and other
people. Archaeologist James Deetz writes that ―archaeology's prime value to history lies
in its promise to take into account large numbers of people in the past who either were
not included in the written record or, if they were, were included in a biased or minimal
way.‖31 Africans and their descendants in the New World fall within Deetz‘s category
of people whose history is made more comprehensive through archaeological research.
31 James Deetz, Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation 1619 –
1864. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993, p.12.

384

Since the late 1960s, the study of African-American past lifeways has been a
major concern of the archaeological investigations of colonial Virginia. The concerted
efforts of archaeologists have led to the production of several studies illuminating the
diverse experiences of African Americans. In addition, these archaeological
investigations have provided more information about living conditions, housing,
foodways, and other aspects of life and culture. The archaeological study of the
enslaved, for example, has guided reconstructions and interpretations at many living history
museums.
Artifacts made and used by enslaved and free Africans and their descendants formed
the main body of evidence for the archaeological study of African Americans but the field
benefits from an interdisciplinary approach. Archaeologists use information from various
sources, including documents and oral testimony in their work. With the proliferation of
studies on slavery, archaeologists have included more information about traditional and
present-day African and African-American aesthetics, artistic productions, religion, and
other cultural practices in order to gain more insights about African Americans during
slavery. Other findings from African-American studies, including literature, art, folklore,
religion, and research on yards and gardens, have been influencing the interdisciplinary
world of archaeological scholarship. 32
How Africans and their descendants sustained vibrant cultures have been the
focus of many archaeological investigations. Over the years archaeologists have
considered the extent to which slaves‘ African cultural heritage can be studied through
the material remains found on African-American sites. Most Africans who were brought
to the New World came from West Africa so archaeologists have concentrated on objects
and cultural practices that have been associated with West Africa and the slave trade. Beads
(particularly blue ones), a coarse earthenware called colonoware, Chesapeake clay
tobacco pipes, fragmented animal bones used as food, and sub-floor pits (popularly
known as root cellars) have all figured prominently in the debate about the African
heritage of African Americans. Cowrie shells, for example, have been found in slave
living spaces and burials. These objects were used as ―the shell money of the slave
trade‖ and as components of African and African-American cultural practices. In African
societies, cowrie shells served as a form of currency. They were also used in rituals and
as decorations on objects and the body. Archaeological remains of cowrie shells have
been found on various sites in Virginia including, the Historic Area of Colonial
Williamsburg.33
32Ywone Edwards and Maria Franklin, ―Archaeology and the Material Culture of Enslaved Africans and
African Americans.‖ The Research Review. Williamsburg: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Vol. VI
(1),1995/96: 22-24 .

33 Robert Farris Thompson, Flash of the Spirit: African and Afro-American Art and Philosophy, New
York: Vintage Books, 1983; Theresa A. Singleton, ―The Archaeology of Slave Life.‖ In Before Freedom
Came: African American Life in the Antebellum South. Edited by Edward D.C. Campbell, Jr. and Kym S.
Rice. Richmond: Museum of the Confederacy and Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991; 155175, 188-191; Laurie E. Pearce, ―The Cowrie Shell in Virginia: A Critical Evaluation of Potential
Archaeological Significance.‖ Anthropology Masters Thesis, College of William and Mary, 1992.

385

Photograph: Cowrie shells from archaeological excavations in the Historic Area of
Colonial Williamsburg.
Archaeologists have found vastly more European-manufactured objects than
materials that can be used as markers of West African cultural continuities. Earlier the
predominance of European and American manufactured objects was interpreted as
evidence that enslaved Africans and African Americans had acculturated to AngloAmerican culture. In fact, it is the acculturation framework that was most used in
archaeological studies to show how African-American material life and culture changed
over time. But this approach has been criticized because of its tendency to interpret
African Americans‘ acquisition and use of American and European goods as indications
that African Americans changed their identity and severed connections to African
cultural traditions and practices34.
Today archaeologists have refined their approaches and interpretations of the past.
They are using the same classes of data to provide stronger interpretation of how cultures
change through time and the role of objects in everyday life. The emphasis has shifted to
presenting the multiple uses and meanings that African Americans ascribed to the material
world of slavery, a world that they helped to create and change. Archaeologists have found
that many European and American-made items were used in cultural ways that drew on
African antecedents and a developing African-American culture. Newer approaches in
archaeology seek to present enslaved Africans and their descendants as social actors
responsible in part for their material life.
Some archaeologists have argued that the social relations between masters and
slaves are important factors to consider in any interpretations of the material remains on
slave sites. Different groups of enslaved individuals received different allocations of goods
based on slaveholders‘ perceptions of the role of these individuals. The material world of
the enslaved resulted, in part, from the power relations between slaveholders and slaves and
from slaves‘ efforts to define themselves as individuals and as members of communities. 35
Some studies have focused on how enslaved Africans and African Americans
negotiated and changed their identity as they interacted with both the enslaved and the free.
Material items were deeply embedded in these social interactions, hence their importance to
archaeological studies. They helped to make and unmake identities and to define both the
visible aspects of power, domination, and resilience. A clear example of the role of objects
in social interaction comes from an examination of dress. Many enslaved persons who
sought freedom dressed in the appropriate manner in order to pass as free persons. Buttons,
34Theresa A. Singleton (editor)The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life. Orlando,
Florida: Academic Press, 1985; Jean Howson, ―Social Relations and Material Culture: A
Critique of the Archaeology of Plantation Slavery.‖ Historical Archaeology 1990:24
(4):78-91.
35Jean Howson, ―Social Relations and Material Culture.‖

386

pins, other fasteners, and items of adornment recovered from African-Americans sites in
Virginia throw more light on the role of dress in social interactions.36
In their search to understand cultural changes and continuities, some
archaeologists have found the creolization model particularly valuable to their studies of
colonial American cultures. Creolization, perhaps best illustrated in the studies of the
formation of languages, can be used to study how new cultural forms arose from
processes that include the complex blending of old ones.37 This concept has helped
archaeologists to explain how different cultures in contact were transformed and how
new products and forms emerged from their interactions. They have applied this concept
to create stronger interpretations of the evidence of slave life. The study of AfricanAmericans‘ creativity in manufacture and use of coarse earthenware vessels and clay
tobacco pipes has benefited from the application of this concept. Other studies have
identified creolization among the factors responsible for slave approaches to the
environment and other forms of material culture, particularly to nurture religions and
rituals. Food has also been the subject of such studies.38 African-American culture was
created and transformed through processes that prioritized tradition, adaptation,
resistance, accommodation, and various cultural exchanges among African Americans
and other racial and ethnic groups. Archaeological studies have reinforced interpretations
that the cultures of people of African descent incorporated both Old World and New
World cultural traditions and practices.
Photograph: The reconstructed Carter’s Grove Slave Quarter.

Living Spaces
Most archaeological studies of African Americans have concentrated on
plantation sites. On many of these sites, the material remains of African Americans have
been found geographically separate from other racial and cultural groups. Obviously, this
type of site provides archaeologists with the strongest opportunities to describe and
36 Barbara Heath,―Buttons, Beads and Buckles: Self Definition within the Bounds of
Slavery.‖ Paper presented for the Society for Historical Archaeology Meeting,
Cincinnati, 1996.
37For more information on the use of creolization and acculturation in archaeology see
Jean Howson, ―Social Relations and Material Culture;‖ L. Daniel Mouer, ―Chesapeake
Creoles: The Creation of Folk Culture in Colonial Virginia.‖ In The Archaeology of 17thCentury Virginia. Edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Dennis J. Pogue. Richmond,
Virginia: The Deitz Press, 1993 :105-166; and Leland Ferguson, Uncommon Ground:
Archaeology and Early African-America, 1650-1800. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution Press, 1992.
38 L. Daniel Mouer, ―Chesapeake Creoles: The Creation of Folk Culture in Colonial
Virginia.‖

387

interpret African-American lifeways. It is far more difficult to find such discrete AfricanAmerican remains in urban areas. The material remains from sites that were occupied
simultaneously by African Americans and Anglo-Americans were most certainly
generated by both groups. Although it is more challenging to study African-American
life within these contexts, archaeologists can still develop insightful interpretations for
these multi-component sites.
It is not sufficient to seek an ―African-American presence‖ by describing and
counting items such as cowrie shells, colonoware, and root cellars that have been
commonly associated with African-American life. African-American culture and life
constituted more than the sum of these ―markers‖ and reflected far more complicated
strategies of living under domination within an urban setting. But by using evidence
from several related disciplines and the results of archaeological studies of both rural and
urban sites, archaeologists can make sound inferences about the lifeways of the occupants
at these sites. Overall, however, separate structures that had housed African Americans,
whether in towns or on plantations, probably have more potential for study.
Investigations of slave living areas form the main body of evidence for
interpreting slave life. Slave housing was usually located away from the formal approach
to the planter's house and closer to slave working areas. Some slaves, however, did not
have separate lodging but lived and slept were they worked. This may have been the case
for slaves in urban areas such as the eighteenth-century town of Williamsburg. Slaves in
Williamsburg probably lived in outbuildings, in general service areas, or had sleeping
spaces in their masters‘ residences or business places.39
In the late 1980s, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation archaeologists excavated
a nineteenth-century house that was the residence of an enslaved nursemaid, Polly
Valentine.40 The remains of a pier-supported house with a substantial brick chimney
base were found during excavation at the south end of the Brush-Everard property, next
door to the Tucker lot. Nathaniel Beverley Tucker, a professor of law at the nearby
College of William and Mary and the son of St. George Tucker, legally owned Valentine.
The Polly Valentine House was built on the north edge of the Tucker family property in
the 1840s and was destroyed between 1862 and 1864. It is the only separate structure
built explicitly for an enslaved person that has been excavated in the Historic Area. The
Valentine house with its brick-and-pier support probably was built in accordance with
nineteenth-century recommendations about slave housing. One recommendation was that
slave houses should be on raised foundation to encourage better circulation of air and to
prevent the build up of garbage. (One archaeologist has argued that slaveholders‘
contentions about garbage around slave houses might have been another effort to present
39 Edward Chappell, ―Slave Housing.‖ Fresh Advises Supplement to The Interpreter, A
Newsletter of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Williamsburg 1982:i-ii,iv.
40Ywone Edwards, ―Master-Slave Relations: A Williamsburg Perspective.‖
Anthropology Masters Thesis. The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,
Virginia 1990.

388

slaves as inferiors).41 On both Anglo-and Afro-Virginian sites, garbage was dumped
very close to where it was generated, for example, close to buildings, in yard areas, along
fencelines, and in nearby ravines.
Slave housing ranged from small log structures to larger brick buildings. They
were built with different dimensions and from a variety of building materials. Some
structures had dirt floors while others were raised from the ground and had wood
flooring. These buildings usually had end-chimneys made of brick or sticks and clay.
For structures that had central fireplaces, the chimneys were usually constructed of brick.
The archaeological literature has concentrated on sub-floor pits or root cellars in discussing
slave housing and slave life.42 Root cellars are pit features that occur, usually in
conjunction with building remains, on Anglo-American, Native-American, and AfricanAmerican sites. But they are particularly common on slave sites. Root cellars have been
interpreted as storage areas for root crops and for various domestic and personal items.
They are usually found filled with the remains of tools, animal bones (presumably
relating to diet), coins, clay tobacco pipes, buttons, ceramics, bottles, and beads.
Documentary evidence suggests that they were caches for items slaves had acquired
clandestinely. Wine bottles found in root cellars suggest that slaves consumed liquor but
other interpretations are plausible. These bottles may have contained herbal medicine
that slaves had concocted.
The reconstructed slave quarter at Carter's Grove Plantation, near Williamsburg, was
placed atop the archaeological features found at the site. The root cellars found there are
among the earliest excavated on slave sites. Robert ―King‖ Carter, a wealthy Virginian,
purchased Carter‘s Grove in the early eighteenth century. His descendants owned the
property until 1838. Archaeologist William Kelso, working at Carter‘s Grove in the early
1970s, uncovered subterranean pits that were initially interpreted as tanning pits but were
later re-interpreted as root cellars relating to eighteenth-century slave housing. The site
lacked structural remains that readily would have indicated that it was a living area.
Thirteen pits were found filled with domestic trash, personal objects, and tools. The
investigations of similar features on archaeological sites with eighteenth-century slave
occupations, such as Lewis Burwell‘s Kingsmill Plantation near Carter's Grove, Thomas
Jefferson‘s Monticello Plantation, and George Washington‘s Mount Vernon Plantation
contributed to the identification and reconstruction of the Carter‘s Grove slave quarter. 43
41Larry McKee, ―The Ideals and Realities Behind the Design and Use of 19th Century
Virginia Slave Cabins.‖ In The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology: Essays in
Honor of James Deetz. Ann Arbor: CRC Press, 1992:.195-213.
42William M. Kelso, Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in
Colonial Virginia. Studies in Historical Archaeology Series. New York: Academic Press,
1984; Theresa Singleton, ― The Archaeology of Slave Life;‖ Patricia Samford, ―The
Archaeology of African-American Slavery and Material Culture.‖ The William and Mary
Quarterly. Third Series . 53 (1996 ) :87-114.
43 Patricia Samford, ―The Archaeology of African-American Slavery and Material Culture;‖ William
Kelso, Kingsmill Plantation; Lorena S. Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove.

389

The remains of a central brick chimney and a series of root cellars were the main
evidence delineating the structure of a slave quarter on land formerly known as Rich Neck
Plantation, off Jamestown Road in Williamsburg.44 Rich Neck is associated with Thomas
and Philip Ludwell, gentlemen who were both active in colonial government. The Ludwells
and their descendants were mainly absentee landowners of Rich Neck Plantation. Philip
Ludwell I married Governor William Berkeley‘s widow and lived at Green Spring
plantation. Green Spring probably served as the main residence of the Ludwell family when
they resided in Virginia. But the duplex slave quarter at Rich Neck, excavated by
Colonial Williamsburg‘s archaeologists in the early 1990s, was probably home to some
of the twenty-one slaves who are listed on Philip Ludwell III‘s 1767 inventory.
The majority of the artifacts from both Rich Neck and Carter‘s Grove slave
occupations came from the root cellars.45 Some of the root cellars were lined with
materials such as wood, clay, sand, and brick. This practice implied that different cellars
probably served different functions although different linings may have simply resulted
from personal preferences. Two of the root cellars at Carter‘s Grove were wood-lined.
Even some Anglo-Americans‘ homes had moderate to large cellars that were used for
storage and other purposes. A brick-lined root cellar was found at the Grissell Hay
kitchen in the Historic Area. The cellar dated to the 1730s.46
Photograph: The Rich Neck Slave Quarter showing the remains of a central fireplace
and several root cellars.
Ceramics
Ceramics account for a large proportion of the objects on many archaeological
sites. The ceramic assemblages for the Carter‘s Grove and Rich Neck slave quarters
contained both locally-made and imported ceramics. Refined ceramics, including
porcelain and creamware, were recovered from both sites. Plates, bowls, and teawares
were identified among the various vessel forms. There were more food consumption than
food preparation ceramic items in both assemblages. The ceramics from Rich Neck were
44 Ywone D. Edwards, ―Rich Neck Slave Quarter: A Research Proposal.‖ Manuscript on
file, The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Department of Archaeological Research,
June 1994; Maria Franklin, "Out of Site, Out of Mind: The Archaeology of an Enslaved
Virginian Household, ca. 1740-1778." Unpublished doctoral thesis, Anthropology.
Berkeley: University of California, 1997.
45Patricia Samford, ―The Archaeology of African-American Slavery and Material
Culture;‖ Lorena Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove; Maria Franklin, ―Out of Site,
Out of Mind.‖
46 Gregory J. Brown and Meredith C. Moodey, ―Research Plan for the Excavation of the
Grissell Hay Site Summer 1992. Manuscript on file, Colonial Williamsburg Department
of Archaeological Research, 1992.

390

far more fragmented and fewer than those found at Carter‘s Grove. The larger pieces of
ceramics at Carter‘s Grove had scratches and stains, perhaps from heavy use. It may be
significant that Rich Neck was an outlying plantation with mainly field hands unlike
Carter‘s Grove plantation. However, archaeologists have found that the remains from
field and household slave sites are generally almost identical.47
Photograph: The remains of ceramic vessels, a fork, two completed spoons, and a
wine bottle fragment recovered during archaeological investigations at the Carter’s
Grove Slave Quarter.
Comparative studies of ceramics at Anglo-American and African-American
archaeological sites have revealed that both groups had similar ranges of material goods.
For example, archaeologists have recovered identical types of expensive ceramics and
other objects from slave and planter sites. There are some indications that some slaves
had more hollowware vessels and planters had more flatware vessels. Cultural practices,
personal preferences and culinary practices have been suggested as explanations for these
occurrences. Presumably, the slaves consumed more inexpensive stew-based meals of
vegetables, meat, and broth. The planter, on the other hand, is believed to have
consumed more roasts. Rich Neck had more bowls than plates and Carter‘s Grove had
more spoons than forks, suggesting that slaves at these plantations probably consumed
semi-liquid meals. It is risky, however, to ascribe dietary patterns for slaves and masters
based on ceramic evidence. There was no single slave‘s or master‘s diet. The evidence
for dietary patterns and cultural assumptions is constantly challenged by other findings
that show both similarity and variability in the dietary remains for both groups.
Foodways
The analysis of how African Americans obtained, prepared, consumed, exchanged,
and discarded food and food-related materials has been a challenging area of study. On
some slave sites, archaeologists have noted the prevalence of fragmented animal bones and
the presence of parts from the feet and heads. The dietary evidence of the elite has exhibited
less fragmentation of similar bones and appeared to have more evidence of presumably
high-quality body elements. But among the explanations offered for the differences in the
slave assemblages are factors relating to the economic and social conditions of the enslaved
and to the slave cultural preference for one-pot meal of stews and soups, a practice common
in African societies. Remains of heads and feet, earlier assumed to be lower-quality meats,
have been unearthed from sites associated with the elite in Virginia and larger faunal
remains linked to roast and presumably better-quality cuts have been recovered from slave
sites.48
47Patricia Samford, ―The Archaeology of African-American Slavery and Material
Culture;‖ Theresa Singleton, ―The Archaeology of Slave Life.‖
48Theresa Singleton, ―The Archaeology of Slave Life;‖ Joanne Bowen, ―Slavery at
Mount Vernon: A Dietary Analysis.‖ Paper presented to the Society for Historical
Archaeology, Washington D.C, 1995; Patricia Samford, ―The Archaeology of AfricanAmerican Slavery and Material Culture.‖

391

A study of the ―trash‖ associated with the ―House of Families‖ a major slave
housing area for George Washington‘s Mount Vernon estate has supported the thesis that
slave diet was for more varied than plantation records suggest. 49 The remains of both large
and small cuts of meat were found amid ash, charcoal, and oyster shells in a brick-lined
cellar beneath the slave dwelling. Archaeological studies of animal bones, seeds, and other
remains from several sites in Virginia have found that, in addition to rations of corn, pork,
and beef, slave diets included a variety of wild sources including fish and birds.50 The
slaves were supplementing their diets with game, birds, and fish, domestic sources, and
agricultural produce. The archaeological remains of lead shots and gunflint at Rich Neck
suggest that hunting may have been one way to diversify dietary supplements.
Photograph: Animal bones from the Rich Neck Slave Quarter Site.
The dietary evidence from the Rich Neck slave quarter may be the most complete
slave-related faunal assemblage ever recovered from the Chesapeake area. (Carter‘s
Grove was not excavated expressly to recover comprehensive faunal and botanical
materials.) Both domestic and wild species of animals and birds are included in the
faunal assemblage at Rich Neck. In addition to pork and beef that were probably meat
rations, the slaves at Rich Neck seemed to have consumed turtles, rabbits, squirrels, and
turkeys. A large quantity of fish scales and bones implies that fish and fishing were
important to slaves at Rich Neck. Catfish, perches, herrings, and sturgeons are among the
species of fish found at the site.51
Archaeologists usually interpret slave gardening activities from the study of
plants, seeds, and other environmental remains and from the evidence for fenced
enclosures. The seed remains from Rich Neck include both wild and domestic species.
The cultivated species include the remains of corn, beans, and squash, and fruits such as
melon, cherry, and blackberry. Honey locust, black walnuts, and acorns are numbered
among the wild species that appeared to have been collected on a regular basis.
Apparently the slaves at Rich Neck augmented their diet by fishing, hunting, and
gardening. They may have used some of the plants identified at the site in herbal and
folk medicinal practices. 52
49 Joanne Bowen, ―Slavery at Mount Vernon: A Dietary Analysis.‖
50Ibid; Theresa Singleton, ―The Archaeology of Slave Life‖.
51Lorena Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove; Maria Franklin, ―Out of Site, Out of
Mind.‖
52 Stephen A. Mrozowski and Leslie H. Driscoll, ―Seeds of Learning: An
Archaeobotanical Analysis of the Rich Neck Plantation Slave Quarter, Williamsburg,
Virginia.‖ Manuscript on file at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Department of
Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1997; Ywone Edwards-Ingram, ―An
Inter-Disciplinary Approach to African-American Medicinal and Health Practices in
Colonial America.‖ The Watermark: Newsletter of the Archivists and Librarians in the

392

Rituals, Health, and Well-Being
Several objects that are documented as part of formal medicinal practices have
been found at slave sites. Among these are pharmaceutical bottles, ceramic salve pots,
and ointment jars. European-American doctors or slaveholders probably supplied these
items to slaves or used them for slave medical needs. A delftware salve pot was found in
the Brush-Everard kitchen.53 It appeared to have been intentionally buried as it was
found in a hole that perhaps was prepared to receive it. It is uncertain whether this pot
relates to eighteenth-century slave life at the site. Burying objects in a ritualistic way,
however, has been documented as practiced by African Americans. 54
African Americans enclosed, buried, and used seemingly unconnected objects
including ceramics, nails, animal bones, metal objects, and shells as part of rituals.55
Support for archaeological interpretations of rituals in Virginia comes from studies in
Maryland. Materials indicating rituals have been recovered from the Charles Carroll
House in Annapolis, Maryland. 56 The Carrolls were among the prominent Catholic
families in Maryland. The assemblage was found in a ground-story room in the east
wing of the house. Apparently the room once had a wooden floor with an underlying
shallow space. The eighteenth-century assemblage included twelve separate clear quartz
crystals, pieces of chipped quartz, a polished black stone, a clear faceted glass bead, and
bone disks. The materials were found in conjunction with a bowl. The bowl had a
symbol that resembles African ritual markings. The archaeologists believe that the
recovered materials suggest that African Americans had lived and worked in the room.
Other crystals have been recovered from African-American sites in Virginia.
Interpretations of animal bones have linked these remains to rituals. Historical,
ethnographic, and archaeological sources have detailed the importance of animals and
History of the Health Sciences. Edited by Joan Echtenkamp Klein and Jodi Koste.
(Charlottesville: The Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, and Richmond: The
Tompkins-McCaws Library, 1997), 20 (3): 67-73.
53Patricia Samford, ―The Archaeology of African-American Slavery and Material
Culture.‖
54 Grey Gundaker, ―Tradition and Innovation in African American Yards.‖ African Arts
26 (1993) (2) : 58-71, 94-96; George C. Logan, ―Archaeology at Charles Carroll's House
and Garden and of his African American Slaves.‖ Annapolis: Historic Annapolis
Foundation, 1992; Ywone Edwards-Ingram, ―An Inter-Disciplinary Approach to AfricanAmerican Medicinal and Health Practices.‖
55 Ibid.
56 George Logan, ―Archaeology at the Charles Carroll‘s House.‖

393

animal remains in African and African-American rituals. Archaeological evidence
suggests that animal bones were part of slave rituals at Mount Vernon. Faunal remains
from the ―House for Families‖ included modified animal bones. A highly polished
raccoon baculum (or penis bone) with its posterior end encircled with an incised cut was
identified. The anterior end, of the bone had not been modified. The analysts suggest
―that the incised cut was used to tie a cord around the baculum for suspension from an
individual's neck." 57 The raccoon bone probably was used as a symbol of fertility.
African Americans used some common objects as part of personal adornment and
as decoration in houses and yards. 58 Some materials were employed in ways that were
not readily recognized by Anglo-Americans. Seemingly, African Americans conferred
specific meanings to ceramics, shells, clay tobacco smoking pipes, and beads.
Beads,
common finds on archaeological sites, may have functioned for both protection and
decoration. Archaeologists have found that blue is the predominant bead color on
African-American sites. They have suggested that blue beads were linked to beliefs
about the power of the color blue for protection from evil and negative forces.59 The
presence of blue beads on slave sites also has been interpreted as possibly linked to a
Muslim belief that these beads had the power to ward off ―the evil eye‖. AfricanAmerican rituals included beliefs and practices of different religions including Islam and
Christianity60.
Beads have been found within the living areas and with the burial remains of
African Americans. Historical documents relating to the eighteenth century show
Africans and African Americans wearing beads. Several beads were found in the root
cellars associated with the Rich Neck slave quarter. Excavations at the Utopia slave
quarter site in James City County associated in the eighteenth century with James Bray
and Lewis Burwell families, located a burial ground on with the remains of 25
individuals.61 Many of the twelve children and thirteen adults, probably African
Americans were interred in wooden coffins. Three adult burials included English clay
57 Stephen Charles Atkins, ―An Archaeological Perspective on the AfricanAmerican Slave Diet at Mount Vernon's House for Families.‖ Masters Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, The College of William and Mary in Virginia,
1994:84.
58 Grey Gundaker, ―Tradition and Innovation in African-American Yards.‖
59 Ibid; Ywone Edwards and Maria Franklin, ― Archaeology and the Material Culture of
Enslaved Africans and African Americans.‖
60 A.J. Raboteau, Slave Religion: The ‗Invisible Institution‘ in the Antebellum South.
New York:Oxford University Press, 1978; Charles E. Orser, Jr. ―The Archaeology of
African-American Slave Religion in the Antebellum South. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 4 (1)1994:33-45.
61 Garrett R. Fesler, ―Interim Report of Excavations at Utopia Quarter (44JC32): An
18th-Century Slave Complex at Kingsmill on the James in James City County, Virginia,
1996.‖ James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc. Williamsburg, Virginia.

394

tobacco pipes that the archaeologist believed were purposely placed with the skeletal
remains. One adolescent was buried with a glass bead necklace around his or her neck.
The presence of beads in African-American burials indicates their significance to beliefs
and rituals.
The slave assemblages of Carter‘s Grove and Rich Neck have a large quantity of
buttons. Some of these buttons are made of metal while others are of bone. Buttons are
mainly interpreted as items of adornment because of their popularity as decorative objects
and as fasteners on clothing. On sites such as Rich Neck and Carter‘s Grove, slaves may
have acquired buttons through owner's provisioning, other supply mechanisms, in various
exchanges, and as found items. Some archaeologists regard the presence of buttons on
slave sites as probably linked to the manufacture of clothing and other items such as
quilts. It is likely that some buttons were also playthings or keepsakes.
Some pierced objects were worn suspended from, or grouped together on, strings
or chains. Pierced and otherwise modified objects such as pewter spoons and coins were
probably used in rituals of protection and empowerment. Both Utopia and Rich Neck
slave occupations had pierced clamshells. Though similar pierced shells could be
naturally bored by worms, they may have been intentionally pierced by the occupants at
these sites. Pewter spoons fragments recovered from Rich Neck display various
modifications and decorations. Slaves at Rich Neck probably made pewter spoons based
on the interpretation of the archaeological finds from the sites. Both documentary and
archaeological evidence suggest that the Ludwells had resourceful slaves. The enslaved
population at Rich Neck probably made beads from shells and other materials. Some
materials used in beadwork were likely chosen carefully.
Photograph: The remains of pewter spoons, clay tobacco pipes, and a shell from
the Rich Neck Slave Quarter site. These artifacts have been variously modified,
probably for specific purposes.

Creativity
The material residues, tools, and finished products of slave crafts have been found
at archaeological sites. Evidence of nail manufacture, bone-working crafts, and other
trades has been identified archaeologically in slave living and working areas along
Mulberry Row at Monticello Plantation.62 Some slaves probably obtained monetary
gains from their engagement in craftwork. Archaeologists have debated extensively
about the slave manufacture and use of colonoware pottery. Rich Neck had far more
colonoware than Carter‘s Grove. A growing body of evidence suggests that enslaved
African Americans, as well as Native Americans, made this type of coarse unglazed
earthenware. It is mostly found as utilitarian forms such as milkpans, basins, pots, jars,
62 Douglas W. Sanford, ― The Archaeology of Plantation Slavery in Piedmont Virginia.‖ In Historical
Archaeology of the Chesapeake. Edited by Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little. Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994:115-130.

395

and chamber pots. Some slaves probably made and used colonoware to prepare and serve
stew-based meals and pottage and to make medicine.
Archaeologist Leland Ferguson, who worked on sites in South Carolina, has
linked colonoware vessels with African-American cultural autonomy, particularly in
foodways and rituals. 63 Ferguson studied the marks on colonoware vessels and found
that most marks were a simple cross or ―x‖. Some marks, however, were more
complicated and in some cases a circle or a rectangle enclosed the ―x.‖ Ferguson has
argued that some of the markings on colonoware vessels resemble ritual symbols of the
Bakongo and Bakongo-influenced cultural groups in West and Central Africa. The
enclosed ―x‖ within a circle is one of the many abstract representations of African
worldview that connected life through death and rebirth. Ferguson‘s work drew on
research by art historian Robert Farris Thompson and other scholars who have shown that
African worldviews had a significant impact on the cultures of enslaved Africans and
their descendants in the Americas.
A locally-made clay tobacco pipe with a similar design of a cross enclosed within
a circle was included in the seventeenth-century artifact assemblage of the Rich Neck
Plantation. American-manufactured clay tobacco pipes ranging in color from orange to
brown have been used to study the interactions of different groups in early Virginia. They
have been recovered from several seventeenth-century sites in the Chesapeake. The
pipes show the combined influences of Native American, African, and European cultures.
Archaeologists have interpreted the decorations on the pipes as evidence of African
craftsmanship in early America. The designs are similar to decorations found on a
variety of objects in Africa.64

Discussion and Conclusion
Archaeologists have found more similarities than differences in their studies of
African-American and Anglo-American sites. However, this should not be read as
evidence that these different groups had similar life experiences. While reckoning with
similarities and differences one should not obliterate considerations of the oppressive and
exploitative nature of slavery. African Americans acquired goods through various
supplies and exchanges. Some materials were parts of rations that were supplied by
slaveholders, while other items were gained through the slave initiative. Activities such
as gardening, rearing animals, and the sale of goods and produces, mostly conducted on
―slave time,‖ provided some slaves with the means to increase their material acquisitions.

63 Leland Ferguson, Uncommon Ground.
64 Matthew Emerson, ―Decorated Clay Tobacco Pipes from the Chesapeake: An African
Connection.‖ In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake. Edited by Paul A. Shackel
and Barbara J. Little. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994:35-49; Theresa
Singleton, ―The Archaeology of Slave Life.‖

396

Some items were obtained as gifts. Slaves through a redistribution system that was not
sanctioned by slaveholders, however, appropriated other materials.
The acquisition of trappings of a dominant culture by a subordinated group does
not always result in a wholesale acceptance of the dominant culture. When many slaves
adapted new material items and practices, they did not necessarily forsake their traditions
and other cultural practices. Increasingly, archaeologists have been interpreting aspects of
African-American practices that incorporated the use of objects and the landscape in
uncommon ways as acts of ―separatism.‖ Seemingly, these practices were meant to keep
African-American lifeways distinct from that of Anglo-Americans. Archaeologists have
only begun to understand the multiple uses and the meanings that African Americans
assigned to the material world of New World slavery. Enslaved and free Africans and
African Americans incorporated remembered, invented, and contemporaneous ideas and
practices of both the New and Old World in everyday life. In many ways, they helped to
shape their experiences during slavery and freedom.

****
The following selections from Mechal Sobel‘s book, The World They Made Together:
Black and White Values in Eighteenth-Century Virginia focus on housing in Africa and
Virginia.
Town locations, town plans, house plans, and field layouts were all likely to have
spiritual significance. In Akan towns seven quarters were set apart for seven clans that
corresponded with the seven heavenly bodies that they believed ruled the world. Dogon
towns, houses, and fields were all laid out with correspondence to their cosmology.
Fields had to be farmed in a particular order and houses built in a special pattern, or the
order of the universe would be upset and the crops would be affected. The Igbo, and
most other groups, had myths ―validating‖ their claims to their land, while ancestral
curses made particular places taboo for settlement. The Kikuyu avoided graves and
battlefields. The Lango would not build on high places, believing the dangerous deity
Jok to dwell on them.
Most Africans built houses according to ritual requirements, and their location
and structure had spiritual significance. The house was regarded as a place for the union
of male and female, for work and for pleasure, and was often organized in terms of
gender duality. Sometimes invisible constructs, perhaps imaginary lines between houses,
were of equal import. And although the carving of divinities on door-posts or the use of
white paint might mark an explicit spiritual symbolism, much of the importance of
structure and positioning was evident only to the initiated.
Meyer Fortes suggests that an African residence should be regarded as a physical
projection of the social organization of the family that lived in it. The broader landscape
of village or town reflected as well the wider social organization. Wives‘ rooms were
around their husbands‘, sons‘ houses joined around their fathers‘, the village around the

397

chiefs. In some groups clan chieftains had two-story homes, whereas all others were onestory. Kings had palaces, their status obviously reflected in the physical structure.
House in West Africa were generally made of natural materials that decayed
within a few years. They were repaired or rebuilt, or settlements were moved
periodically. Houses were generally small. A basic unit of approximately 12 feet in
length or diameter was the most widely accepted dimension. Much living was done
outside the house, in compounds formed by many one-room houses. It was common to
have separate houses for men, for women, for cooking, for storing grain, and so forth.
Olaudah Equiano described his Igbo (Nigerian) home of the 1730s in great detail,
indicating the social significance of the physical order:
In our buildings we study convenience rather than ornament. Each master of a family
has a large square piece of ground, surrounded with a moat or fence, or enclosed with a
wall made of red earth tempered, which, when dry, is as hard as bricks. Within this, are
his houses to accommodate his family and slaves, which, if numerous, frequently present
the appearance of a village. In the middle, stands the principal building, appropriated to
the sole use of the master and consisting of two apartments; in one of which he sits in the
day with his family, the other is left apart for the reception of his friends. He has besides
these a distinct apartment in which he sleeps, together with his male children. On each
side are the apartments of his wives, who have also their separate day and night houses.
The habitations of the slaves and their families are distributed together throughout the
rest of the enclosure. These house never exceed one storey in height; they are always
built of wood, or stakes driven into the ground, crossed with wattles, and neatly plastered
within and without. The roof is thatched with reeds. Our day houses are left open at the
sides; but those in which we sleep are always covered and plastered in the inside, with a
composition mixed with cow-dung, to keep off the different insects, which annoy us
during the night….Houses so constructed….require but little skill to erect them. Every
man is a sufficient architect for the purpose. The whole neighborhood afford their
unanimous assistance in building them, and in return receive and expect no other
recompense than a feast.
Although the circular hut is the shape most widely associated with African
vernacular housing, the range of house forms or styles is and was quite extensive. Susan
Denyer has condensed about a thousand recorded variations into thirty-two main types:
four are variations of one-story round houses; several are two-stories high; several are
oval. There are the tent-like structures of nomadic peoples and several styles of caves or
―dug ins.‖ However surprising for Westerners who have tended to assume that the
circular hut is normative, at least thirteen categories in Denyer‘s taxonomy are of square
or rectangular houses. It is in West African ―slave-exporting‖ coastal areas that ―the
rectangular gable-roofed hut is….characteristic….We find it especially in the coastal
areas of Nigeria, down to the Congo estuary.‖ Many of the Africans coming to North
America brought with them a tradition of building small, light rectangular cabins, with
gable roofs.
…

398

The extraordinary archaeological research done at Kingsmill plantation, near
Williamsburg, and William Kelso‘s analysis of these data, reveal both the village-like
appearance of this large plantation and the range of housing built for both blacks and
whites. The eighteenth-century Kingsmill properties had substantial Big Houses made of
brick: the Bray‘s manor at Littletown, circa 1700-1781, one and a half stories high, 53‘ x
29‘, and the Burwell family‘s Kingsmill mansion, circa 1724-1820, two stories high, each
floor 61‘ x 40‘. This mansion was flanked by two brick dependencies (22‘ x 45‘) that
housed slaves along with the kitchen and plantation offices and created a symmetrically
ordered Big House complex. There was also a two-room home on the property (42‘ x
19‘) that was apparently first used by whites and then by blacks, communal slave quarters
(40‘ x 18‘ and 28‘ x 20‘), as well as a large range of other wooden, earthfast buildings in
three separate quarters. One quarter was stretched out along Quartermaster Road, the
main road passing Kingsmill‘s Big House and connecting Williamsburg with Burwell‘s
Ferry Landing. Two other quarters were to the north and east, the second near the second
Big House incorporated into the Burwell plantation. These wooden buildings ranged in
size from a 40‘ x 18‘ two-room building with a 12‘ x 36‘ lean-to to an 8‘ x 8‘ structure.
When the Kingsmill properties were put up for sale by the Burwell family in the 1780s,
they were appropriately advertised as having ―every necessary outhouse.‖
In the Kingsmill pattern, the brick Great House with a well and brick ―offices‖
(kitchen, dairy, laundry, and storehouse) were symmetrically arranged on a prominent
bluff, with extensive formal landscaping, whereas virtually all the wooden, earthfast
structures were apparently randomly strung out along a road—their placement restricted
only by the location of spring water for the slave dwellings, some quarter mile down the
road, with large ―puddles‖ and waste disposal areas nearby. This pattern was probably
repeated at other large plantations in the early eighteenth century. On the poorer farms,
where most slaves lived, lofts, kitchens, and small cabins housed the black population,
and both blacks and whites lived admidst disorder.
By the last decades of the century a new trend toward overall order and
symmetricality affected many of the larger plantations. George Washington, for
example, reorganized his slave housing in 1793, taking a great deal of time, trouble, and
expense to have the outlying slave houses and cabins moved and refit. They were
reorganized in rigid lines or streets, ―a uniform shape in a convenient place,‖ as he
described it. The ―convenient place‖ was along a straight fence, opposite the overseer‘s
house at each outlying farm. At Muddy Hole farm, however, where Davy, a slave, was
the overseer, the slaves remained in small cabins, randomly situated among the trees.
Washington‘s slaves lived in a wide range of housing. At the Big House, circa
1785, he built what he called the Greenhouse Quarters. These were two immense halls,
each 20‘ x 70.5‘, flanking a central greenhouse room that gave these quarters a
substantial Big House look from the outside, belying the fact that unlike his family
mansion, these ―mansion‖ quarters housed some ninety slaves. Other slaves lived in
cabins, some near the mansion but most of them at the four outlying farms. These were
built by the occupants themselves out of locally available logs, with the interstices
―daubed and filled in.‖ But even at the quarters, groups of slaves lived in larger,
carpenter-built houses of scantling, plank, and shingles. Analyses of the black families
on Washington‘s plantations indicate that most married couples were living at separate
locations, and these larger houses may well have accommodated mixed related and

399

unrelated groups. Similarly at Philip Ludwell Lee‘s plantation, it would appear that
groups of eight to twenty-four slaves were communally housed in one- or two-room
structures
White homes, too, in the seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth centuries,
often housed ―motley crews‖ of relatives, inlaws, stepchildren, boarders, servants, and
slaves; but by the late eighteenth century, these homes had by and large come to house
more stable nuclear families. Black patterns changed over this time as well. As blacks
married and established families, the small cabin came to be the modal form. Earlier,
most blacks probably had lived kitchens, lofts, sheds, and houses in communal
arrangements, although the very small slave hut was known at the outset of the slave
period as well. ―[T]he first thing to be done,‖ advised a Southerner to prospective
planters in 1710, ―is after having cutt down a few Trees, to split Palisades or Clapboards
and therewith make small Houses or Huts to shelter the slaves.‖ Such small cabins could,
of course, house a mixed group rather than a family. J. F. Smyth, in Virginia in 1774,
slept one night in what he described as a small ―wretched and miserable‖ one-room hut,
with one bed and no other furniture. A white overseer and five or six slaves lived here
together, isolated by over five miles of wilderness in each direction.
The slave, Old Dick, had reported that his young owner, Dr. Sutherland,
encouraged slave couples to live in separate cabins, and this may well have representative
of a process underway with both blacks and whites moving slaves toward family homes.
Dick himself was very pleased when Spencer Ball ―allowed me to build a log-house, and
take in a patch of land where I raise corn and water Melions. I keep chickens and ducks,
turkeys and geese.‖ John Davis, the schoolmaster on this plantation, living himself in a
small log house, described Dick‘s home in some detail:
Dick‘s log-hut was not unpleasantly situated. He had built it near a spring of clear
water, and defended it from the sun by an awning of boughs. It was in Mr. Ball‘s peachorchard. A cock that never strayed from his cabin served him instead of a time-keeper;
and a dog that lay always before his door was an equivalent for a lock.
Whites certainly played a role in blacks‘ use of space. They wanted their homes
small, cheap, and generally near one another, although Dick and many others were living
apart. Jefferson is known to have ordered his overseer to build the Negro houses close
together so that ―the fewer nurses may serve & that the children may be more easily
attended to by the superannuated women.‖ He, as many other slaveowners, selected sites
for slave houses. For example, he wrote his overseer in Bedford County, Joel Yancey,
―Maria having now a child, I promised her a house to be built this winter, be so good as
to have it done. place it along the garden fence on the road Eastward from Hannah‘s
house.‖ Jefferson‘s promise was clearly given in response to a black‘s request,
dependent on her family status. Maria was Hannah‘s sister. They no doubt wanted
houses next to each other. The overseer is being ordered to do what the slave wanted.
Slaves also wanted small proximate housing: it fit their own inner language of building
and space. And slaves probably wanted small cabins for each family: it now fit their
social needs.
At Jefferson‘s quarters after the turn of the century it would appear women, both
with husbands and without, had cabins. He wrote his overseer, Jeremiah A. Goodman,

400

that ―Several of the negro women complain that their houses want repair badly. this
should be attended to every winter. for the present winter, repair, of preference those of
women who have no husbands to do it for them.‖
When slaveowners built slave quarters or barracks for house slaves, sometimes
what seems to have been a black inner language influenced them. Jefferson seems to
have built his servant quarters with the 12-foot African protoform in mind. He described
Mulberry Row, just below the Great House at Monticello, as including ―a servants‘ house
20 ½ f. by 12 f. of wood, with a wooden chimney, & earth floor,‖ three servants houses
12‘ x 14‘, with wooden chimneys and earthen floors; one 12‘ x 20 ½; a joiner‘s shed 12
½‘ x 25‘, and a stable 12 x 105 ½. Only the washhouse was 16.5‘ by 16.5‘.
Houses that were 12-feet square, or close to that size, dotted the countryside,
sometimes used for white although most often for black homes. Sometimes the very
same building served blacks and whites serially. In 1770, Landon Carter recorded that
―Guy and the Carpenters gone to build Jamy and Jugg a 12 foot house, then to new fit
their house and remove it for Doleman to live.‖ Here, Carter‘s black carpenters were
building a 12‘ x 12‘ house for a black couple, but they were also refitting a similar former
slave cabin for John Doleman, white overseer at Fork Quarter, who had a wife and child.
―The Carpenters removed Jugg‘s house as far as Doleman chose to have it from the
spring.‖ Doleman, like the slaves, did not have a well: springs served slaves and
probably most whites in the eighteenth century.
One feature does seem to distinguish eighteenth-century slave housing from that
of whites: earthen root cellars, often wood-lined, dug near the chimneys, and generally
later backfilled with debris, have been found in slave quarters at Kingsmill and
Monticello. In the large communal buildings at Kingsmill, up to eighteen backfilled
cellars have been found. (Kelso posits that they were used for private food storage and
perhaps filled with the bones of animals taken without the plantation owner‘s
knowledge.) The presence of these cellars at most Kingsmill buildings had led to the
assumption that they were occupied by slaves. This has made it difficult to identify the
white overseer‘s home. What seems likely is that here, as at Carter‘s plantation and at
Washington‘s, whites occupied buildings that had been slave quarters, indicating
important inner values in relation to shared space. Black and white housing had been
much the same and was interchangeable. But this situation was itself changing, and by
the end of the eighteenth century, whites were more likely to be in larger houses and/or to
want to mark their distinction from slaves. In the 1790s Washington‘s two black
overseers at Muddy Hole and Dogue Run farms each had houses 16‘ x 20‘, one room up
and one down. At the other farms the white overseers‘ homes were of similar
construction—scantling, plank, and shingles—but considerably larger. At Union farm
the house had two rooms below, each 16‘ x 18‘, one room above, and a separate kitchen
shed.
During most of the eighteenth century, if the poor or ―middling‖ white was in a
house larger than the small slave cabin, it was only slightly larger, and although a much
higher percentage of the white houses appeared to be frame dwellings, many of these
were log houses covered with boards.

401

Source: Mechal Sobel, The World They Made Together: Black and White Values in
Eighteenth-Century Virginia, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 71-73,
104-113.

****

Camille Wells provides a succinct summary of slave housing with several examples from
the Northern Neck.
What passed for slave housing in eighteenth-century Virginia included a wide
assortment of accommodations. Some slaves were forced to make themselves at home in
the vacant corners of buildings designed for other purposes. Joseph Ball wrote in 1758
that some of the slaves at his Little Falls plantation "must ly in the tobacco house." At
Marmion in King George County, the unlit kitchen loft enclosed living space for two
black households. By the middle of the century, however, most slaves apparently lived in
small one- or two-room wood structures that varied in size from a 7-by-8-foot example at
one of Joseph Ball's quarters to John Gordon's comparatively spacious 30-by-16-foot
structure. The brick chimneys of Gordon's example suggest that it also represented the
top of the line in terms of finish and state of repair. So did the quarters available to some
of the slaves at Joseph Ball's Forest plantation in Lancaster County: ―well cover'd
weatherboarded, and lath'd & filled,‖ each with a "good plank door, with iron hinges & a
good lock & key." At the opposite end of the range of possibilities was the ―miserable
shell, a poor apology for a house‖ that an English traveler claimed to have shared one
night in 1784 with six slaves and their overseer: "[It] was not lathed nor plaistered,
neither ceiled nor lofted above, and only very thin boards for its covering; it had a door in
each side, and one window, but no glass in it; it had not even a brick chimney, and as it
stood on blocks about a foot above the ground, the hogs lay constantly under the floor,
which made it swarm with fleas." Clearly, slave dwellings in eighteenth-century Virginia
could be very humble. But the presence of the white overseer hints at another reality of
this landscape. Slave housing was never vastly inferior in terms of size and finish to that
occupied by most of the Chesapeake's common planters and landless laborers. They
were all just colonial Virginians with few material resources—they were poor.
Source: Camille Wells, ―Social and Economic Aspects of Eighteenth-Century Housing
on the Northern Neck of Virginia,‖ (College of William and Mary: Ph.D. diss., 1994), pp.
58-59.
AMERICAN DIVERSITY: Williamsburg Sites

The Apothecary
The first part of this section focuses on the slaves owned by John Minson Galt and William
Pasteur. Galt and Pasteur were partners from April 1775 to December 1778. Second, an

402

excerpt from Lorena S. Walsh‘s book, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove: The History of a
Virginia Slave Community, details the medical care that members of the Burwell family
customarily provided for their slaves.
John Minson Galt
Doctor John Minson Galt established his practice in Williamsburg in February
1769 after he completed his medical training at St. Thomas‘ Hospital in London. Galt
married Judith Craig, the daughter of Alexander Craig, in June 1769. Judith Craig owned
two slaves when she married Galt: Nanny (who was a girl when Craig inherited her from
Mark Cosby in 1752) and Nanny‘s son, Henry ( who was baptised on April 7, 1765). It is
likely that Henry was the slave named Harry in Galt‘s household in the 1780s. Nanny
was one of the doctor‘s six tithes in September 1773. Galt might have had an apprentice
and several other slaves in his household.
Galt took advantage of the disruption caused by the Revolution and gained
possession of three slaves left behind by Graham Frank, a Loyalist. Galt acquired a
woman named Betty in 1779 and two boys—Jack and Billy—the following year.
Perhaps Jack and Billy were Betty‘s sons. It is known that Betty gave birth to two
children. Her son, George Preston, was baptized in July 1783, and a daughter, Polly
Preston, was baptized in May 1785. Betty might have had a connection to the free black
community because both of her children had a surname.
Doctor Galt had both enslaved adults and children in his household in 1783, 1784,
and 1786:
1783—Sam, Harry, Jenny, Rachel, and Betty over sixteen
Lewis, Suckey, Polly, Jack, and Billy under sixteen
1784—Sam, Harry, George, Lewis, Rachel, and Betty over sixteen
Polly, Suckey, Billy, and Jack under sixteen
1786—George, Harry, Betty, and Rachel over sixteen
Suckey, Polly, Jack, Billy, George, and Mary under sixteen
Unfortunately, there is no evidence about the work that Galt‘s slaves performed. Betty
and Rachel might have assisted Judith Galt with cooking, cleaning, and doing laundry.
Judith Galt gave birth to two daughters, Sarah Trebell in 1782 and Lucy Ann in 1785. It
is possible that there was a bond between Judith Galt and Betty because they experienced
pregnancy and child birth in the early 1780s. Perhaps Harry accompanied Doctor Galt
when he traveled to Carter‘s Grove and other nearby plantations to treat slaves.
Galt lived in Williamsburg until the time of his death in 1808. However, there is
no evidence about the fate of his enslaved men, women, and children.

403

William Pasteur
William Pasteur was the son of John [Jean] Pasteur, a Williamsburg wigmaker.
Pasteur inherited a slave girl named Ecbee from his uncle, Thomas Harris, by 1745.
There is no additional information about Ecbee.
In 1760, Pasteur had two tithables, presumably an adult slave in addition to
himself. Pasteur married Elizabeth whose maiden name is unknown. Their son, William
Stith Pasteur, was born on November 12, 1762. Pasteur's slave woman Ely had a
daughter (whose name not given in the records) baptized on November 6, 1763, and
Lucy's son Benjamin was baptized at Bruton on November 2, 1766. The doctor had nine
tithes in his household on the James City County side of Williamsburg in 1768. The
following year Pasteur had seven tithes. The doctor purchased a mulatto man named
Wentworth, livestock, and household goods for £40 from Thomas Brammer in January
1771.
An Oyer and Terminer case involved "William Scott alias Sam," a Negro man
slave belonging to William Winston of Hanover County, who broke into Pasteur's kitchen
on 22 April 1762. Sam was first condemned to die by hanging but was afterwards
pardoned by Governor Fauquier.
Pasteur shows up frequently in the Burwell Account Books. Between 1764 and
1771, Pasteur's account totaling £85.8.5—presumably for medical treatment of both
whites and blacks at Carter's Grove—was paid off in cash, wheat, corn, straw, fodder,
pork, lamb, and other local products. Pasteur was also one of Nathaniel Burwell's best
customers for the whiskey distilled at the Burwell plantation in Frederick County or at
Carter's Grove. On August 15, 1777 the apothecary was charged £15.10.0 for thirty-one
gallons of whiskey. In the spring of 1778 Pasteur and Galt charged £34.4.0 for
inoculations performed on Burwell's family and slaves. There is a suggestion in 1780
that Pasteur treated Nathaniel Burwell's people at the quarter at King's Creek.
Doctor Pasteur purchased 630 acres on King‘s Creek in Yorkhampton Parish in
1773. He had eight tithes tending the fields on his plantation by September of that year.
Five adult laborers worked on Pasteur‘s land in 1778. The doctor relocated his family
and Williamsburg slaves to Yorkhampton Parish after his partnership with Doctor John
Minson Galt expired in December 1778. It is likely that the move to Yorkhampton Parish
broke some of the ties that Pasteur‘s slaves had to other slaves and free blacks who lived
in Williamsburg.
In July 1780 Pasteur announced that he would sell an unnamed ―very valuable
negro fellow,‖ who was thirty-five years old, ―remarkably strong and active.‖ The doctor
noted that he ―has been regularly brought up to the butchering business‖ and was also a
good hostler. He advised his readers to contact him in York County or to see Dr. Galt in
Williamsburg for terms of the sale.65
65

Virginia Gazette, Clarkson, ed., August 19, 1780.

404

Pasteur added to his labor force in the late 1770s and the early 1780s. In 1784 he
had an unnamed overseer and twenty-five slaves on his plantation:
Abraham, Daniel, Wentworth, Jemmy, Harry, Tom, Emanuel, Sam, Natt, Edy,
Rachel, Sally, Judith, Edy, and Molly over sixteen
William, Joe, Abraham, Barkley, Billy, Watt, Henry, Fanny, Sally, and Ariana
under sixteen
The following year Pasteur had a total of twenty tithes and seven slave children in
Yorkhampton Parish.
The doctor returned to Williamsburg in late 1785 or early 1786. He appeared on
the 1786 Williamsburg Personal Property Tax List as the owner of six slaves over
sixteen—Wentworth, Sam, Edy, Rachel, Nelly, and Edy. Pasteur had an equal number of
slaves under sixteen—Barkley, Sally, Billy, Watt, Ariana, and Lucy.
Pasteur placed an advertisement for a runaway slave in the May 20, 1790 issue of
the Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser. He offered a ten dollar reward ―FOR taking
up and delivering to William Rose, jailor in Richmond, or John Fenton, jailor in
Williamsburg, my negro man, JEMMY, who left my Farm in York county about four
weeks ago. He is a tall, active, yellowish fellow, remarkably stout, and thick lips, by
which alone he may be known, speaks quick, is very apt to smile when he speaks; he is a
sensible fellow, and will perhaps endeavour to pass for a free man; was my foreman; has
no striking fault but an impudent tongue – never run away before. I will sell him for a
good price, and his wife also, if required.‖66 It is possible that Jemmy was the slave
named James on the 1791 inventory of Pasteur‘s estate.
William Pasteur‘s will was recorded in the Williamsburg Hustings Court on July
4, 1791. He left his slave Pat and her three children to his niece, Ann Smith, the wife of
Granville Smith. The doctor noted that ―I desire that my Executors or administrators
after my Wife‘s death may immediately procure my mulatto fellow Wentworth and my
mulatto girl Nelly their freedom.‖ His widow received all the rest of the estate for her
lifetime. After Elizabeth Pasteur's death, her share of the estate was to be sold and
divided among his nephew William Pasteur (son of Blovet Pasteur), his niece Anne
Smith, and his sister Ann Craig (wife of Thomas Craig). Pasteur appointed his wife,
Elizabeth, and Nathaniel Burwell of Martin‘s Hundred to serve as the executors of his
estate.67
The July 27, 1791 inventory of Pasteur‘s York County estate included the
following slaves:
66

67

Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, May 20, 1790.

Will of William Pasteur, dated October 1, 1788 and recorded on July 4, 1791, Robert Anderson Papers,
Mss1An245b24, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, Virginia.

405

James
Harry
Sam
Pompey
Tom
Gilly
Nimmo [?]

£60
£50
£60
£60
£50
£60
£60

Sarah
George
Abraham
Billey
Judieth
Jack
Joe

£45
£60
£2
£55
£10
£50
£50

The August 16, 1791 inventory of Pasteur‘s personal property in Goochland County
included the names of seven slaves:
man Bob
man Robbin
man Ben
man Jo
man Billey
man Nimrod
woman Phebe

£10
£15
£60
£60
£60
£65
£35

Both inventories were recorded in the Williamsburg Hustings Court on February 6,
1792.68

****

The Carter's Grove account books, a collection of bills and receipts from Lewis
Burwell III and Lewis Burwell IV of Kingsmill, and the 1783-85 medical diary of
Williamsburg physician John Minson Galt, who doctored the black and white families at
both Carter's Grove and King's Creek, provide information about some of the kinds of
medical care that the various Burwell owners customarily provided their slaves. These
accounts of course give but part of the picture, for they document only payments made to
medical professionals: midwives, dentists or barber-surgeons, and physicians. They
reveal little or nothing of internal plantation medicine, which likely had an equal if not
greater impact on the slaves‘ well-being than did professional ministrations. What is
omitted from these records is as revealing as what was recorded.
Some combination of slave healers, quarter overseers, estate managers, and
resident master or mistress, for example, tended to almost all of the assorted physical
injuries-cuts, sprains, burns, broken bones, and the like-that both the adult workers and
younger children must often have suffered. So far as we can determine, physicians were
almost never called on to treat such accidental injuries. Plantation residents must also
have initially doctored most cases of ague, fever, colds, dysentery, and intestinal parasites
that were seasonally endemic to the area. Until the last quarter of the eighteenth century,
the owners appear often to have turned to medical professionals (with the exception of
68

Burwell Manuscripts, Alderman Library, University of Virginia.

406

midwives) only when home remedies or more exotic imported drugs sold over the
counter by town apothecaries proved ineffectual. By the 1780s, however, the various
Burwells increasingly relied on European-trained local doctors to treat a broad range of
ailments, especially among the adult slaves. But at the same time there are hints that
toward the end of the century the slaves may also have begun to manage some areas of
health care themselves.
One clear pattern that emerges from the extant medical and financial records is
the owners‘ long-standing decision to hire professional midwives to attend the slave
women when they gave birth. Such assistance reflected customary birthing practices
within the European community, as well as the owners‘ financial interest in preserving
the health of both the mothers and their enslaved offspring. The hired midwives also may
have provided skills that were in short supply in the quarters early in the century. Since
many of the African-born women had been taken from their homelands while they were
still in their teens or at most in their early twenties, their collective experience with
childbirthing was perhaps limited. Much of the accumulated medical knowledge of older
African women must surely have been lost in the forced migration to the New World.
From the 1740s into the 1770s, local midwives Ann Fortune, Mary Clark, Mrs.
Slater, and Granny Lester (or Lister) delivered numerous black babies at both Carter‘s
Grove and at Kingsmill, receiving a standard fee of ten shillings per delivery. Lester, who
assisted at the births of at least four mothers at Kingsmill and Carter‘s Grove, was
probably Sarah Lester, the widow of John Lester, a Yorkhampton Parish planter of
middling means. Lester regularly delivered babies for slave women on other neighboring
plantations and also for local whites and additionally treated minor ailments, such as
curing the sore leg of Sall, a woman at the Bryan farm between Kingsmill and King‘s
Creek. Catherine Blaikley, a well-regarded Williamsburg midwife who served a large
clientele over a long professional career, submitted a bill for £1 2s. 6d. to Carter Burwell
for unspecified services in 1739. She may have attended either Carter‘s wife Lucy (who
bore no baby that year but could have had a miscarriage) or one or more of the Carter‘s
Grove slave women. Blaikley, Lester, and Slater were white; Fortune and Clark cannot be
further identified.
Before the Revolution, Burwell family overseers managing more distant
plantations also were under order to secure midwives for the pregnant women in their
charge. In 1733, for example, Charles Carter, acting as executor for his father, informed
Lewis Burwell of Kingsmill that he had to pay midwives‘ fees for three women who
lived on western quarters and were part of Lewis‘s father‘s estate. In 1754 Carter Burwell
reimbursed Frederick County overseer John Ashby for the ten shillings he had paid a
neighborhood midwife to assist at a birth there. In the later 1760s western overseers
Thomas Shelton, William Pollard, Robert Catlett, and James Ware regularly submitted
accounts to Carter Burwell‘s executor William Nelson that included payments to local
midwives Sarah Balanger (probably the wife of a neighboring landowner in the Millwood
area), Mrs. Garnet, and Mrs. Stevens. Reimbursable birthing expenses also included
small amounts of brandy, rum, and molasses that the overseers bought for either the
mother or the women who attended her labor.
After about 1775 the Burwell family records are less clear about who assisted
women giving birth. Nathaniel Burwell II‘s accounts note only one payment of twelve
shillings to an unidentified midwife in 1782; however, the ten shillings he paid Polly

407

Clarke in 1776 for unspecified services may also have represented the customary
midwife‘s compensation. Once in 1785 Nathaniel took the extraordinary step of calling in
Dr. Galt, who had trained in midwifery at St. Thomas‘s Hospital in London, to attend
Sukey, a woman on the home plantation, in what must have been an exceptionally
difficult labor. There must have been several dozen more births at the quarters before the
turn of the century. It seems unlikely that Nathaniel II continued the family practice of
calling in midwives but routinely failed in later years to record payments, and it is even
more improbable that he decided to cut costs so drastically as to eliminate their services.
Later, in the early 1800s after the white family had moved to Frederick County,
neither estate manager John Bryan at Carter‘s Grove nor Nathaniel Burwell II‘s son
Nathaniel Jr., who was managing the outlying tidewater quarters, noted any payments to
midwives. Both kept detailed records of quite small expenditures, so it is unlikely that
they, too, omitted mention of birthing fees. In 1806 however, Bryan did seek credit for
1s. 6d. he had paid for sugar and an identical amount for molasses and rice for Kate, 1s.
6d. for sugar and brandy for Judy, and 2s. 4d. and 1s. 2d. to an overseer who had bought
molasses and rice for Rose. These appear to be the customary provisions provided to
birthing women and their attendants.
From this negative evidence one is left with the supposition that toward the end of
the 1700s the slave women gained almost complete autonomy over their childbirthing.
By then there must have been one or more slave midwives at Carter‘s Grove who assisted
at slave births at both the home house and the outlying quarters. Free black midwives
may have played some intermediary, if unrecorded, role in this transfer of responsibility
from outsiders to the slave community. Midwife Mary Roberts, for example, who
practiced in the area through the 1740s, and whom Carter Burwell paid for delivering a
slave woman belonging to a local orphan whose estate he administered, was a free
mulatto who lived in Chiscake, the upland ridge area interior to Carter‘s Grove. Other
members of the Roberts family subsequently rented houses and ground from the
Burwells. Later, from 1782 until at least 1813, another free mulatto midwife, Betty
Armfield (or Amphill), rented a tenement on Carter‘s Grove or on one of the quarters.
Neither Roberts nor Armfield were ever recorded as having been compensated for
delivering babies at Carter‘s Grove. However, it seems likely that one or both may have
shared their knowledge and skills with some of the Carter‘s Grove women whom the
Burwells eventually accepted as legitimate professionals.
Otherwise the surviving materials suggest a variety of decisions about medical
care that depended much on individual circumstance. In the mid-1730s, after King
Carter‘s death, Lewis Burwell III of Kingsmill took responsibility for the Merchant‘s
Hundred slaves whom his minor nephew Carter Burwell was to inherit. Perhaps wishing
to avoid any accusation of failing to take proper care of his nephew‘s human legacy,
Lewis paid substantial sums in 1735 and 1736 to Williamsburg physicians Robert
Davidson and George Gilmore to visit and provide medicines for the Merchant‘s
Hundred people. Another payment to William Bryan in 1736 for ―bleeding 26 negroes at
Foaces and Mill quarters‖ also suggests an asset-preserving strategy, devoid of much
concern for the feelings and preferences of the men, women, and children who had to
undergo such treatments.
Once he came of age, Carter Burwell, the first resident master at Carter‘s Grove,
like his better-documented contemporaries William Byrd II and Landon Carter,

408

apparently played the role of family physician to himself, to members of his white family,
and to his slaves. In the end pages of his plantation account book, Burwell recorded some
of the recipes that he had collected from various local doctors for compounding
medicines from a variety of imported ingredients. There were variously intended to cure
―dry gripes,‖ a gastrointestinal disorder from which he himself suffered; to treat pleurisy
(inflammation of the chest cavity); and to make purges and worm powders. As Byrd‘s
and Carter‘s diaries make clear, most young children, black and white alike, frequently
suffered from intestinal parasites. Burwell noted approvingly that Dr. John Symmer of
Gloucester County had cured a critically sick black child with one of the recorded
compounds. He may have dosed children on his own plantations with this strenuous
concoction of powdered rhubarb (a botanic purgative), coralline (a vermifuge made from
seaweed), and tine, which was to be preceded and followed by additional purges of
rhubarb, calomel (mercurous chloride), resin of jalap (another botanic purgative), and
Jesuit‘s bark (cinchona), mixed with honey and molasses or else steeped in strong beer.
Burwell‘s attempts at doctoring often must have failed, however, for he also
employed Williamsburg physicians John Amson, Alexander Mackenzie, Henry Potter,
Thomas Wharton, and John de Sequeyra and Yorktown doctors John Payras and George
Riddell to treat both black and white family members. In addition, he paid Elizabeth
Hansford, a local white woman who nursed several of Burwell‘s own children, £10 16s.
3d. for caring for slaves infected in the smallpox epidemic of 1748.
Carter Burwell‘s executor William Nelson—like Lewis Burwell III in the
1730s—probably also erred on the side of caution in attempting to preserve the health of
the estate‘s workers. During his executorship he engaged Williamsburg doctors Peter
Hay, William Pasteur, William Carter, George Pitt, and John Minson Galt to tend to both
the blacks and the Burwell children. In addition, Nelson once hired Galt‘s wife, rather
than the physician himself, to ‗cure a sore negro.‘ Nathaniel Burwell II had similar
concern for caring for the human property of his cousins at King‘s Creek in the 1770s.
His administration accounts include payment for a blister and plaster for an old woman
belonging to the estate.
Decaying and sometimes painfully abscessed teeth were a recurring health
problem. The Burwells routinely paid physicians and surgeons like Andrew Anderson
and John Galt to perform more complicated extractions. Between 1745 and 1748, for
example, Anderson drew teeth for Robin, Phil, Sarah, Lucy, and Jack the miller from
Kingsmill, as well as bleeding Moll. Similarly, Carter Burwell gave Joshua from Mill
Quarter 2s. 6d. to go to town to get a tooth pulled in 1749. Between 1783 and 1785 Dr.
Galt drew teeth for Gregory, Moses, Simon, Jenny, and Cate from Carter‘s Grove and for
Rachel and an unnamed man from King‘s Creek. Frequent and severe dental problems
were also evident among the slaves buried at Utopia Quarter. Of the ten individuals with
some preserved teeth, six had either lost one or more teeth before they died, or else had
caries in those remaining. By the time she died, one older woman had apparently lost all
her teeth in half of her upper jaw.
The doctors most often came out to the quarters to visit the sick, although the
Burwells also sent some slaves who were able to travel into Williamsburg for treatment.
Only rarely did the owners resort to professionals to treat physical injuries. One
exception is recorded by a 1767 bill from Williamsburg doctor George Pitt, who sutured

409

and dressed the face of a man from Kingsmill at the request of a local tavern keeper.
Apparently he had an accident or got into a fight while on a trip to town.
The more detailed medical bills from Kingsmill, covering the middle two quarters
of the century, indicate that the most common treatments these physicians administered
were the then standard regimens of bleeding and purging. These were routinely
employed in an attempt to cure a broad range of often undiagnosed illnesses, ailments
that fall within the realm of what one would today term internal medicine. Although we
tend to regard bloodletting as an exclusively European practice, Africans may have found
it a relatively familiar treatment. Equiano, for example, related that doctors in his
homeland ‗practiced bleeding by cupping.‘ Such strenuous interventions, however, did
not play nearly so central a role in healing in contemporary African medicine as they did
among Europeans. Moreover, any injury or illness in the quarters that required some
medical intervention inevitably raised perplexing issues of autonomy and control. Sick
slaves may often have turned first to self-help solicited in secret from local black healers.
If these remedies proved ineffective, they still may have attempted to conceal illnesses as
long as possible, rather than submit to whatever treatments and regimens the owner might
administer or dictate.
After he came of age, Nathaniel Burwell II variously employed Williamsburg
physicians Galt, Pasteur, de Sequeyra, Philip Barraud, William Carter, and Richard
Coulthard and surgeon-dentist John Baker to doctor his family and workers. Nathaniel
had some knowledge of recent medical advances, deciding, for example, to pay,
periodically, for inoculation against smallpox for all unexposed slaves as a routine
preventive measure. Unlike his father, however, Nathaniel seems to have eschewed the
role of family physician. He recorded no directions for compounding medicines in any of
his extant papers, and his financial accounts, as well as Galt‘s medical diary, suggest
instead much greater reliance on medical professionals. Although Burwell and his
overseers occasionally purchased some medicines that may have been used to doctor
minor ailments in the quarters, the fact that he called on Galt to treat ailments that
prompted no more serious remedies than liniment, plasters, Virginia snakeroot, or gargles
suggests considerable disengagement.
One suspects that by the end of the century overseers and the estate managers
were expected to treat only physical injuries and minor illnesses and to call a doctor for
most serious health problems. Between 1801 and 1806, for example, when Nathaniel
was absent from the Grove, estate manager John Bryan arranged for issues of brandy,
sugar, molasses, and rice to invalids and occasionally also purchased over-the-counter
drugs, such as salts. Overseers on more distant quarters clearly were authorized to
engage doctors to treat cases of illnesses that did not respond to customary remedies and
to employ local residents to nurse ailing slaves who proved unable to work for long
periods of time. The western overseers, for example, employed Drs. Wells (or Wills),
Jones, and Mackey to treat laborers for whom they were responsible, as well as paying
the other local men and women for ‗keeping,‘ or tending, others who were chronically
sick.
From 1778 on, Burwell apparently made arrangements with Williamsburg doctor
John Galt to provide routine medical care for his slaves and those of his cousin Nathaniel
Junior at King‘s Creek, whose estate he administered. Between October 1783 and
October 1785, for which his medical diaries are extant, Galt made ten general plantation

410

visits to Carter‘s Grove, New Quarter, and Foaces and in addition at other times treated
separately about thirty-seven individuals, including twenty-six adults. Several, including
Kate, Jenny, Sam, Simon, and Betty, shared a common name with one or more other
adult Carter‘s Grove slaves. Galt‘s diary did not always specify age or residence—
Carter‘s Grove or one of the quarters—so it is impossible to determine the exact number
of his patients. Over this same period Galt also treated six blacks (four adults and two
children) at King‘s Creek separately.
Tax lists for 1783-86 record about seventy-three adult slaves aged sixteen and
over and about thirty-seven younger slave children at Nathaniel II‘s holdings. At King‘s
Creek there were between thirty-seven and thirty-nine adults and twenty-two to twentysix children. Thus, Galt treated at least a quarter of the adults at Carter‘s Grove one or
more times over the course of a single year but perhaps fewer than 10 percent of the
children. It is unclear whether Burwell was reluctant to spend much on professional
medical care for children too young to work, or whether the slaves were themselves
reluctant to subject sick youngsters to the standard European medical treatments. The
result, however, was that seriously ailing laboring men and women and old people were
eventually treated by a European-trained professional, while the health care of most
youngsters was confined to the realm of plantation medicine.
Since Dr. Galt recorded only procedures used and remedies prescribed, and not
diagnoses, it is usually unclear what diseases or conditions he was treating. He did note
that a woman had contracted a venereal disease and prescribed an unguent used for
treating infected wounds for one man. Several of the sick children were afflicted with
internal parasites that Galt treated with worm powders and laxatives. Apparently there
was no particular ‗sickly season,‘ or at least none that involved ailments for which
professional treatment was indicated. With the exception of January and February, when
bad roads may have precluded travel, Galt‘s ministrations were spread fairly evenly
across the calendar year. Whatever the ailment, the doctor most often relied on the
standard bleeding and purging, and he occasionally also administered blisters and
plasters, fever remedies, gargles, and painkillers. About two-thirds of the sick either
recovered or died after a single visit. Galt was called in to treat the remaining third of the
adult male and female patients between two and five times per year.
Because, across the eighteenth century, most of the Burwell group lived near a
town amply supplied with physicians, the adult slaves who developed serious health
problems were likely to be treated more often and more promptly by medical
professionals than were slaves living in more rural areas. However, given the limited
efficacy of medicine at the time, it is uncertain whether they gained much benefit or in
fact were more harmed than helped. Whatever healing skills were available on the
individual quarters to treat common injuries and ailments were likely to have been
equally or more important, and about these we know almost nothing. Other factors such
as a calorically and nutritionally adequate diet, sufficient clothing and shelter, and
reasonable labor requirements would have contributed much more to their general wellbeing. In these areas slaves on the Burwell quarters seem to have fared no better than
those living on most other large plantations.
Source: Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove, pp. 173-180.

411

The Blacksmith
In 1775, three of the blacksmiths in Williamsburg owned slaves—James Anderson,
Robert Bond, and John Draper. Anderson, Bond, and Draper also relied on the labor of
apprentices in their shops.
James Anderson
James Anderson, the son of William and Sarah Anderson, was born in Gloucester
County on January 24, 1739/40. Anderson established his blacksmith business in
Williamsburg by 1763. In February of that year, he agreed to take James Banks, a free
mulatto of York County, as his apprentice. Banks apprenticed himself to Anderson for
seven years to learn the trade of a blacksmith and how to read and write.69
Anderson received his appointment as the public armourer for Virginia by
October of 1765. One of the items that he and others in his shop made was a ―strong iron
collar…. with the letters (P. G.) stamped thereon.‖ Anderson placed the iron collar
around the neck of any slave hired out by the Keeper of the Public Gaol.70
It is known that the blacksmith was a slaveowner by November 1766. He
purchased a slave woman named Pat from William Cosby for £26.11.9. Pat might have
helped Anderson‘s wife, Hannah, with the cooking, cleaning, and laundry. The
blacksmith hired a slave woman named Jenny from Edmund Bacon in 1770.71 Surviving
documents do not indicate when Anderson gained possession of Nat, an enslaved
blacksmith. Perhaps Nat received his training as a blacksmith in Anderson‘s shop.
Anderson purchased the southern half of Lot 19 in 1767. The blacksmith bought
Lot 18 and part of Lot 19 on Duke of Gloucester Street from William Holt in October
1770. He did not move his business to Lot 18 right after he gained possession of the
property; the blacksmith rented the lot to William Drinkard, a tavern keeper, by February
1771. It is possible that Drinkard operated a tavern on Lot 18 for a short period of time.
69

James Banks was a poor orphan ordered to be bound out by the churchwardens of Yorkhampton Parish
on February 21, 1763, the date of his apprenticeship to James Anderson. He would have been at least 14
years old to have apprenticed himself to Anderson. It is possible that he was the son of Elizabeth Banks or
Moll Banks, two free mulatto women who lived in Yorkhampton Parish. Banks served his apprenticeship
with Anderson and probably remained in the Williamsburg area. The grand jury presented him on
November 19, 1770 and on July 15, 1771 for not listing himself as a tithe (his name appears on the
presentment with the names of known residents of Bruton Parish). The July 1771 presentment is the last
reference to Banks in the York County records.
70

May 1726—ACT IV. An Act for amending the Act concerning Servants and Slaves; and for the further
preventing the clandestine transportation of Persons out of this Colony in Hening, ed., The Statutes at
Large, 4:168-173.
71

Virginia Gazette, Rind, ed., August 8, 1771.

412

Archaeological evidence indicates that Anderson had forges on the western boundary of
Lot 18 and on part of Lot 19.
This blacksmith became the Public Armourer for the Commonwealth of Virginia
on March 20, 1776.72 Anderson agreed to rent his shop and laborers to the
Commonwealth. The blacksmith and the Council reached the following agreement on
December 3, 1777:
The Governor & Council this day agreed to allow Mr James Anderson
(Blacksmith) thirty two pounds per month for Nine Hands, & twenty shillings per
Diem (Sundays excluded) for himself; and at the rate of Ninety pounds per
Annum for his Shop & Tools for Six Months to commence from the 21st Septr
last. Mr Anderson is to be allowed Rations for himself & Workeman—a load of
Wood per Week or as much as is necessary to cook for the Workmen. The Wages
of the Journeymen are to be as Cheap as Mr Anderson can get them for. Mr
Anderson attended in Council & accepted of the above Terms.73
Advertisements in the Virginia Gazette indicate that Anderson took apprentices and hired
laborers. On August 22, 1776 Anderson announced that ―Journeymen GUNSMITHS and
BLACKSMITHS will meet with encouragement from the subscriber. Wanting likewise,
8 or 10 healthy BOYS, as apprentices.‖74 In April 1779, he stated ―I WILL give
extraordinary wages to a good BLACKSMITH and NAILER, that is capable of acting as
foreman in my shops—I am in want of six likely young NEGRO FELLOWS for six
months, for which I will give 100 £ each.‖75 Three months later, in June 1779, Anderson
noted that he would ―give great wages for GUN STOCKERS, and BLACKSMITHS, that
are good workmen.‖76
The records of the Public Store in Williamsburg indicate that Anderson had both
white and black laborers in his shop during the Revolution. In April 1779 he received ―5
pairs Shoes for 5 Negroes employ‘d in the Publick Blacksmiths Shop‖ and ―10 Yds do
[baize] for approns for the Negroes hired by the Publick.‖ The following month, the
blacksmith received fabric for clothes for the five white boys—Samuel Dunn, Thomas
Stroud, Thomas Haney, John Martin, and Samuel Bryan—who made nails.77

72

During the Revolution, the Commonwealth contracted him to clean and repair muskets, swords, and
bayonets as well as to manufacture nails, axes, tomahawks, and hardware for carts and carriages.
73

McIlwaine, et al., eds., Journal of the Council of the State of Virginia, 2:39.

74

Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., August 23, 1776.

75

Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., April 24, 1779.

76

Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., June 19, 1779.

77

Williamsburg Public Store Records, Colonial Williamsburg Microfilm M-1016-2.

413

Anderson rented his blacksmith shop and forges on Lots 18 and 19 to the
Commonwealth until the capital was moved to Richmond. He relocated to Richmond
and served as the Public Armourer for the Commonwealth until his resignation in July
1782. Anderson had been a resident of Richmond for ten months when the 1782 Census
was taken. He had nine apprentices, one adult slave—the blacksmith Nat, and two slaves
under the age of sixteen in his household.
The blacksmith returned to Williamsburg after he left the position of Public
Armourer. Details in Anderson‘s account book indicate that he operated his shop on Lots
18 and 19 until his death in September 1798. The October 1803 inventory of Anderson‘s
estate included ―Nat, a Negro man blacksmith‖ who was valued at $600. The total value
of Anderson‘s real property was $860.90. The high value that appraisers gave to Nat is
an indication that he had received some formal training as a blacksmith and was skilled.
Robert Anderson purchased Nat for $600 at the November 1, 1803 sale of his father‘s
estate.78

Robert Bond
Robert Bond, the son of John and Ann Bond, was born in Charles Parish on July
9, 1728. He apprenticed himself to John Terry, a Yorktown blacksmith, on March 18,
1744/5. Bond completed his apprenticeship and worked as a blacksmith in York County.
He moved to Williamsburg and bought Lot 34 in the Waller Subdivision from a carpenter
named Robert Brown on February 1, 1762.
In November 1774, the churchwardens of Bruton Parish bound Edward Jasper, a
poor orphan, to Bond. Jasper was probably part of the free black Jasper family who lived
in Bruton and Yorkhampton parishes. Bond had financial difficulties in 1781. He did
not have enough money to buy leather for his bellows. The blacksmith did have an
enslaved woman named Grace by 1782. Grace might have assisted Bond‘s wife, Ann,
with cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, and looking after the Bonds‘ children: John,
Dixon, William, and Charlotte.

John Draper
John Draper, a blacksmith and farrier, was one of the English servants who
accompanied Lord Botetourt to Virginia in 1768. Draper worked at the Palace until
September 1769. He gained possession of a blacksmith‘s shop on Lot 25 on Duke of
Gloucester Street by October of the same year. Draper entered into a seven-year lease for
this properety with William Goodson, a Williamsburg merchant, on August 27, 1770. He
rented part of the dwelling house, a blacksmith shop located behind the house, half of the
garden, part of the stables, and one of the cellars under the dwelling.
78

Inventory and appraisement of the estate of James Anderson, deceased, in Williamsburg in the Robert
Anderson Account Book, Virginia Historical Society.

414

Draper owned a slave man named Jack whom he failed to list as a tithe in
November 1770. It is possible that Jack had some training as a blacksmith. In May
1771, Francis Moss apprenticed himself to Draper for six years.79 The blacksmith gained
a second apprentice in January 1773. The churchwardens of Bruton Parish bound John
Martin, a poor orphan, to Draper until September 1775.
Draper‘s household included a servant and a slave who ran away. In November
1773, Draper offered a reward to anyone who helped him to regain possession of Samuel
Johnson, an English servant. Johnson was a baker. Two months later, in January 1774,
Draper announced that he thought his thirty-five year old slave woman had ran to Norfolk or
Hampton. It is likely that Draper bought this woman from a resident of Charles Parish so
that he would have someone to do the domestic chores in his house. Another one of
Draper‘s slaves—a boy named Gaby—ran away in February 1780.
On November 15, 1779, Draper‘s slave man Emanuel appeared in the York County
Courthouse for an oyer and terminer trial. He faced the charges of felony and burglary.
Emanuel pled not guilty to entering the storehouse of William Goodson and taking ―one
piece of black Alamade of the value of Fourteen hundred pounds, one piece of Marseilles
Quilting of the Value of six hundred pounds, four pieces of Chex of the Value of five
hundred pounds, Eleven pair of Leather Breeches of the Value of four hundred pounds.‖
The justices found Emanuel guilty of the felony, but not of the burglary. He pled benefit of
clergy. Emanuel was burned on his left hand and received thirty-nine lashes on his back.80
In June 1780, Draper purchased the lot where the old play house stood. The lot
adjoined the Capitol Square. The blacksmith had two slaves in his household in 1782. The
following year Draper paid the assessment on one slave—a woman named Molly.

The Cabinetmaker
Peter Scott, Anthony Hay, Edmund Dickenson, James Honey, and Yorktown‘s James
Tyrie depended upon skilled slaves and a free man of color in their cabinetmaking
businesses. It is possible that enslaved men owned and rented by Richard Booker and
Benjamin Bucktrout and the slave hired by John Crump also helped to produce furniture
in Williamsburg.
Peter Scott
Peter Scott had a cabinetmaking business in Williamsburg by May 1749. He placed the
following advertisement in the Virginia Gazette on September 12, 1755:

79

Francis Moss completed his apprenticeship to Draper and moved to Yorktown. He owned part of Lot 30
in the 1790s.
80

York County Order Book 4 (1774-1784) 246, November 15, 1779.

415

Before Mr. Finnie‘s Door, on the 23d Day of October next, Two Lots of Ground,
situate on the Back Street, near Col. Custis‘s in Williamsburg; on which there is a
good Dwelling House, containing Six Rooms and Closets, a good dry Cellar, with
all convenient Out-Houses, and a good Well: Twelve Months Credit will be
allowed the Purchaser giving Bond and Security. At the same Time and Place
will be sold, for Bills of Exchange or ready Money, Two Negroes, bred to the
Business of a Cabinet-maker; likewise will be sold, at the Subscriber‘s Shop near
the Church, sundry Pieces of Cabinet Work, of Mahogony and Walnut, consisting
of Desks, Book-Cases, Tables of various Sorts, Tools, and some Materials. Six
Months Credit will be given to those that purchase above the Value of Fifty
Shillings, on their giving Bond and Security; and Five per Cent. will be allowed
for ready Money.
And as I intend to go for Great-Britain the latter End of next Month,
therefore I desire all Persons indebted to me, to make speedy Payment, otherwise
they may expect Trouble without further Notice.81
Scott stayed in Williamsburg and continued his cabinetmaking business. It is possible
that he decided to keep the enslaved cabinetmakers to work in his shop. On November 2,
1772, Thomas Jefferson noted that he ―Pd. Peter Scott in full £ 16‖ and ―Gave negro man
at Peter Scott‘s 2/.‖82
Scott died in December 1775. The cabinetmaker lived on the James City County
side of Williamsburg and it is likely that his will and inventory were recorded in that
county. Alexander Craig and Robert Nicholson, the executors of Scott‘s estate placed
information about the sale of his personal property in the January 5, 1776 issue of
Purdie‘s Virginia Gazette. They announced:
To be SOLD before Robert Nicolson‘s store, on Tuesday the 10th instant,
A GREAT variety of cabinet-makers tools, mohogany, walnut, and pine plank,
likewise new walnut book cases, desks, tables, &c. belonging to the estate of mr.
Peter Scott, deceased. Six months credit will be allowed for all sums above 5 l.
the purchasers giving bond with good security.83
81

Virginia Gazette, 12 September 1755.

James A. Bear, Jr., and Lucia C. Stanton, eds., Jefferson‘s Memorandum Books:
Accounts, with Legal Records and Miscellany, 1767-1826, 2 vols., (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1997), I:296, 297; see also Wallace B. Gusler, Furniture of
Williamsburg and Eastern Virginia 1740-1790, (1979; reprint, Williamsburg: Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, 1993), p. 26; and Ronald L. Hurst and Jonathan Prown,
Southern Furniture 1680-1830: The Colonial Williamsburg Collection, (Williamsburg:
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in association with Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers,
1997), pp. 370, 373n, 452, 457n.
82

83

Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., 5 January 1776.

416

The fact that Craig and Nicholson did not include an enslaved cabinetmaker in the list of
Scott‘s estate suggests that this cabinetmaker hired the slave whom Jefferson tipped in
1772, sold this slave before he died, or bequeathed the enslaved man in his will.

Anthony Hay
Anthony Hay worked as a cabinetmaker when he first arrived in Williamsburg. In
November 1751 he placed an advertisement in the Virginia Gazette for a journeyman and
a servant. Evidence indicates that Hay gained the services of two workers who saw his
announcement. On the last day of 1751 the cabinetmaker purchased a pair of indentures
at William Hunter‘s printing office. In May of the following year Hay paid Hunter for
another pair of indentures. It is possible that Hay used these indentures to secure the
services of a white apprentice or to purchase an enslaved laborer.84 Hay and Christopher
Ford Junior sold carpenter‘s, joiner‘s, and cabinetmakers tools in 1755. A carver named
James Wilson also worked in Hay‘s shop in 1755.
The cabinetmaker‘s household included journeymen and slaves. Hay‘s son,
Thomas, inherited a slave woman named Elizabeth from his grandfather, Thomas
Penman, in September 1759. A child named Jeremiah was baptized on January 7, 1759
and another child, Tom, was baptized on June 7, 1761. The baptism of Ben, the son of
his slave woman Peg, was recorded in 1762. Hay sent Rippon, age three, to the Bray
School in September of 1762. In September 1764 Hay had a slave named Wiltshire pick
up a spelling book at the printing office.85 Two more slave children—Richard, the son of
Nanny, and Peg‘s daughter Lucy—were baptized in April and June of 1765, respectively.
Jenny, another one of Peg‘s daughters, attended the Bray School in November of 1765.
Hay decided to give up his cabinetmaking business in 1767. He purchased the
Raleigh Tavern and the twenty-acre parcel of land adjoining Williamsburg from William
Trebell on January 1, 1767. A week later he announced these changes in the Virginia
Gazette. Hay informed ―The Gentlemen who have bespoke work of the subscriber may
depend upon having it made in the best manner by Mr. Benjamin Bucktrout, to whom he
has given up his business.‖86 Benjamin Bucktrout‘s announcement in the Virginia

84

Virginia Gazette Journals, 1750-1752 (William Hunter), Alderman Library, University
of Virginia; Rockefeller Library Microfilm No. M-1136, 7 November 1751, 31 December
1751, and 30 May 1752. See also Gusler, Furniture of Williamsburg, p. 61.
85

Wiltshire also ran errands to the Printing Office on June 13, 1765 and September 13,
1765.
86

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., January 8, 1767.

417

Gazette noted that Hay had moved to the Raleigh Tavern. It is possible that Hay rented
his shop and his skilled slave man, Wiltshire, to Bucktrout.87
Anthony Hay died between November 19, 1770 and December 17, 1770. Hay left
his whole estate (after the payment of his debts) to his widow, Elizabeth, for her support
and for the maintenance and education of his children. After her death, all of his children
(except Thomas who had been provided for by his grandfather) were to share the estate.
The February 2, 1771 inventory of Hay‘s estate listed twenty slaves and their appraised
values:
Lucy £25
Peggy and her children Ben, Lucy, Jimmy, and Jenny £125
Caesar £45
Gaby £60
Rachel £30
Rippon £60
Jerry £50
Wiltshire £65
Sarah and her child Mary £70
Will £60
Tom £50
Kate £50
Betty £50
Nancy and her child Edmund £60
On January 17, 1771, William Trebell and Robert Nicholson, the executors of Hay‘s
estate, announced two sales of his real and personal property. The first was to be on
March 6, 1771 and included
THAT noted and well accustomed Tavern in Williamsburg, called the RALEIGH,
which has every Convenience to it, and an exceeding fine stable and Pasture
adjoining. At the same Time will be sold the Stock of LIQUORS, a great
Quantity of HOUSEHOLD and KITCHEN FURNITURE, some CHAIRS and
HARNESS, CARTS and HORSES, CATTLE, SHEEP, &c.------Also a very good
DWELLINGHOUSE on the back street, where Mr. Hay formerly lived, with large
Cabinet Maker‘s Shop and Timber yard, and all nescessary Out houses for a
Family.

There is no clear statement that Wiltshire was the ―very good Cabinet Maker‖ whom
Hay owned. However, Wiltshire was the highest valued slave in the inventory of Hay‘s
estate and it is unlikely that James Southall would have purchased a cabinetmaker at the
sale of Hay‘s estate. Will, valued at £ 60, was probably the ―good Coachman and
Carter.‖
87

418

The second sale was to be on May 7, 1771 before the door of the Raleigh. People would
have the opportunity to buy ―nineteen NEGROES belonging to the said Estate among
them a very good Cabinet Maker, a good Coachman and Carter, some fine Waiting Boys,
good Cooks, Washers, &c.‖88
Elizabeth Hay renounced the will of her deceased husband on March 20, 1771.
She bought Lots 263 and 264 at the March 6, 1771 sale and received a deed for this
property on January 18, 1772. The widow Hay also bought two slaves—Sarah and her
daughter Mary—on May 7, 1771.89 James Southall paid £101 for a negro fellow named
Will whom he purchased at the sale of Anthony Hay‘s estate on November 6, 1771.90 It
is likely that Edmund Dickenson gained possession of Wiltshire, the cabinetmaker.
However, it is not clear if Dickenson rented him from Hay‘s estate or purchased him.91

Benjamin Bucktrout
Benjamin Bucktrout took over Anthony Hay‘s cabinetmaking business on January
1, 1767. It is possible that Hay hired Wiltshire to Bucktrout and that Edmund Dickenson
also worked for the new master of the Hay Shop. Bucktrout operated his business at
Hay‘s Shop until January 1771 when he relocated to the Chiswell-Bucktrout House on
Francis Street. Bucktrout advertised for journeymen cabinetmakers in September 1769
and for apprentices in February 1775. This cabinetmaker decided to sell a slave woman
whom he described as ―an exceeding good washer and ironer‖ in August of 1779.92
Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., January 17, 1771. William Marshman‘s
accounts indicate that Anthony Hay had a ―Black Waiting Man‖ (28 December 1769). It
is probable that Will was the man who drove the cart that Marshman hired on February
1769.
88

89

Elizabeth Hay paid the assessment on Sarah and Mary (both over sixteen years old) in
1784 and 1786. The widow Hay‘s household also included Judith (under sixteen years
old in 1786), Nelly (under sixteen in 1784 and over sixteen in 1786), and Sall (under
sixteen in 1784 and 1786).
90

Southall Receipt Book; see also note 7 above.

Alexander Craig, James Southall, and Blovet Pasteur noted that Hay‘s slaves sold for £
1007, a sum that was £ 207 higher than the appraised value of the enslaved individuals.
Unfortunately, they did not list the names of the people who purchased these slaves.
York County Wills and Inventories (22) 168-172, dated 16 April 1773 and recorded 17
May 1773.
91

92

Virginia Gazette, Dixon ed., 28 August 1779.

419

Edmund Dickenson
It is likely that Edmund Dickenson gained possession of Hay‘s enslaved man
Wiltshire—―a very good Cabinet Maker‖—after the death of the keeper of the Raleigh
Tavern in late 1770. Unfortunately, extant documents do not indicate if Dickenson
purchased or hired Wiltshire. However, it is known that Dickenson opened his business
in the shop formerly occupied by Hay in January 1771.
Wiltshire worked in Dickenson‘s shop with James Tyrie, his owner‘s apprentice.
Tyrie learned the skills of a cabinetmaker from Dickenson between August 1772 and
August 1777. It is likely that Dickenson employed several journeymen in his shop.
Dickenson advertised for journeymen cabinetmakers in November 1771 and September
of 1773. In July 1774 George Hamilton, a carver and gilder from Britain, worked out of
Dickenson‘s shop. There were seven workers in the cabinetmaker‘s shop in 1775, the
year he failed to turn in a list of his tithes.
Dickenson enlisted in the army and he received a commission as a captain in the
First Virginia Regiment. Dickenson rose to the rank of a major by October 1777. He
was killed at the Battle of Monmouth on June 28, 1778.93 The July 1778 inventory of
Dickenson‘s estate did not include any slaves.94 Either Wiltshire died before Dickenson
or he had a new master by 1778.

James Tyrie
James Tyrie learned the skills of a cabinetmaker from Edmund Dickenson
between August 1772 and August 1777. Tyrie opened a shop in Yorktown after he
finished his apprenticeship. Francis Hern, a free mulatto, apprenticed himself to James
Tyrie on July 19, 1785. Hern agreed to serve until his twenty-first birthday. 95 Tyrie died
in the spring of 1786. His inventory included five slaves: Betty valued at £40; Frank, a
boy valued at £25; Milly and her child Ben valued at £60; and Prince valued at £20.

John Crump

93

Gusler, Furniture of Williamsburg, pp. 66-67; Hurst and Prown, Southern Furniture, p.
305.
94

York County Wills and Inventories (22) 401, dated 28 July 1778 and recorded 17
August 1778.
95

York County Deeds (6) 274, dated and recorded 19 July 1785.

420

John Crump hired one of Henry Wetherburn Nicholson‘s slaves from his
guardian, Benjamin Weldon, in 1780. The cabinetmaker paid £11.10 for the hire of an
enslaved worker. The following year Crump paid £16 for the labor of Peter and Nanny
for one year. Perhaps Peter assisted Crump in his business.

Richard Booker
Richard Booker advertised for journeymen cabinetmakers in November 1773,
April 1774, October 1774, January 1775 (with his partner, John Crump), and July 1776.
It is possible that Booker had enslaved men who worked in his shop in the late 1780s.
Booker had fourteen slaves over the age of twelve in his household in 1788.

James Honey
James Honey was a cabinetmaker who lived in Williamsburg from June 1776
until the time of his death in April 1787. In 1782 Honey gained a free mulatto apprentice
after the death of his friend, Thomas Jarvis. In his will Jarvis noted
It is also my desire that my mulatto boy Billy whom I believe to be my son should
be set free next session of assembly & I request that my exrs. (who I shall
hereafter name) see to have it so done Likewise that the sd Billy Jarvis should be
bound to James Honey of the City of Williamsburg to learn his trade & calling but
that he shall be free when he arrives to 21 years of age. It is also my will & desire
that my exrs. purchase two mulatto children brother & sister to the sd Billy at
present the property of Nathaniel Burwell on Kings Creek & that they shall be set
free in the same manner before mentioned. I give to the sd Billy Jarvis his heirs
& exrs. forever my negro woman Sarah & Pat & all the ballance of my estate of
what kind soever after purchasing out of the same the afore mentioned mulatto
children but if the sd Nathaniel Burwell whould not agree to sell the sd children
namely Franky & Johnny the whole balance after paying all my just & lawfull
debts to belong to the sd Billy Jarvis.
I nominate & appoint my friends James Honey of the City of Williamsburg &
Robert Goodrich of York County to be my exrs. & to see the fair & just settling of
my estate. I likewise desire they may see the sd Billy Jarvis properly educated &
that they have the disposal of the above estate til he arrives at 24 years of age. I
likewise impower the sd James Honey & Robert Goodrich to retain all the
negroes & what part of the stock of horses, cattle, hogs &c they may see proper
for my plantation for this present year, then to be disposed of as they may judge
most to the advantage of the sd Billy.96
96

York County Wills and Inventories (23) 537-538, dated 2 February 1781 and recorded

421

Perhaps Jarvis turned to Honey as the executor of his estate and the teacher of Billy Jarvis
because the slaves whom Honey owned at his death in 1787 included a ―negro man that
has been brought up to the cabinet business.‖97
It is possible that Robert Goodrich handled Thomas Jarvis‘s estate after the death
of James Honey since Billy Jarvis (born in circa 1769; see below for information on Billy
Jarvis‘s age) was not yet twenty-four years old. Billy Jarvis was about thirteen years old
when Thomas Jarvis died and about eighteen years old when James Honey died. Billy
Jarvis used the name William Jarvis as an adult and lived in York County. He registered
a description of himself with the clerk of York County on December 17, 1810:
William Jarvis a bright mulatto about 41 years of age – five feet 7 ½ Inches high –
bald on the top of his head a scar on the right side of his head an one on his left foot –
Emancipated by the will of Thomas Jarvis decd recorded in York Ct on the [blank] day of
[ ] 177 [ ]
Perhaps three other free men of color with the surname of Jarvis were related to
Billy/William Jarvis. Charles Jarvis was about twenty-one years old in 1814, John Jarvis
was about twenty-four years old in 1826, and Thomas Jarvis was about twenty-one years
old in 1822. All three men were free-born mulattoes.98

The Capitol

17 September 1782; ibid., pp. 156-157, dated 24 September 1782 and recorded 21 April
1788. Nathaniel Burwell Junior was one of the three men who appraised Jarvis‘s estate.
The September 1782 inventory of Jarvis‘s estate included three slaves: Sampson a fellow
valued at £ 90, a wench named Sarah who was worth £ 30, and a second wench, Pat,
appraised at £ 50. Burwell sold Franky and Johnny to Jarvis‘s executors in 1782. See
Lorena S. Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove: The History of a Virginia Slave
Community, (Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1997, p. 257.
97

Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, 17 May 1787.

98

York County Register of Free Negroes & Mulattoes 1798-1831.

422

The laws passed in the Capitol continued the paradox of freedom for white persons based
on the enslavement of blacks that legislators created in the seventeenth century.
The connection between the capitol building in Williamsburg and slavery began in 1699.
In that year, the colonial legislators enacted a duty on slaves imported into Virginia. The
money raised from the duty helped to pay for the construction of the legislative building
in the colony‘s new capital, Williamsburg. Six years later, in 1705, the General
Assembly passed legislation that codified the seventeenth-century slave laws into the
colony‘s first slave code. Legislators passed major revisions to the laws that supported
the institution of slavery and placed restrictions on free persons of color in 1723, 1732,
1748, 1765, and 1769. Virginia‘s leaders also placed duties on enslaved persons
imported to the colony as a way to limit the slave trade.
The laws passed during the first half of the eighteenth century increased the harshness of
slavery and placed a greater number of constraints on free black men, women, and
children. The legislation enacted by Virginia‘s leaders between 1763 and 1776 eased
some (but not all) of the regulations imposed earlier in the century. However, the
members of the House of Burgesses did not vote to extend liberty to their slaves at the
same time that they sought to gain their independence from Britain.

****

December 18, 1764—Address to the King
The House of Burgesses wrote an address to King George III and two memorials to
Parliament to protest the imposition of a stamp tax. The Burgesses stated that the tax
would bring economic suffering to Virginians. They based their opposition to the tax on
the fact that the British Constitution protected subjects from taxation without their
consent and that Virginia‘s charters gave the House of Burgesses the sole right to tax
Virginians. Parliament passed the Stamp Act on March 22, 1765. Virginians learned
about the approval of the Stamp Act at the end of April.
In the following excerpt from the address to King George III, the Burgesses noted that the
colonists would be the slaves of Britain if Parliament was allowed to impose the Stamp
Act.
Your Memorialists are therefore led into an humble Confidence that your Lordship will not
think any Reason sufficient to support such a Power in the British Parliament, where the
Colonies cannot be represented; a Power never before constitutionally assumed, and which
if they have a Right to exercise on any Occasion must necessarily establish this melancholy
Truth, that the Inhabitants of the Colonies are the Slaves of Britons, from whom they are
descended, and from whom they might expect every Indulgence that the Obligations of
Interest and Affection can entitle them to.

423

Source: McIlwaine et al., eds., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1761-1765,
pp. 302-304.

May 18, 1769—The Association of 1769
On May 16, 1769 the members of the House of Burgesses adopted resolutions that
maintained their right to levy taxes in Virginia and condemned Parliament‘s decision to
transport colonists accused of treason to England for trial. The following day the
Burgesses approved an address to King George III based on the resolutions. Lord
Botetourt called the Burgesses to the Council chamber and dissolved the body. Many of
the Burgesses gathered at the Raleigh Tavern where they elected Peyton Randolph as the
moderator. They also appointed a committee to study George Mason‘s proposal for an
association that called for all who signed the document not to import a specified list of
British goods, or to purchase such imported items, after September 1, 1769 or to import
slaves after November 1, 1769. On May 18, 1769, eighty-eight Burgesses signed the
association and took copies of the document to circulate in their counties.
Fifthly, That they will not import any Slaves, or purchase any imported, after the First day
of November next, until the said Acts of Parliament are repealed.
Source: McIlwaine, et al., eds., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 17661769, p. xli.
1769 to 1770—Richard Bland‘s Proposal to Moderate the Slave Code
Thomas Jefferson recalled seconding a motion initiated by Richard Bland ―for certain
moderate extensions of the protection of the laws‖ to slaves in his first or second session
as a member of the House of Burgesses. Historian David Brion Davis summarizes
Jefferson‘s efforts to end slavery in Virginia.
From the time of Jefferson‘s election to the Virginia House of Burgesses to his
departure for France as American Minister, his political experience with slavery
amounted to a series of rebuffs from the class which first accorded him recognition and
prestige. Late in life he recalled that soon after his election to the House of Burgesses, at
the age of twenty-six, he succeeded in persuading Richard Bland to move ―for certain
moderate extensions of the protection of the laws‖ to slaves. Although Bland was ―one
of the oldest, ablest, and most respected members,‖ he was denounced as an enemy of his
country, and was treated with the grossest indecorum.‖ Jefferson, because of his youth,
―was more spared in the debate.‖ He clearly thought this story contained a lesson for
twenty-seven-year-old Edward Coles, who had written the aged and respected former
President, hopeful that ―in the calm of this retirement you might, most beneficially to
society, and with much addition to your own fame, avail yourself of that love and
confidence to put into complete practice those hallowed principles contained in that

424

renowned Declaration, of which you were the immortal author.‖ Jefferson urged Coles to
work ―softly but steadily‖ for emancipation, promising to give the cause ―all my prayers,
& these are the only weapons of an old man.‖
As a young man, he had dared a good bit more. In his Summary View of 1774 he
had attacked the British crown for refusing to allow colonies to restrict or prohibit the
further importation of slaves. This was a safe stand in Virginia, but Jefferson also
asserted that ―the abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those
colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state.‖ He surely knew this
was an exaggeration, in the light of his experience with Richard Bland, but it
strengthened the case against England and no doubt expressed his own true desire as well
as that of mentors like Bland and George Wythe. In the Declaration of Independence,
however, he made no mention of emancipation but condemned King George for
enslaving innocent Africans, for encouraging the ―execrable commerce‖ in men, and for
inciting American Negroes to rise in arms against their masters. Congress struck out the
entire section. Thus in writing the document that gave him international fame, Jefferson
learned that on the question of slavery one yielded to older and more cautious men, and
especially to outspoken objections from any segment of the planter class. In 1776 he also
met defeat when, in his drafts of a constitution for Virginia, he introduced an
unacceptable clause prohibiting any future importation of slaves. At the end of the
Revolution he was apparently emboldened by the national spirit of thanksgiving and the
expectation of a new republican era. In his 1783 draft of a new constitution of Virginia
he provided for the freedom of all children born of slaves after the year 1800. This is the
only definite record of a formal proposal by Jefferson for gradual emancipation; along
with the measure his committee submitted to Congress in 1784 for excluding slaves from
the western territories, again after the year 1800, it represents the high-water mark of his
reform zeal. But both propositions were defeated.
Thomas Jefferson recounted Richard Bland‘s efforts to moderate slaves laws in an
August 24, 1814 letter to Edward Coles.
In the first or second session of the Legislature after I became a member, I drew to this
subject that attention of Col. Bland, one of the oldest, ablest, and most respected
members, and he undertook to move for certain moderate extensions of the protection of
the laws to these people. I seconded his motion, and, as a younger member, was more
spared in the debate; but he was denounced as an enemy of his country, and was treated
with the grossest indecorum.
Source: David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 17701823, (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1975), pp. 172-174; Thomas Jefferson to
Edward Coles, in The Portable Thomas Jefferson, ed., Merrill D. Peterson, (New York:
The Viking Press, 1975), p. 545.

November 27, 1769—Matthew Ashby Receives Permission to Free his Wife and
Children

425

Free black Matthew Ashby purchased his wife, Ann, and their two children—John and
Mary—from their owner, Samuel Spurr. In November 1769, he received permisison
from the Council to ―Manumit and set them free.‖
On the petition of Matthew Ashby, a free Mulatto setting forth that he had two
Children by his present Wife Ann Ashby, while she was a Slave to Samuel Spurr, that he
bought her and the two Children of the said Spurr for one hundred and fifty pounds, that
he has now two Children alive by her John and Mary, that she has been a faithful and
diligent Wife ever since marriage, and praying that he may be permitted to set her and his
Children free; the Board being satisfied therein, were of opinion, that the said Ann, John
and Mary were deserving of their freedom, and it was order‘d that the said Matthew
Ashby have leave to Manumit and set them free:
Source: McIlwaine, et al., eds., Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia,
6:334-335.

November 1769—CHAP. XXXVII. An act for exempting free negro, mulatto, and
Indian women, from the payment of levies
In November 1769, the legislators passed a statute that exempted free black and Indian
women from the payment of tithes. The free black men who successfully petitioned the
colonial leaders began the process in May of 1769. See the ―American Diversity‖ section
of the Enslaving Virginia Resource Book for the text of this statute.
May 10, 1769
A Petition of the People called Mulattoes and free Negroes, whose Names are
thereunto subscribed, was presented to the House, and read, praying that the Wives and
Daughters of the petitioners may be exempt from the Payment of Levies.
Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Consideration of a Committee:
And that they report their Opinion thereupon to the House.
And it is referred to the Committee of Propositions and Grievances.

May 11, 1769
Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Committee, that the Petition of the
Mulattoes and free Negroes, praying that their Wives and Daughters may be exempted
from the Payment of Levies, is reasonable.

November 10, 1769

426

A Petition of the People, called Mulattoes and Free Negroes, whose Names are
thereunto subscribed, was presented to the House, and read, praying that the Wives and
Daughters of the Petitioners may be exempt from the Payment of Levies.
Ordered, That the said Petition be referred to the Committee of Propositions and
Grievances; and that they do examine the Matter thereof, and report the same, with their
Opinion thereupon, to the House.

November 11, 1769
Mr Bland reported, from the Committee of Propositions and Grievances, that the
Committee had had under their Consideration several Petitions to them referred, and had
come to several Resolutions thereupon; which he read in his Place, and afterwards
delivered in at the Clerk‘s Table; where the same were read, and are asfolloweth, viz.
Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Committee, that the Petition of the
Mulattoes and Free Negroes, praying that their Wives and Daughters may be exempted
from the Payment of Levies, is reasonable.

November 17, 1769
Mr Bland presented to the House, according to Order, a Bill for exempting Free
Negro, Mulatto, and Indian Women, from the Payment of Levies: And the same was
received, and read the first Time.

November 20, 1769
A Bill for exempting free Negro, Mulatto, and Indian Women from the Payment
of Levies, was read a second Time.

November 25, 1769
An ingrossed Bill, for exempting Free Negro, Mulatto, and, Indian Women, from
the Payment of levies, was read the third Time.

After the Burgesses approved the bill, they sent it to the Council. The Councillors
requested that the phrase ―other than Slaves‖ be inserted after the word ―Wives‖ in the
bill so that enslaved wives of free black men would continue to be tithable. The
Burgesses agreed to the change on November 30th.

November 30, 1769

427

The Council have agreed to the Bill, intituled, An Act for exempting Free Negro,
Mulatto and Indian Women, from the Payment of Levies, with some Amendments; to
which Amendments the Council desire the Concurrence of this House.
Source: McIlwaine, et al., eds., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia: 17661769, pp. 198, 203, 246, 251, 267, 275, 295, 304.

April 1770—The Case of Samuel Howell v. Wade Netherland in the General Court
In April 1770, Thomas Jefferson represented Samuel Howell in a case against his master,
Wade Netherland. Howell, a mulatto born to a mulatto mother, claimed that he should
serve his master until the age of twenty-one instead, not to the age of thirty-one. The
following documents include background information on Howell and Jefferson‘s
argument before the General Court.
June 25, 1764
On the petition and summons brought by Samuel Howel, Plaintiff against Wade
Netherland, Gent, defendant, this day came the Parties and on hearing the arguments of
the said Parties, it is considered that the said petition be dismissed.
Source: Cumberland County, Virginia, Order Book, 1762-1764, p. 494.

May 2, 1766
Run away from the subscriber, the 20th of October last [1765], a likely young Mulatto
Man named Sam Howell, 23 years old, about 5 feet 9 inches high, well made for strength,
has a remarkable good set of teeth, very black large eyebrows, and is a little bow legged;
as for his apparel it is so long since he went away that I sup- he has worn them out, and
got others. He was bound for 31 years, according to the condition of his mother, who
was to serve until that time; his pretence for going away was to apply to some lawyer at
Williamsburg to try to get his freedom, though he had a trial in the county court, and was
adjudged to serve his full time. I did hear that he applied to the King‘s Attorney, and he
told him he could not get free until his time was out; and I have never heard from him
since. As he passes for a free man, I imagine he will endeavour to get on board some
vessel, I therefore desire all matters of vessels not to entertain him, or carry him out of
the country. Whoever apprehends the said slave, and brings him to me, in Cumberland
county, on James river, shall receive 5 l. reward.
WADE NETHERLAND.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., May 2, 1766.

October 27, 1766

428

On the motion of Wade Netherland against Samuel Howel, a servant man
belonging to him the said Wade, the said Samuel having absented himself from his
master‘s service the space of six months, it is ordered that the said servant serve the said
Wade one year in lieu of the said six months after the term be indenture or former order is
expired and further that the said servant serve the said Wade one month for ten shillings
expended by the said Wade on the recovery of the said servant.
Source: Cumberland County, Virginia, Order Book, 1764-1767, p. 351.

April 1770
HOWELL v. NETHERLAND
This case was referred to the determination of the court, on facts stated by the
counsel for both parties, which were, That the plaintiff‘s grandmother was a mulatto,
begotten on a white woman by a negro man, after the year 1705, and bound by the
churchwardens, under the law of that date, to serve to the age of thirty-one. That after the
year 1723, but during her servitude, to wit, in 1742, was delivered of the plaintiff, and he
again was sold by the person to whom his grandmother was bound, to the defendant, who
now claims his service till he shall be thirty-one years of age. On behalf of the plaintiff it
was insisted, 1st. that if he could be detained in servitude by his first master, he yet could
not be aliened. But, 2nd. that he could not be detained in servitude.
I. It was observed that the purpose of the act was to punish and deter women from
that confusion of species, which the legislature seems to have considered as an evil, and
not to oppress their innocent offspring. That accordingly it had made cautious provision
for the welfare of the child, by leaving it to the discretion of the churchwardens to choose
out a proper master; and by directing, that that master should provide for it sufficient
food, clothing, and lodging, and should not give immoderate correction. For these
purposes the master enters into covenants with the churchwardens; and to admit he had a
power after this to sell his ward, would be to admit him a power of discharging himself of
his covenants. Nor is this objection answered by saying that the covenants of the first
master are transferred to the alienee, because he may be insolvent of the damages which
should be recovered against him, and indeed they might be of such a nature as could not
be atoned for, either to the servant or to society; such for instance, would be a corruption
of morals either by the wicked precept or example of the master, or of his family. The
truth is, the master is bound to the servant for food, raiment and protection, and is not at
liberty, by aliening his charge to put it out of his own power to afford them when
wanting. The servant may as well set up a right of withdrawing from his master those
personal services which he, in return, is bound to yield him. Again, the same trust which
is created by express compact in favor of the first mulatto, is extended by the law to her
issue. The legislature confiding that the choice of a master for the first mulatto, by the
churchwardens, would be prudent, vest the issue in him also without further act to be
done: and the master, at the time he takes the mother, knowing that her issue also is to be
under his servitude on the same conditions, does by accepting her, tacitly undertake to

429

comply with those conditions raised by the law in their favor. These servants bear greater
resemblance to apprentices than to slaves. Thus, on the death of the first master, they go
to his executor as an apprentice would, and not to his heir as a slave. The master is
chosen, in both cases, from an opinion of his peculiar propriety for that charge, and the
performance of his duty in both cases is secured by mutual covenants. Now it is well
known that an apprentice cannot be aliened; and that, not from any particular provision of
the legislature, but from the general nature of the connection and engagements between
them: there being, as was before observed, a trust reposed in the diligence and discretion
of the master; and a trust by our law cannot be assigned. It adheres to the person as
closely as does his integrity, and he can no more transfer the one than the other to a
purchaser, But,
2nd. It was insisted, that the plaintiff, being a mulatto of the third generation,
could not be detained in servitude under any law whatever: the grand position now to be
proved being that one law had reduced to servitude the first mulatto only, the immediate
offspring of a white woman by a negro or mulatto man; that a second law had extended it
to the ‗children‘ of that mulatto; but that no law had yet extended it to her grand children,
or other issue more remote than this. To prove this, a general statement of these laws was
premised. Act of 1705, c. 49.s.18. ‗If any woman servant shall have a bastard child, by a
negro or mulatto, or if a free Christian white woman shall have such bastard child by a
negro or mulatto; in both the said cases the churchwardens shall bind the said child to be
a servant until it shall be of thirty one years of age.‘ In other parts of the act, it is
declared who shall be slaves, and what a manumission of them; from sect. 34. to 39. are
regulations solely relative to slaves, among which is sect. 36. ‗Baptism of slaves doth not
exempt them from bondage; and all children shall be bond or free according to the
condition of their mothers and the particular directions of this act.‘
Act 1723.c.4.s.22. ‗where any female mulatto, or Indian, by law obliged to serve
till the age of thirty or thirty one years, shall, during the time of her servitude, have any
child born of her body, every such child shall serve the master or mistress of such mulatto
or Indian, until it shall attain the same age, the mother of such child was obliged, by law,
to serve unto.‘
In 1748, the Assembly revising and digesting the whole body of our acts of
Assembly, in act 14.s.4 incorporate the clauses before cited, without any addition or
alteration. And in 1753, c. 2.s.4.13, the law of 1748, is re-enacted with some new matter
which does not affect the present question.
Now it is plain the plaintiff does not come within the description of the act of
1705, s. 18; that only reducing to servitude ‗the child of a white woman by a negro or
mulatto man.‘ This was the predicament of the plaintiff‘s grandmother. I suppose it will
not be pretended that the mother being a servant, the child would be a servant also under
the law of nature, without any particular provision in the act. Under the law of nature, all
men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which
includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal
liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own
sustenance. The reducing the mother to servitude was a violation of the law of nature:
surely then the same law cannot prescribe a continuance of the violation to her issue, and
that too without end, for if it extends to any, it must to every degree of descendants.
Puff.b.6.c.3.s.4.9. supports this doctrine. For having proved that servitude to be rightful,

430

must be founded on either compact, or capture in war, he proceeds to shew that the
children of the latter only follow the condition of the mother: for which he gives this
reason, that the person and labor of the mother in a condition of perfect slavery, (as he
supposes to be that of the captive in war) being the property of the master, it is impossible
she should maintain it but with her master‘s goods; by which he supposes a debt
contracted from the infant to the master. But he says in cases of servitude founded on
contract, ‗The food of the future issue is contained or implied in their own maintenance,
which their master owes them as a just debt; and consequently their children are not
involved in a necessity of slavery.‘ This is the nature of the servitude introduced by the
act of 1705, the master deriving his title to the service of the mother, entirely from the
contract entered into with the churchwardens. That the bondage of the mother does not
under the law of nature, infer that of his issue; for he may with equal, and some
anatomists say with greater reason, be said to include all his posterity. But this very law
admits there is no such descent of condition from father to child, when it imposes
servitude on the child of a slave, which would have been unnecessary, if the condition
had descended of course. Again, if it be a law of nature that the child shall follow the
condition of the parent, it would introduce a very perplexing dilemma; as where one
parent is free and the other a slave. Here the child is to be a slave says this law by
inheritance of the father‘s bondage: but it is also to be free, says the same law by
inheritance of its mother‘s freedom. This contradiction proves it to be no law of nature.
But the 36th section of the act will perhaps be cited as entailing the condition of
the mother on the child, where it says, that ‗children shall be bond or free according to
the condition of the mother, and the particular direction of this act.‘ Now that the word
‗bond‘ in this clause relates to ‗slaves‘ only, I am justified in asserting, not only from
common parlance, but also from its sense in other parts of this very act. And that on the
other hand it considers those who were to be free after a temporary servitude, as
described under the word ‗free.‘ In this very section, 36, it says, ‗baptism of slaves does
not exempt them from bondage.‘ Here then in the very sentence now under
consideration, the word bondage is used to express perpetual slavery; and we cannot
conceive they meant to use it in two different senses in the same sentence. So in clause
nineteen of the same act, it says; ‗to prevent that abominable mixture of white men or
women with negroes or mulattoes, whatever white man or woman being free, shall
intermarry with a negro or mulatto, &c. shall be committed to prison, &c.‘ Now unless
the act means to include white servants and apprentices under the denomination of
‗freemen,‘ then a white servant or apprentice may intermarry with a negro or mulatto.
But this is making the act miss of its purpose, which was ‗to prevent the abominable
mixture of white men or women with negroes or mulattoes.‘ But to put it out of dispute,
the next clause (twenty) says that ‗if any minister shall, notwithstanding, presume to
marry a white man or woman with a negro or mulatto,‘ he shall incur such a penalty.
Here then the prohibition is extended to whites in general, without saying ‗free whites,‘
as the former clause did. But these two clauses are plainly co-extensive; and
consequently the word ‗free‘ in the nineteenth, was intended to include the temporary
white servants taken in by the twentieth clause, under the general appellation of ‗white
men or women.‘ So that this act where it speaks of bondmen, means those who are
‗perpetual slaves,‘ and where of ‗freemen,‘ those who are to be free after a temporary
servitude, as well as those who are so now. Indeed to supposed, where the act says, ‗the

431

children of a bondwoman shall be bond,‘ that it means ‗the children of a temporary
servant shall be temporary servants,‘ would infer too much: for it would make temporary
servants of the children of white servant women, or of white apprentice women, which
yet was never pretended. The conclusion I draw from this, is, that since the temporary
service of a white woman does not take from her the appellation of a freewoman, in the
sense of this act, and her children under this very clause are free, as being the children of
a free woman, neither does the temporary servitude of a mulatto exclude her from the
same appellation, and her children also shall be free under this clause, as the children of a
free woman. So that the meaning of this clause is, that children shall be slaves, where
slavery was the condition of the mother; and free, where freedom either immediate or
remote, was her condition: excepting only the instance of the mulatto bastard, which this
act had made a temporary servant of the child, though the mother was not so.
Then comes the act of 1723, directing that where any female mulatto or Indian, by
law obliged to serve till99 thirty or thirty one, shall have a child during her servitude, such
child shall serve the same master to the same age. This act does itself prove that the child
was not obliged to serve under the former law of 1705, that of 1723, was wholly
unnecessary. But on the contrary, when we find an Assembly within eighteen years after
the law of 1705, had been passed, the one half of whom would probably be the same
members who had passed that law, when we see these people I say, enacting expressly
that the children should be temporary servants, it is a strong proof the makers of the first
law had intended they should be so. Expositio comtemporanea est optima, is a maxim in
our law, because such exposition is supposed to be taken from the makers of the law
themselves, who best knew their own intention; and it is doubly exclusive, where the
makers themselves passed a new act to testify their intention. So that I hold it certain, the
act of 1705, did not extend to the children of the first mulatto, or that of 1723, would not
have been made.
That the act of 1723, did not extend to the plaintiff, is apparent from its words.
‗Where any female mulatto by law obliged to serve till thirty one (that is, the plaintiff‘s
grandmother) shall during the time of her servitude, have a child born of her body (that is,
the plaintiff‘s mother) such child shall serve till thirty one.‘ This act describes the
plaintiff‘s mother then as the subject on which it meant to operate. The common sense of
mankind would surely spare me the trouble of proving the word ‗child‘ does not include
the grandchild, great-grandchild, great-great-grandchild, &c. in infinitum. Or if that
would not, the act itself precludes me, by declaring it means only a ‗child born of her
body.‘ So that as the law of 1705, has made a servant of the first mulatto, that of 1723,
extends it to her children.
The act of 1748, is the next in course. At this time all our acts were revised and
digested, and sent in one volume to receive his Majesty‘s approbation. These two laws
being found to be on the same subject, were then incorporated without any alteration.
This however, could not affect their meaning, which is still to be sought after by
considering the component acts in their separate state. At any rate it cannot affect the
This refers to an act of Ass. 1670, c. 12, which had enacted ‗that all servants not being
christians, imported into this country by shipping, shall be slaves for their life-time, but
what shall come by land shall serve, if boys and girls, till thirty years of age, if men and
women, twelve years and no longer.‘
99

432

condition of the plaintiff, who was born in 1742, which was six years before it was made.
The same may be said of the law of 1753, which is copied from 1748, with only the
addition of some new matter, foreign to the present question. So that on the laws of
1705, and 1723, alone, it is to be determined; with respect to which I have endeavored to
shew;
That the first of them subjected to servitude, the first mulatto only.
That this did not, under the law of nature, affect the liberty of the children,
Because, under the law we are all born free.
Because, the servitude of the mother was founded on compact, which implies
maintenance of her children, so as to have them under no obligation to the master.
And because, this descent of condition from parent to child, would introduce a
contradiction where the one parent is free, and the other in servitude.
That as little are they affected by the words of the act, ‗children shall be bond or
free, according to the condition of the mother.‘
Because that act uses the word ‗bond,‘ so as to shew it means thereby those only
who are perpetual slaves, and by the word ‗free,‘ those who are entitled to freedom in
praesenti or in futuro; and consequently calling the mother ‗free,‘ says her children shall
be ‗free.‘
Because it would make servants of the children of white servants or apprentices,
which nobody will say is right.
And because the passing the act of 1723, to subject the child to servitude, shews it
was not subject to that state under the old law.
And lastly, that the act of 1723, affects only ‗children of such mulattoes,‘ as when
that law was made were obliged to serve till thirty-one; which takes in the plaintiff‘s
mother who was of the second generation, but does not extend to himself who is of the
third.
So that the position at first laid down is now proven, that the act of 1705, makes
servants of the first mulatto, that of 1723, extends it to her children, but that it remains for
some future legislature, if any shall be found wicked enough, to extend it to the grandchildren and other issue more remote, to the ‗nati natorum et qui nascentur ab illis!‘
Wythe, for the defendant, was about to answer, but the court interrupted him and
gave judgment in favor of his client.
Source: Thomas Jefferson, Reports of Cases Determined in the General Court of
Virginia, from 1730, to 1740; and from 1768, to 1772, ed. John M. Lindsey, (New York:
William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 1981), pp. 90-96.

June 22, 1770—The Association of 1770
The Association of 1769 proved to be ineffective despite initial enthusiasm for the plan.
The Burgesses adopted a new measure—the Association of 1770—on June 22 of that
year. Williamsburg‘s leading merchants also signed the document. Committees in each
county were to enforce the agreement by publishing the names of the violators.
However, public support for the Association of 1770 decreased after the repeal of the

433

Townshend Duties. The December 14, 1770 meeting of the associators was adjourned
because of poor attendance. The associators voted to end the agreement on July 15,
1771.
Fourthly. That we will not import or bring into the colony or cause to be imported or
brought into the colony, either by sea or land, any slaves, or make sale of any upon
commission, or purchase any slave or slaves that may be imported by others after the 1st day
of November next, unless the same have been twelve months upon the continent.
Source: McIlwaine, et al., eds., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1770-1772,
p. xxvii-xxxi.

March 20, 1772—The Burgesses Appoint a Committee to Draft an Address to the King
Regarding the Slave Trade
Resolved, That an humble Address be prepared to be presented to his Majesty to
express the high Opinion we entertain of his benevolent Intentions towards his Subjects
in the Colonies, and that we are thereby induced to ask his paternal Assistance in averting
a Calamity of a most alarming Nature; that the Importation of Negroes from Africa has
long been considered as a Trade of great Inhumanity, and, under its present
Encouragement, may endanger the Existence of his American Dominions; that SelfPreservation therefore urges us to implore him to remove all Restraints on his Governors
from passing Acts of Assembly, which are intended to check this pernicious Commerce;
and that we presume to hope the Interests of a few of his Subjects in Great-Britain will
be disregarded, when such a Number of his People look up to him for Protection in a
Point so essential; that, when our Duty calls upon us to make Application for his
Attention to the Welfare of this his antient Colony, we cannot refrain from renewing
those Professions of Loyalty and Affection we have so often, with great Sincerity, made,
or from assuring him, that we regard his Wisdom and Virtue as the surest Pledges of the
Happiness of his People.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up an Address to be presented
to his Majesty upon the said Resolution.
And a Committee was appointed of Mr Harrison, Mr Cary, Mr Edmund
Pendleton, Mr Richard Henry Lee, Mr Treasurer, and Mr Bland.
Source: McIlwaine, et al., eds. Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 17701772, pp. 256-257.

April 1, 1772—Address to the King Regarding the Slave Trade
On April 1, 1772, the House of Burgesses resolved to present the following address to
King George III through the auspices of Governor Dunmore. The legislators implored
the king to enable representative assemblies in the colonies to restrict the importation of
slaves if desired. The address indicates that the legislators were most concerned with the

434

effect of an increasing slave population on white colonists and potential settlers in
Virginia rather than its effect on slaves themselves. This concern is similar to that
expressed in the 1752 letter written by ―Peter Limits‖ in the American Diversity section.
Mr Harrison reported from the Committee appointed upon Friday, the twentieth
Day of last Month, to draw up an Address to be presented to his Majesty, that the
Committee had drawn up an Address accordingly, which they had directed him to report
to the House; and he read the same in his Place, and afterwards delivered it in at the
Clerk‘s Table; where the same was read, and is as followeth, viz.
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, your Majesty‘s dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Burgesses of Virginia, now met
in General Assembly, beg Leave, with all Humility, to approach your Royal Presence.
The many Instances of your Majesty‘s benevolent intentions and most gracious
Disposition to promote the Prosperity and Happiness of your Subjects in the Colonies,
encourage us to look up to the Throne, and implore your Majesty‘s paternal Assistance in
averting a Calamity of a most alarming Nature.
The Importation of Slaves into the Colonies from the Coast of Africa hath long
been considered as a Trade of great Inhumanity, and, under its present Encouragement,
we have too much Reason to fear will endanger the very Existance of your Majesty‘s
American Dominions.
We are sensible that some of your Majesty‘s Subjects in Great-Britain may reap
Emoluments from this Sort of Traffic, but when we consider that it greatly retards the
Settlement of the Colonies, with more useful Inhabitants, and may, in Time, have the most
destructive Influence, we presume to hope that the Interest of a few will be disregarded
when placed in Competition with the Security and Happiness of such Numbers of your
Majesty‘s dutiful and loyal Subjects.
Deeply impressed with these Sentiments, we most humbly beseech your Majesty to
remove all those Restraints on your Majesty‘s Governors of this Colony, which inhibit
their assenting to such Laws as might check so very pernicious a Commerce.
Your Majesty‘s antient Colony and Dominion of Virginia hath, at all Times, and
upon every Occasion, been entirely devoted to your Majesty‘s sacred Person and
Government, and we cannot forego this Opportunity of renewing those Assurances of the
truest Loyalty, and warmest Affection, which we have so often, with the greatest
Sincerity, given to the best of Kings, whose Wisdom and Goodness we esteem the surest
Pledges of the Happiness of all his People.
The said Address being read a second Time;
Resolved, Nemine contradicente, That the House doth agree with the Committee
in the said Address, to be presented to his Majesty.
Resolved, That an Address be presented to his Excellency the Governor, to desire
that he will be pleased to transmit the Address to his Majesty, and to support it in such
Manner as he shall think most likely to promote the desirable End proposed.
Ordered, That the said Address be presented to the Governor by the Gentlemen
who drew up the Address to his Majesty.

435

Source: McIlwaine, et al., eds., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 17701772, pp. 283-284.

August 1774—The Association of 1774
In 1774 and 1775, there were a number of factors which led colonial leaders to propose
abolishing the slave trade. To be sure, concerns about slave revolts and the widespread
belief that the institution was in imminent danger of economic collapse combined with
the challenge that emerging ideals of liberty and natural rights offered to chattel slavery
to raise serious doubts about its future. Yet, as W.E.B. Du Bois argued in 1896, the most
immediate issue was the fact that banning further imports of slaves might force the
business-minded British government to the bargaining table once again. ―The movement
was not a great moral protest against an iniquitous traffic;‖ Du Bois wrote, ―although it
undoubtedly had a strong moral backing, it was primarily a temporary war measure.‖ The
leaders of the Virginia resistance were particularly prominent in pushing the end to the
slave trade, resolving in August of 1774 that, ―We will neither ourselves import, nor
purchase any slave or slaves imported by any other person, after the first day of
November next, either from Africa, the West Indies, or any other place.‖ It was the
Virginians as well who were the instigators and leaders within the Continental Congress
of that body‘s measures against the slave trade. In September of 1774, Virginia delegate
Richard Henry Lee proposed a resolution in favor of non-importation, and the
Continental Congress responded with a declaration on October 12 which included this
provision: ―We will neither import, nor purchase any Slave imported after the First Day
of December next; after which Time, we will wholly discontinue the Slave Trade, and
will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our Vessels, nor sell our
Commodities or Manufactures to those who are concerned in it.‖ This clause, along with
the rest of the non-importation agreement, appears to have been upheld by the citizens of
the new nation, at least in the beginning. In Norfolk, for example, the vigilance
committee publicly censured a merchant named John Brown who had imported slaves
from Jamaica on several occasions.
We his majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the late representatives of the good people
of this country, having been deprived by the sudden interposition of the executive part of
this government from giving our countrymen the advice we wished to convey to them in a
legislative capacity, find ourselves under the hard necessity of adopting this, the only
method we have left, of pointing out to our countrymen such measures as in our opinion are
best fitted to secure our dearest rights and liberty from destruction, by the heavy hand of
power now lifted against North America: With much grief we find that our dutiful
applications to Great Britain for security of our just, antient, and constitutional rights, have
been not only disregarded, but that a determined system is formed and pressed for reducing
the inhabitants of British America to slavery, by subjecting them to the payment of taxes,
imposed without the consent of the people or their representatives; and that in pursuit of this
system, we find an act of the British parliament, lately passed, for stopping the harbour and
commerce of the town of Boston, in our sister colony of Massachusetts Bay, until the people

436

there submit to the payment of such unconstitutional taxes, and which act most violently and
arbitrarily deprives them of their property, in wharfs erected by private persons, at their own
great and proper expence, which act is, in our opinion, a most dangerous attempt to destroy
the constitutional liberty and rights of all North America…
2dly. We will neither ourselves import, nor purchase, any Slave, or Slaves, imported by any
Person, after the 1st Day of November next, either from Africa, the West Indies, or any
other Place.
Source: W. E. B. Du Bois, The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United
States of America, 1638-1870, Harvard Historical Studies, (New York: Longmans,
Green, & Co., 1896), pp. 42-47; McIlwaine, et. al., eds., Journals of the House of
Burgesses of Virginia, 1773-1776, pp xiii-xiv; see also Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon,
eds., August 11, 1774.
cc

April 22, 1775
Last Saturday, and this week the following persons were put to the bar of the
General Court….William Pitman from King George for murder.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., April 22, 1775.

May 11, 1775
This day (Friday) were executed pursuant to their sentence, John Watkins,
William Pitman, William Gray, and John Wood.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Pinkney, ed., May 11, 1775.

May 12, 1775
This day were executed at the gallows, pursuant to their sentence, William
Pitman, for murdering his negro lad….
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., May 12, 1775.

May 13, 1775
Yesterday William Pitman, for murder of his slave, John Watkins, for a rape, and
John Wood and William Gray for burglary were executed at the gallows, pursuant to their
sentence at the last General Court. When the sheriff and his attendants entered the gaol

437

to take them into custody, Pitman made some resistance, but was soon overpowered; he
behaved with decency at the place of execution, and attributed his unhappy fate to be the
effect of intemperate drinking.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., May 13, 1775.
June 20, 1775—Masters to Receive Compensation for Slaves Who Were Executed
A master received compensation from the colony if one of his or her slaves was executed.
The justices of the oyer and terminer court determined the value of a condemned slave
after they sentence the individual to death.
Ordered, that the Committee of public Claims do state an Account of all sums of
Money due from the public for Slaves condemned and executed, and of such other
Claims as have been agreed by the House to be paid to Claimants, except those in the
Resolves for payment of which the Council have concurred, and report the same with the
Salaries to the Offices of the General Assembly in a Schedule, to the House.
Source: McIlwaine, et. al., eds., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 17731776, p. 271.

May to June 1776—Slavery and the First Clause of the Virginia Declaration of Rights
As a member of the Virginia Convention, George Mason drafted the Virginia Declaration
of Rights some time between May 20 and 26, 1776. This draft, which included some
additions by Thomas Ludwell Lee, was presented to the rest of the committee called to
prepare the declaration; the committee added several provisions, and then the committee
draft was printed for consideration by the full Convention.
During the debate over the committee draft, the issue of slavery arose as the delegates
wrangled over the first clause of the declaration. Edmund Randolph recalled that Robert
Carter Nicholas and other conservatives expressed their anxiety that the first clause,
especially the phrase "born equally free," might provoke an insurrection among Virginia
slaves. Liberal members of the Convention dismissed this concern by arguing that slaves
were not constituent members of civil society and would by no means apply the clause to
themselves. A full debate over slavery did not ensue, and the delegates eventually
compromised by modifying the language of the first clause to attempt to reconcile the
ideal of freedom and the reality of slavery. The successive drafts of the first clause
follow; the brackets in the final draft indicate the changes made by the full Convention.
First Draft, ca. May 20-26, 1776
That all Men are born equally free and independant, and have certain inherent
natural Rights, of which they can not by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity;

438

among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and
possessing Property, and pursueing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.
Committee Draft, May 27, 1776
1.
THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent
natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity;
among which are, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and
possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Final Draft, June 12, 1776
1.
That all men are <by nature> equally free and independent, and have certain
inherent <> rights, of which, <when they enter into a state of society,> they cannot, by
any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; <namely,> the enjoyment of life and
liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety.
Source: The Papers of George Mason, ed. Rutland, 1:275, 277, 283, 287, 289.

June 29, 1776—Virginia Adopts a Constitution
The members of the House of Burgesses drafted and adopted a constitution for the state
of Virginia in June 1776. The Burgesses included a preamble that Thomas Jefferson
wrote. Jefferson‘s list of reasons why Virginians declared independence from Britain
draws upon his A Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774) and The
Declaration of Independence.
The CONSTITUTION, or FORM of
GOVERNMENT, agreed to and resolved
upon by the Delegates and
Representatives of the several
counties and corporations of Virginia
[Unanimously adopted June 29, 1776.]
I. WHEREAS, George the third, king of Great Britain and Ireland, and elector of Hanover,
heretofore intrusted with the exercise of the kingly office in this government, hath
endeavoured to prevent the same into a detestable and insupportable tyranny, by putting his
negative on laws the most wholesome and necessary for the publick good:
…
By prompting our negroes to rise in arms among us, those very negroes whom, by an
inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by law:

439

Source: Virginia Constitution (1776).

The Carpenter’s and Brickmaker’s Yard
The following information about African Americans in the Building Trades is excerpted
from Vanessa E. Patrick‘s report entitled ―‘as good a joiner as any in Virginia‘: AfricanAmericans in Eighteenth-Century Building Trades‖ (1995).
An Introduction
One of the greatest challenges facing historians of colonial America is the search
for material evidence of African-American life. The objects used and created by the
enslaved majority and the free minority have proved to be largely fragile, impermanent
and often difficult to identify. Once discovered, they endow plantation journals and tax
records with a heightened degree of eloquence and in themselves speak directly of
individual hopes and trials. The metal button and bone fish-hook are especially important
to the history museum striving to interpret the past in immediate and compelling ways.
African-American material culture, however, was not limited to small, portable items, but
embraced houses, outbuildings, bridges, roads--in short every man-made element of the
colonial landscape. Sometimes such structures, like most moveable objects, have come
to light only through archaeological investigation. Many others, particularly buildings,
have remained clearly in view to this day. A walk along Williamsburg's Duke of
Gloucester Street, or in any locality in which eighteenth-century architecture has
survived, reveals the sites and, indeed, the products of African-American endeavor. This
most extensive yet accessible artifact of African-American life includes not only living
spaces and workplaces, but the tangible results of labor and creativity. It owes its
existence to the significant numbers of slaves and free blacks employed in the building
trades. This introduction considers those African-Americans who contributed to the
building of eighteenth-century Virginia….
African-Americans worked in every facet of the colonial building process, from
preparation of materials to decorative finishing, and in every capacity, from unskilled
laborer to accomplished craftsman. With their fellow artisans among the indentured
servants, convicts, apprentices and free individuals of European and Native American
descent, they constituted one of the very largest occupational groups in the colonies. In
eighteenth-century Virginia only agriculture claimed larger numbers of workers than the
building trades in both the free and enslaved segments of the population. The
Sourcebook references for Virginia, spanning the years 1717 to 1825, include some 302
African-American building tradesmen known by name. The carpenters outnumber all
other tradesmen, accounting for 52% of the total, and when joined by the carpenterjoiners, carpenter-painters and other dual specialists they truly dominate at approximately
70%. A distant second place is held by the sawyers at roughly 21% of the total, and
bricklayers and masons follow at about 5% and a little better than 2% respectively.
Brickmakers, painters and millwrights make up the remaining 2% of the named

440

craftsmen. These relative percentages hold true for both runaway slaves and those who
remained; the small number of free black artisans identified are all carpenter-joiners. A
comparable sample of white building trades craftsmen yields the same predominance of
the carpenters and carpenter-joiners, amounting to about 72% of the total number.
Second place belongs not to the sawyers, who are hardly represented at less than 1%, but
to the bricklayers constituting about 16%. The painters follow and masons, millwrights,
plasterers, carver-gilders and glaziers complete the total. The absence of many finishing
trades among the African-American craftsmen is somewhat misleading, as carpenters and
bricklayers, particularly in a plantation context, usually carried out the glazing of
windows and plastering of rooms. Sawing, however, does seem to have been a buildingrelated activity associated with African-Americans and, in general, those craftsmen
proficient in more than one trade were quite often slaves.
Craft Training. Like their white counterparts, black workers in the building
trades acquired their training in one of three ways. Some arrived in America with
construction skills they had developed in their homelands. Their knowledge of building
traditions utilizing wood and other botanical materials undoubtedly found ready
application in the colonies and perhaps led to their further training along European lines.
Such might have been the experience of Gruff and Bob, a carpenter and sawyer who ran
away from their Prince George County owner in 1745. Both Africans, their familiarity
with construction matters could have recommended them for on-the-job training, the
route by which most enslaved building craftsmen learned their trades. Richard Henry
Lee of Westmoreland County issued a set of tools "to Jubiter for him to learn the
Carpenters trade with" in 1782 and presumably had in mind an experienced craftsman
who would show the slave how to use them. Many slaves learned their trades from free
white craftsmen hired either to instruct them or undertake a specific job with their
assistance. The brickmaker Charles Hagen worked for George Washington for eight
months in 1788 and one of the slaves who had helped him was moulding and firing his
own bricks in 1789. Slaves owned by craftsmen also acquired various levels of training;
Going was sold in 1795 by a Richmond bricklayer "with whom he sometime worked at
that trade."
The carpenter-joiner Charles Harding reported in 1772 that he had learned to paint
from his former master in Nansemond County. Harding may have been intentionally
taught, or he may have acquired his new skill through his own powers of observation and
aptitude. Whether bound or free, many African-Americans developed their facility with
saw, chisel or trowel by simply watching or assisting a family member, neighbor, master
or hired craftsman at work. Especially after mid-century and on the larger plantations,
trained slaves taught others. Quite often the aspiring craftsman was the son or other
relation of his teacher. Writing about the carpenter Tony in 1770, Landon Carter noted
that "his boy has now been going on 3 years his apprentice." John Hemings had been
trained by the free white carpenters employed by Thomas Jefferson. He, in turn,
instructed his own nephews in carpentry and, incidentally, left behind not only physical,
but written evidence of his exceptional craftsmanship in the letters he wrote to Jefferson.

441

The third and least common type of craft instruction was the formal
apprenticeship. The contractual agreement between craftsman and neophyte proved just
as rigorous and effective as on-the-job training and, moreover, was defined in detail and
legally binding. The same conventions that applied to whites governed apprenticeships
for African-Americans with the omission of literacy instruction for slaves. The
slaveowner who could or would not provide training on his own properties sometimes
opted to bind out a potential tradesman for a set number of years. In return for an
apprentice's labor, a craftsman offered not only instruction, but housing, food and
clothing. Though the owner temporarily lost one member of his labor force, he profited
ultimately on the return of a skilled worker. Free blacks also entered apprenticeships,
bound usually by family members or themselves just like free whites. Unlike enslaved
African-American apprentices, John Whitlock Spurlock of York County bound himself in
1753 to learn not only a trade, but to read and write and receive the customarily promised
"freedom dues." The free apprentice, whether white or black, could also complain to a
county court when his master failed to honor the terms of their agreement. Just so did
Richard Limehouse obtain his release, as well as court costs and a suit of clothes, from
the York County carpenter John Jones in 1752. There is evidence that some slave owners
terminated apprenticeships before the contracted time had elapsed in their impatience to
capitalize on the slaves' enhanced abilities. George and Stepney, apprenticed to the
Williamsburg carpenter Matthew Tuell, were apparently "inveigle[d] ... away" by their
Yorktown owner in 1772, when he judged their training to be sufficiently advanced for
his purposes.
Training for both free and enslaved African-Americans in the various building
trades sometimes began when they were as young as seven to ten years old. At each of
two farms belonging to William Byrd III, one of the full-fledged carpenters was yet a boy
in age. Formally bound apprentices seem to have embarked on their education as
teenagers. Among slaves, the taking up of a craft might occur at even more advanced
ages, possibly through individual initiative or as a kind of "promotion" granted by an
owner. Mention should be made of a small number of African-Americans who, like the
sawyer Sam Howell of Cumberland County, were "bound for 31 years according to the
[free] condition of [their] mother[s]." In 1766, the twenty-three year old Howell had
eight years to wait before his release from indentured servitude, though he possessed a
skill which might sustain him in freedom. It should also be noted that just as free white
women appear to have been barred from the building trades, so too were their free and
enslaved African-American sisters. Some slave women worked at the periphery of
construction, clearing vegetation from building sites, repairing the simpler types of
fencing or whitewashing outbuildings. No doubt they and many white women carried out
other tasks in the realms of carpentry or bricklaying, but their actual training in any of the
building crafts has yet to be proved.
The premature return of the apprentices George and Stepney to the domain of
their owner illustrates not only the economic needs of a particular individual, but the
defining characteristic of the colonial Chesapeake—a chronic shortage of labor. By the
later decades of the seventeenth-century, large farms and plantations had begun to
emerge, modest urban areas to develop and agriculture to diversify. These trends

442

continued into the next century and demands for labor, especially skilled labor,
intensified accordingly. In the seventeenth century some African-Americans could be
found among the carpenters and coopers so essential to tobacco cultivation. The
overwhelming majority, however, labored in the fields as indentured servants or,
increasingly, as slaves, while white tradesmen performed the more skilled tasks. In the
eighteenth century the addition of grains and other crops to the agricultural repertoire,
expanding settlement and ever-rising material expectations created more skilled work
than the existing labor force could handle. By the second quarter of the century the
purposeful training of slaves as craftsmen had been well established. As slaveowners
increased the size of their labor forces they found craft instruction for some individuals
economically feasible. At the same time there emerged enhanced opportunities for free
blacks and a general employment of African-Americans in a far wider range of
occupations. As Hugh Jones reported in 1724, "their Work is to take Care of the Stock,
plant Corn, Tobacco, Fruits, &c. ... [but] several of them are taught to be Sawyers,
Carpenters, Smiths, Coopers, &c. and though for the most Part they be none of the aptest
or nicest; yet they ... will perform tolerably well." The versatility exhibited by a typical
plantation carpenter and the deft workmanship he and his fellow craftsmen often
imparted to barn and courthouse alike challenges Jones's assessment. As the century
progressed, it became clear that African-Americans engaged in building could be
exceptionally able and the products of their labor very nice indeed.
A Diversity of Work. Regardless of their ancestry, members of the colonial
building trades represented every possible level of craft ability and achievement. Some
claimed skills they simply did not have, while others never attained any acceptable
degree of proficiency in spite of instruction or experience. Some proved better suited to
other tasks. Will, in 1770 a Fauquier County runaway, "worked some time at the
carpenters and coopers trade, though knows but little of either, but is a tolerable good
turner." Phill, who ran away from the same county ten years later, achieved quite
different results from a similar situation. He "worked with stone mason and bricklayer,
[but] has no particular trade by being capable of doing something at almost every kind of
business." Such innate ability was, not surprisingly, greatly valued by slaveowners and
the plantation setting in particular fostered the development of diversified building
craftsmen. Most frequently those following multiple trades combined carpentry and
sawing or carpentry and some other branch of woodworking, usually joinery or
coopering. The dual specialty of carpenter and shoemaker was also fairly common. A
few remarkable individuals gained competency in a variety of trades, like Peter Deadfoot
of Stafford County, described in 1768 as not only an excellent sawyer, but a butcher,
carter, ploughman, scytheman, shoemaker and waterman. Specialists in a single trade
actually predominated, but even they routinely engaged in a wide variety of craft
activities. In 1770 and 1771 Landon Carter's carpenters carried out such diverse tasks as
building fences and thatching outbuildings, repairing a carriage and making a wheat
cradle. When no immediate need existed for the expertise of certain craftsmen or an
extraordinary event called for large numbers of laborers, slaveowners sometimes
assigned their building tradesmen to unaccustomed tasks. Thus Washington at times set
temporarily unoccupied bricklayers to helping carpenters or carpenters to plant corn and
assist with the wheat harvest.

443

Besides the craftsmen who were proficient in more than one building trade or
combined their construction work with other, sometimes quite unrelated activities, there
were those for whom building matters remained secondary or incidental. Will, a driver,
mower and ploughman in 1784 Fairfax County, was routinely called upon to "do the
common carpenter's jobs necessary on a plantation." Both enslaved and free AfricanAmericans, craftsmen and laborers alike, often carried out basic tasks like making ax or
hoe handles or replacing the damaged siding of an outbuilding. They were characterized
as "part of a carpenter" or able to "do something of the house carpenters work,"
indicating that they possessed only a few of the skills associated with the true artisan. It
should be noted here that the same relatively simple and routine building activities that
intermittently occupied the blacksmith or ditcher constituted full-time employment for
the workers known as "jobbers." "Jobbing carpenters" and others less specialized
provided the semi-skilled labor for all phases of construction, from making bricks to
installing interior woodwork. Just as carpenters and other tradesmen occasionally found
themselves working in the fields, agricultural workers and domestic servants sometimes
labored on construction sites. During the remodelling of Mount Vernon in 1758,
Washington's overseer reported that "as to pul[l]ing Down the old plastering and leaths
[laths] out of the rooms I made the home house people Do and all other work as they
could," while the carpenters built scaffolding and salvaged nails from old shingles.
While some craftsmen and laborers qualified as partial carpenters, some
carpenters were confined by their training and experience to certain aspects of the trade.
The "jobbing carpenters" just mentioned were generalists and displayed varying levels of
skill. Eighteenth-century Virginians used a number of other descriptive terms to express
the abilities of a carpenter somewhat more precisely. "Coarse" or "rough carpenters"
built most of the structures required for domestic, agricultural and even public purposes.
Assembling and securing the frame, splitting out and nailing up the clapboards for siding
and roofing and finishing the job with simple doors and perhaps a floor did not exceed
the capabilities of such craftsmen. Buildings of some scale and solidity could only be
created by the "complete carpenter," whose range and level of skill met the challenge of
sophisticated structural framing and joinery work like panelling. "House carpenters"
usually equalled the "complete carpenters" in achievement and did not always limit
themselves to domestic building. These terms described carpenters of all races and social
conditions. African-American carpenters acquired two additional terms for specifying
the nature and complexity of their work. "Plantation carpenters" seem to have performed
the same tasks as the above-mentioned Will--basic carpentry in service to agricultural
production, often including clapboard work. In certain contexts "Negro carpenter"
appears a straightforward designation for an African-American craftsman. Elsewhere,
though, it might pointedly indicate the enslaved condition of a craftsman or even serve as
a synonym for "clapboard carpenter." Of all the building trades, only carpentry inspired
classification according to skill level. Every trade, however, ventured to assess quality of
workmanship. Thus among the African-American building craftsmen of the eighteenth
century can be found the ingenious rough carpenter, the good bricklayer, the fine sawyer
and "as good a joiner as any in Virginia."

444

Circumstances. The majority of enslaved African-Americans lived and worked
exclusively on plantations. Slave craftsmen in general lived on the larger farms and were
owned in disproportionate numbers by the wealthiest planters in Virginia. Building
tradesmen virtually always figured in their ranks and usually constituted a sizeable
percentage of their numbers. As early as 1757, the six carpenters at William Byrd III's
Brunswick County property accounted for roughly 32% of all skilled men present, while
at Washington's Mount Vernon six carpenters and two bricklayers made up 21% of the
tradesmen in 1799. At the largest establishments, like those of Washington or Robert
Carter, carpenters and bricklayers labored in gangs under the direction of a free, white
craftsman hired for a specific project or as a resident overseer of all building activities.
Particularly after mid-century as more and more African-American craftsmen were
trained, some slaves entered into supervisory roles themselves or otherwise worked in a
comparatively independent fashion. Thus a craftsman might receive the general
instructions of his owner and carry out a job individually or with the help of one or more
less-skilled assistants. Just so did Robert Carter dispatch the carpenter Oliver to one of
his quarters to make a tobacco house door in January of 1785. Comparably accomplished
craftsmen might form working partnerships, like the carpenters Guy and Jimmy at
Landon Carter's Sabine Hall in Richmond County. Pit sawing by its very nature was a
two person operation, encouraging practiced duos of "top man" and "bottom man."
The white carpenter or bricklayer engaged on the plantation was not always a
supervisor, nor was he always free. African-American building tradesmen were often
joined in their tasks by indentured servants or convicts of European ancestry. Hired
white artisans often took their orders directly from the plantation owner or manager, as
did the slaves assigned to work with them. In some instances they brought their own
slaves to assist with the job. While most enslaved craftsmen belonged to planters, some
were purchased by the more successful white tradesmen. These slaves and their lessskilled brethren constituted the core, if not the entirety, of such a tradesman's workforce.
The builder William Buckland's laborers and the joiner Francis Jaram's house carpenters
both enhanced and expanded their owners' business possibilities.
The hiring of free white building trades craftsmen for plantation work occurred
throughout the eighteenth century, but most routinely in the earlier decades. By contrast,
the hiring of enslaved African-American craftsmen became common in the 1760s and
intensified both during and immediately after the Revolution. Often a single plantation
could not fully employ its artisans, and slaveowners discovered a new source of income
in renting out their temporarily unoccupied workers. Ever-present construction needs
plus the accelerating incidence and scale of building projects towards the end of the
century contributed to the great demand for skilled carpenters, bricklayers, joiners and
also general laborers. Slaves were hired for specific periods of time and monetary rates,
frequently for work at considerable distances from their home plantations. Usually the
hirer assumed responsibility for their housing, clothing and food, while the owner
collected their earnings. Newspaper advertisements announced the need or availability of
slaves for hire, but most owners seem to have made agreements less formally with family
members or neighbors. Sometimes alternative methods of payment were adopted, as
when Landon Carter swapped the labor of his carpenter Jimmy for that of the stonecutter

445

Ralph, one of John Tayloe's slaves, in 1764. A few owners allowed their slaves to retain
part or even all of the money they earned as hirelings and sometimes to make their own
arrangements with potential employers. Charles, a versatile sawyer, ran away from
Norfolk in 1767, perhaps fearing that his new owner would not honor the fact that "he has
been used to hire his time, and has a pass of Joseph Jones for that purpose." Most hiring
and self-hiring took place in the plantation context, but certain late colonial and early
national era industries like mining and founding, as well as ambitious public projects like
churches, courthouses and canals, also claimed the labor of African-American building
tradesmen. The industries and the canal companies also purchased slaves outright,
accounting for most of those few skilled individuals neither free nor owned by the
planters and craftsmen.
Very few enslaved African-American craftsmen managed their own hiring and
only a slightly greater number shared in the fees they garnered for their owners. Many,
however, enjoyed living and working conditions superior to those of fieldworkers and the
lesser-skilled. At the more extensive plantations artisans usually lived at the main or
home house. Proximity to the owner's immediate domain generally insured fairly wellbuilt housing and sometimes provision of a structure or shop designated for a certain
trade. Whether at home house or distant quarter, the building craftsman was particularly
well equipped to create, care for and improve his domestic surroundings, as well as
fabricate items for personal comfort, barter or sale. In addition to selling chickens or
three-legged stools, he might also acquire cash from owners like Francis Taylor of
Orange County, who paid "Carpenter Moses for working on Overseers house 1/3 per day
in holidays" in 1792. Like most slaves, craftsmen spent whatever money they had almost
exclusively on items of clothing. The variety and quality of clothes worn and carried by
building trades runaways indicates their enhanced opportunities for personal gain even
within the strictures of bondage. Slave carpenters, sawyers and bricklayers benefitted
from their status as skilled workers in a number of additional, less tangible ways. Even a
rudimentary knowledge of a building trade helped to diversify a slave's work routine and
allowed him to develop his intellect and talents. Varied and challenging work, often
authority over other slaves and the trust of the manager, overseer or owner endowed the
craftsman with a heightened sense of self and some control over his situation. Hiring and
self-hiring allowed the craftsman to extend his freedom of movement, meet prospective
friends and spouses and, most significantly, experience a world beyond his home
environment.
If hiring opened up certain possibilities for a slave, it also closed off other aspects
of his life by separating him from his family and accustomed surroundings. Building
trades craftsmen, as possessors of highly sought after abilities, were always prime
candidates for hiring and also for sale. Some, like the carpenter and sawyer Will in 1758
Halifax County, even became victims of abduction. The circumstances encountered by a
slave after he was hired out or sold might prove uncomfortable or even dangerous. In the
building trades the threat of injury was always present and many craftsmen lost fingers
and toes and bore the scars of ax and saw cuts. Inferior tools or unreasonable demands
simply increased the risk. Slave craftsmen were susceptible to an additional
psychological burden arising from their comparative material comfort and close working

446

relationships with whites--a sense of alienation from the majority of the enslaved
population. Not only did some craftsmen feel caught between two worlds, but they often
wielded even less negotiating power than the field hands with those in authority due to
their small numbers and unique status. On the other hand, enslaved building tradesmen
were able to express resistance through their skills by employing such tactics as slowing
down the pace of work, intentionally misunderstanding directions and deliberately
producing work of inferior quality.
The ultimate form of resistance for a slave was running away. Dissatisfaction
with their present situation apparently motivated the 1794 flight of Bob and Duke, a
house carpenter and sawyer from Richmond County, whose owner believed they ran
away "to compel me to hire or sell them, as many applications have been made." Ten
years earlier, a Cumberland County carpenter named Jack had offered a more elemental
reason when he "was heard to say, since he ran away, that he never intended to serve any
person as a slave again." The craftsman was far more likely than the fieldhand to run
away, in part because he was better equipped to cope with life beyond the plantation. He
possessed readily marketable skills, for the practice of which he usually took his tools
away with him. He was often literate or knowledgeable about the working world and
sometimes had accumulated cash or acquired other valuables to finance his journey. The
practice of hiring out provided the slave with additional opportunities for running away,
as Reuben, a carpenter and sawyer from Spotsylvania County, discovered in 1794.
Reuben "was hired to Mr. Nicolas Voss in the city of Richmond, last year, and continued
till the expiration of his limited time, which was the 25th of December last, from which
time and place he eloped."
Most runaway craftsmen, in the words of the advertisements placed by
slaveowners seeking their return, intended to "endeavour to pass for a free man." Some,
no doubt, successfully entered the ranks of the free black tradesmen. In eighteenth- and
early nineteenth-century Virginia, unlike Charleston and other places in the north as well
as the south, free black carpenters and bricklayers apparently never encountered overt
hostility as competitors to the free white members of the building trades. While
agricultural tasks divided clearly along racial lines, craft activities developed relatively
few such distinctions. The labor shortage that had always afflicted the colony persisted
into the new century, and building needs continued or increased in the decades
immediately after the Revolution. Jobs, it seems, were not scarce, and one particular
inequity awarded to free African-American building tradesmen--less pay for equal work-appears to have forestalled any fears their white counterparts may have been harboring.
The role of free blacks in the building trades is certain, but as yet indistinct. There were
those who acquired the basic skills to maintain and improve their homes and augment
their incomes by supplying the semi-skilled labor always required in construction.
Others were accomplished craftsmen, who achieved varying degrees of prosperity. In
1797, Washington asked his nephew George Lewis if he knew "of a good House Joiner
(white or black) that could be hired" and was sober, diligent and "capable of making a
rich finished pannel Door, Sash, and wainscot." That a craftsman might be judged by his
attributes and abilities rather than by his race or social status, suggests that free, as well as

447

enslaved African-American building tradesmen could sometimes refute the prejudice and
oppression of their time.

Selections from the Sourcebook

March 30, 1717
Batteran
carpenter

York County, Va.

Indenture between Mary Cary, widow of Warwick County, and Nathaniel Hook of York
County, carpenter: Mrs. Cary binds her mulatto slave Batteran to Hook "with him to
dwell and serve ..." for six years "dureing which term the said Apprentice his master
faithfully shall serve in the worke and trade of a Carpenter and also tending to Indian
Corn and not otherwise according to his wit and ability and honesty ..." Hook was to
allow "meat, drink, and apparrell, lodging, washing and all other things necessary ...."
Source: Warwick County Records, Box II, Folder 7 (College of William and Mary).

1740 to 1745

James City and York Counties, Va.

"Memorandum of Things delivered to the Quarters [1740-45]"
[rugs and caps] to "New Quarter," "Foaces," "Mill Quarter," "Me[rc]h[an]ts Hundred,"
"Black Swamp" and "Carpenters."
Source: Carter Burwell Ledger, 1738-1756, Burwell Papers (CWF).

1745
Sam
carpenter

James City County, Va.

Carter Burwell Cr. "By Cash given to Carpenter Sam - 11.6"
Source: Carter Burwell Ledger 1738-1756, Burwell Papers (CWF).

October 3, 1751

Williamsburg, Va.

"THE Subscriber, intending for England in the Spring, with his family; is willing to
dispose of several valuable slaves, among which are Waitingmen, Blacksmiths,
Shoemakers, Carpenters, Barbers, and Plasterers, a neat Chariot with front and side
Glasses, Six Horses and Harness, all Manner of Household Goods, Plate, China, etc. Also
the following Lands, viz. Two Lots in the Town of Newcastle, with a warehouse thereon.

448

About Three Hundred Acres, within Four Miles of Newcastle, well wooded. One
Thousand and Forty Acres on Chicahominy, with a very good Brick House, 60 by 20, in
good Repair, a large Brick Dairy, and other necessary Buildings. The Plantation is ready
for cropping with Ten Hands. To be dispos'd of with or without the stock. Also, a new
Store adjoining the Market Place in Williamsburg, subject to Ground Rent. Any Person
inclining to purchase may know the Terms of Sale by applying to me in Williamsburg.
John Dixon."
Source: Virginia Gazette October 3, 1751, p. 4, col. 2.

May 18, 1752
Richard Limehouse
carpenter-joiner

York County, Va.

"Upon the Complaint of Richard [L]imehouse against his Master John Jones and on
hear[ing] [the Parties] It appearing to the Court that the said Jones hath [ ]ed the said
Limehouse and this being the third c[om]pl[aint it is] Ordered that the said Limehouse be
discharge from [ ] Service and that the said Jones suffer him to [ ]oaths now at the
Taylors making for him and pay the Costs occasioned by this complaint."
Source: York County Judgments and Orders 2 (1752-1754): 23-4.

June 18, 1753
Gabriel Muray
carpenter-joiner

York County, Va.

"Ann Muray a Mulatto Woman" of Yorktown and York County binds "her Son Gabriel
Muray of the Age of Seven Years as an Apprentice" to John Richardson, ca carpenterjoiner of the same place. Gabriel to serve until the age of twenty-one years; Richardson to
provide food, lodging and clothing in addition to craft training.
Source: York County Deed Book 5 (1741-1754): 550. See also York County Judgments
and Orders 2 (1752-1754): 232 - recording of indenture, June 18, 1753.

August 21, 1753
John Whitloc[k] Spurlock
carpenter-joiner

York County, Va.

"This Indenture made the twenty first day of August In the Year of our Lord One
thousand seven hundred and fifty three Years Between John Richardson of York Town
Carpenter and Joiner on the one part an[d] John Whitloc[k] Spurlock a Mulatto on the
other part - Witnesseth that he the said John Whitlock Spurlock of the Age of Eighteen
Years doth bind himself as an Apprentice to the said John Richardson his Heirs Executors

449

to learn his aforesaid Trade of Carpenter and Joiner and with him after the manner of an
Apprentice to Serve for the Space of six years from the Date aforesaid ...." Richardson
also to teach Spurlock to read and write, provide him with food, lodging and clothing and
allow him freedom dues at the end of the apprenticeship.
Source: York County Deed Book 5 (1741-1754): 558-559. See alsoYork County
Judgments and Orders 2 (1752-1754): 320 - recording of indenture, September 18, 1753.

February 1, 1768
Guy and Jimmy
carpenters

York County, Va.

"Guy & Jimmy returned this day from Ring's Neck where they have been building two
Negroe quarters 20. by 16. an Overseer's House 20. by 16. & a Corn house 16. by 12."
Source: Diary Robert Wormeley Carter, 1768 (W&M).
(see Landon Carter diary entries, beginning above February 3, March 3 and April 26,
1764)

December 22, 1768

York County, Va.

"To be HIRED at the half-way house between Williamsburg and York, on Monday the 2d
of January next, TWENTY likely NEGRO MEN, belonging to the estate of John Brown,
deceased, among whom are three pair of extraordinary good sawers, a very good
carpenter, and several good watermen. Bond and security will be required. ROBERT
NICOLSON, JOHN BROWN, Executors."
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., 22 December 1768, page 3, column 2.

July 13, 1769
Sampson
carpenter

York County, Va.

"RUN away from the subscriber in York county, the 21st of May last, a Negro man slave
named SAMPSON, about six feet high, a remarkable thin face and high forehead; he is a
sensible fellow, and can do a little at the carpenter's business; he is thought to be
harboured at Cabin Point, on James river. If any one will apprehend the said Negro and
secure him so that I can get him, shall have TWENTY SHILLINGS reward, besides what
the law allows WILLIAM MOODY, jun."
Source: Virginia Gazette, Rind, ed., 13 July 1769, page 4, column 2.

450

November 2, 1769
Williamsburg, Va.
"Williamsburg, Nov. 2, 1769. ANY person who has a Negro fellow to dispose of, that is a
good clapboard carpenter, may apply to FREDERICK BRYAN. *** who will likewise
give ten shillings for a RAM GOAT."
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., 2 November 1769, page 3, column 1.

February 22, 1770
Charles
sawyer

James City County, Va.

"RUN away from the subscriber, in James City, the latter end of July last, a large black
Negro fellow named CHARLES, a sawyer by trade, has a large scar in his face, and
straddles much in his walk; he is much addicted to running away, was taken up at
Hampton in 1766, where he endeavoured to pass for a freeman, and was lurking, as I
suppose, in order to get the opportunity of some vessel to escape out of the country. As
he may probably have made that way now with the same design, I forewarn all masters of
vessels from harbouring or employing him; and will give the person who takes up and
brings him to me, or secures him in any prison, TWENTY SHILLINGS, besides the
allowance by law. THOMAS COWLE."
Source: Virginia Gazette, Rind, ed., 22 February 1770, page 3, column 2.

March 22, 1770
Ben
carpenter; cooper

York County, Va.

"Forty Shillings Reward.
RUN away from the subscriber, in York county, about the 11th or 12th of November last,
a very black Negro man named BEN, about 5 feet 6 inches high, 35 years old, spare
made, by trade a carpenter, and understands something of the coopers business, his upper
teeth rotten; he has many clothes, so it is impossible to describe them. He took with him
sundry carpenters and coopers tools. I expect he will endeavour to pass for a freeman, as
he can read tolerably well, and am doubtful of his obtaining a pass from some evil
disposed person, and leave the colony. This is to desire all masters of vessels, and others,
from harbouring him; and I will give the above reward to any person that will deliver him
to me, at Mr. James Shields's, near Williamsburg. JOSHUA JONES."
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., 22 March 1770, page 3, column 3.

May 7, 1771
Moses
sawyer

James City County, Va.

451

"RUN away from Morris Ramsay, in James City county, some time in the year 1769, a
mulatto fellow named MOSES, by trade a sawyer, the property of the subscriber; he is
about 36 years of age, his size and apparel I cannot describe as he belonged to the estate
of Joseph Morton, Gentleman, deceased, and never came to my possession after the
division of the said estate. He has a wife named JOAN, the property of Mr. William
Morton, that has been out with him almost the whole time, and therefore must necessarily
suspect that they are harboured by some ill disposed person in or about Williamsburg.
Whoever takes up the said fellow, and conveys him to me in Richmond county, shall
receive a reward of SEVEN POUNDS, besides what the law allows; and as such
notorious offences are not to be bourne with any degree of patience, I will give a reward
of TWENTY POUNDS to any person who will produce the head of the said fellow,
severed from his body. NEWMAN B. BARNES. May 7, 1771."
Source: Virginia Gazette (R) May 23, 1771, p. 2, col. 2.

June 11, 1772
George and Stepney
carpenters

Williamsburg, Va.

"WILLIAMSBURG, June 11, 1772. RUN away last Night, two Negro Lads named
GEORGE and STEPNEY, about eighteen years of Age, the Property of Mr. William
Digges, Junior, of York Town, but Apprentices to me from the said Digges for seven
Years. I have reason to suspect that Mr. Digges, under Pretence of their Time being
expired (which I am ready to dispute to the contrary) sent a Negro in the Night Time to
inveigle them away. I hereby forewarn Mr. Digges, or any Person whatever, from
harbouring or entertaining them, as they shall answer it at their Peril. Whoever delivers
them to me shall have THIRTY SHILLINGS Reward. MATTHEW TUELL."
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., 11 June 1772, page 3, column 2.
Matthew Tuell was a carpenter.

December 23, 1773

Williamsburg, Va.

"To be SOLD, or HIRED, A VERY good Negro CARPENTER. For Terms apply to
THOMAS EVERARD."
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., 23 December 1773, page 2, column 3.

January 5, 1776

Williamsburg, Va.

"To be HIRED, A NEGRO CARPENTER, who has served a regular apprenticeship to a
good workman. B. WELDON."

452

Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., 5 January 1776, supplement, page 2, column 3.

January 10, 1777

Williamsburg, Va.

"WILLIAMSBURG, Jan. 8, 1777. WANTED immediately, three or four SHOP
JOINERS, also ten or twelve NEGRO CARPENTERS for six or seven months, for which
a good price will be given by FRANCIS JARAM. N.B. Any person who has WHITE
OAK TREES to dispose of, near this city, may apply as above."
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., 10 January 1777, page 4, column 2. Francis Jaram
was a carpenter-joiner.

March 21, 1777

Williamsburg, Va.

"WILLIAMSBURG, March 1777. WANTED immediately, four or five good HOUSE
CARPENTERS, also five or six NEGRO CARPENTERS, for which a good Price will be
given by applying to me. FRANCIS JARAM."
Source: Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., 21 March 1777, page 1, column 2.

April 25, 1777
Harry
carpenter; cooper

Williamsburg, Va.

"RUN away from the subscriber in Williamsburg, about 8 or 10 weeks ago, a negro
fellow named Harry, by trade a cooper and carpenter, and when at a bench he works on
the wrong side. I purchased him at the estate of doctor Andrew Anderson, deceased, in
New Kent county; and mr. Anderson purchased him of the estate of the late mr. Shermer
of James City, where I believe he is now lurking, otherwise in King William at or near
one of the plantations of the said mr. Shermer. I will give 40 s. to any person who secures
the above slave, so as I get him again, or 3 l. if delivered to me in Williamsburg.
FRANCIS JARAM."
Source: Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., 25 April 1777, page 2. column 2.

July 25, 1777

Williamsburg, Va.

"WANTED immediately, 3 or 4 good HOUSE CARPENTERS, also 4 or 5 NEGRO
CARPENTERS; for which good wages will be given by applying to me in Williamsburg.
F. JARAM."

453

Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., 25 July 1777, page 2, column 3.

March 27, 1778

Williamsburg, Va.

"WANTED to hire, a negro gardener, two negro carpenters, and a person capable of
driving a charriot. Good wages will be given, and for particulars apply to the printer."
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., 27 March 1778, page 4, column 2.

July 10, 1778

Williamsburg, Va.

"For SALE, A NEGRO boy between 17 and 18 years of age, who has been upwards of
three years at the carpenter's business. He is a very strong healthy lad, and sold for no
fauls [?]. He may be seen, and his price known, by applying to the Printer."
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., 10 July 1778, page 1, column 2.

1780

York County, Va.

Allen Chapman "1 Negro Man Sawyer aged 25 years. 125 - - " [losses total £448.18. -]
Source: York County Claims for Losses.

November 16, 1782
George
carpenter; miller

James City County, Va.

"FORTY DOLLARS REWARD.
RUN away from Mr. Paradise's mill, near Williamsburg, a negro man named GEORGE,
a carpenter by trade, but has been miller at the said mill for many years. He is about five
feet ten or eleven inches high, and has some defect in one of his eyes. It is thought he will
make for the northward, or the Pamunkey indian town. Whoever takes up the said negro
and delivers him to me near Jamestown, shall be paid the above reward by CARY
WILKINSON."
Source: Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, 16 November 1782, page 3, column 3.

June 28, 1783
George
carpenter, sawyer

James City County, Va.

454

"TEN POUNDS REWARD.
RAN away from the subscriber in James City County, a negro fellow named George,
about 30 years old, 6 feet high, stout and well made; and can read very well, he is a very
good sawyer, and clapboard carpenter, and I understand is somewhere about the Long
Bridge, or Four-Mile Creek, and hires himself as a freeman to work on vessels; The said
fellow being outlawed, I will give five pounds for him delivered to me, or the above
reward for his head, separate from his body. JOHN HOLT."
Source: Virginia Gazette or the American Advertiser, 28 June 1783, page 1, column 3.

September 6, 1783
Jerry
bricklayer, plasterer

James City County, Va.

Col. Nathaniel Burwell, Dr.
"To 9 Days work of Jerry (at the Grove) Repairg. Store House, Kitchen & Building Steps
to the Door of the Store do & Kitchen & plastering a Room in Cellar @ 5 pr. Day 2..5 -"
Source: Humphrey Harwood Account Book, Ledger B (CWF). Harwood was a
Williamsburg mason and builder.

July 24, 1786
Jerry and Nat
bricklayers, plasterers

York County, Va.

"Mr. Nathaniel Burwell (York River) Dr."
"To 10 days work of Jerry & Nat at plastering Suky's House & repairing do in dwelling
House a 6/" [£ - 3 -]
Source: Humphrey Harwood Account Book, Ledger B (CWF).

December 1788
Billy
brickmaker (?)

Williamsburg, Va.

"Estate of H. Harwood in a/c with W. Harwood the Exor" Dr.
"To pd. negro Billy for burning brick Kiln - 10 - "
Source: Humphrey Harwood Account Book, Ledger D (CWF).

July 22, 1790
Nat

Williamsburg, Va.

455

bricklayer, plasterer, carpenter (?)
James Anderson Dr.
―To 2 days work of Nat building a Wall putting in a door frame & window frame 8/ -8‖
Source: Humphrey Harwood Account Book, Ledger C (CWF).

August 7, 1790
Caesar
carpenter

James City County, Va.

"THE Subscriber has taken up on his plantation, upon the western branch, a Negro BOY,
who says he came from James town, that he was born free and was bound apprentice to a
Mr. Barrot House, a carpenter near James town: He is about 5 feet high, well made and
active, and appears to be about sixteen years of age, he calls himself Caesar; when taken
up he was almost naked. The owner of said boy may get him by applying and paying
charges. WILLIAM VEALE, Jun. August 7, 1790."
Source: Norfolk and Portsmouth Chronicle, 28 August 1790, page 4, column 3.

March 1, 1792
Jerry and Nat
bricklayers, plasterers

Williamsburg (?), Va.

Charles Hunt Dr.
"To 3 days work of Jerry building Cellar Steps & mending plasterg - 12 - "
James Davis Dr.
"To 8 days work of Nat a 4/ whitewashing & mending plaistering, grates &c. 1.12 -"
Source: Humphrey Harwood Account Book, Ledger C (CWF).

November 17, 1793
Nat
bricklayer, plasterer

Williamsburg, Va.

Dr. John Galt Dr.
"To 2 days Hire of Nat in plastering & setting up Grates - 8 - "
Source: Humphrey Harwood Account Book, Ledger D (CWF).

December 11, 1793

James City County, Va.

456

Jerry
sawyer; blacksmith
"RUN AWAY From the subscriber some time in July last, a Negro man named JERRY,
About 28 or 30 years old, WHO I have reason to believe has been lurking about the city
of Richmond, as he is related to several negroes living in that place; he is a middle sized
well made fellow, rather of a light complexion, and combs his hair neatly back, has a
very large navel, and as well as I remember has a scar on one of his thighs occasioned by
a burn, and generally of a smiling countenance; he is an excellent sawyer, and can work a
little at the blacksmiths trade. I have understood he has obtained by some means, a
certificate of manumission, consequently passes as a free man, under a fictitious name. I
have understood that he solicited a Captain Potts, for a passage to Philadelphia, where he
wishes to go. I will give a reward of five pounds to any person who will deliver the said
negro to me at Barretts ferry, on Chickahominy river, if taken in this state, or ten pounds
if taken out of the state, or if committed to jail, ten dollars, provided he is so secured that
I get him; and do forwarn all masters of vessels from taking the said fellow on board, as
well as every other person or persons from carrying him out of the state. ISHAM
CHRISTIAN. December 11th, 1793."
Source: Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, 13 December 1793, page 3, column 2.

April 26, 1794
Nat
bricklayer, plasterer

Williamsburg, Va.

St. George Tucker Dr.
"To 1 1/2 days Hire of Nat mending Plastering & Lathing - 6 - "
Source: Humphrey Harwood Account Book, Ledger D (CWF).

May 1, 1794
Nat
bricklayer, plasterer

Williamsburg (?), Va.

James Taylor Dr.
"To 1 days Hire of Nat mending oven a 4/ & 3 Busl. [bushel] Lime a 9d - 6.3"
Source: Humphrey Harwood Account Book, Ledger D (CWF).

May 29, 1794
Nat
bricklayer, plasterer

Williamsburg (?), Va.

457

Francis Davenport Dr.
"To 1 days Hire of Nat repairing Well & 3 Bushl. [bushel] Lime a 9d. - 6 3"
Source: Humphrey Harwood Account Book, Ledger D (CWF).

March 12, 1796
Jerry
sawyer; blacksmith

James City County, Va.

"Run-away the 13th of February last, a likely young NEGRO FELLOW, NAMED
JERRY, about five feet nine or ten inches high, has a remarkable high forehead, thin hair,
and of a yellow complexion. He is a remarkable good sawyer, and has worked at the
smith's trade. He took with him a variety of cloathing, amongst which is a remarkable suit
of green plaid. He is supposed to be in the lower end of New Kent, or the upper end of
James City. Whoever will secure him in any jail within this state, shall receive FIVE
DOLLARS; and if delivered to me in James City County, shall receive TEN DOLLARS,
with an allowance of reasonable expences. JOHN P. SHEILDS. March 12, 1796 ... N.B.
I forewarn all persons from carrying the said fellow out of the state, at their peril. J.P.S."
Source: Virginia Gazette and General Advertiser, 12 March 1796.

Carter’s Grove
The information on Carter‘s Grove includes selections from Lorena S. Walsh‘s book,
From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove: The History of a Virginia Slave Community, and an
agricultural calendar for Carter‘s Grove.
My primary focus is on the African Americans who lived at Carter‘s Grove
plantation and on outlying quarters that were part of the Carter‘s Grove estate.
Secondarily, I have followed the history of the larger tidewater Burwell slave community,
most of whose members resided on adjoining or nearby plantations, into the last quarter
of the eighteenth century. Before 1783 most of these slaves shared similar experiences as
well as established blood ties and probably also fictive kin ties. For these people home
encompassed most of the James-York peninsula between the towns of Williamsburg and
Yorktown and adjacent areas to the north in Gloucester County and to the south in Isle of
Wight County. The black workers on a given Burwell plantation complex likely did not
maintain contact with all of the slaves owned by others of the Burwell tribe, and over
time each residential group forged additional ties with other blacks living nearby. Still,
prior bonds and continued close residence serve to identify some probably long-term,
reasonably regular connections.
…

458

At Carter‘s Grove two distinct groups of African Americans were united into one
workforce at the home plantation and its associated quarters in 1738, when for the first
time there was a white planter family in residence. One group was composed of recently
enslaved Africans who, after their forced removal from the Old World, had lived only at
Carter‘s Grove; the others were mostly first- or second-generation native-born Virginians
with older and wider-spreading roots in the colony. These two groups brought different
experiences and perspectives to bear in their struggle to survive. Together they and their
children formed new accommodations to slavery that in turn were dramatically altered by
events associated with the American Revolution and the forced westward migration that
accelerated during and after the war.
…
Nathaniel Burwell‘s second son, Carter (1716-1756), inherited Merchant‘s
Hundred from his maternal grandfather, Robert Carter, and 2,140 acres of York County
land near the mouth of Queen‘s Creek that Lewis Burwell II had acquired. Before 1721
either Lewis II or Nathaniel had established an auxiliary farm there called New Quarter.
To this was added a second plantation lying between Queen‘s and King‘s Creeks,
formerly the farm of Stephen Fouace (subsequently Foaces or Fouaces Quarter), which
one of the Burwells had purchased sometime in the early eighteenth century. Carter
Burwell moved all of his Burwell bondspeople to York County when he set up
housekeeping in 1738 at Merchant‘s Hundred, already outfitted with its own slaves by
Robert Carter.
Within a five-mile radius around Carter‘s Grove, Carter Burwell‘s home plantation, about
1750, are his ancillary quarters at New Quarter, Foaces, Black Swamp, and Abraham‘s.
Also within the circle is the home house of his cousin Lewis Burwell IV at Kingsmill, the
adjacent Kingsmill and North Quarters, and the Bray quarter at Utopia, as well as the
King‘s Creek plantation (and probably other quarters) held by the estate of cousin
Nathaniel Bacon Burwell and the Lightfoot quarter on the same creek. On the north bank
of the York were his older brother‘s Fairfield and some outlying quarters; and just across
the James to the south were brother Robert‘s farms in Isle of Wight.
Juxtaposed, this scattering of Burwell plantations translates into a much larger
resident community of over three hundred African Americans, some of whom shared
family connections as close as those of the Burwell clan on whose land they lived and
labored. African forced migrants shared some core beliefs about the centrality of kinship
and lineage in ordering relationships between individuals, although actual kinship
systems varied widely from one group to another. While they could not re-create any
particular West African kinship system in slavery, they adapted some basic beliefs in
organizing newly formed families and larger residential groups. Adult migrants could
choose to become fictive uncles and aunts to younger migrant children, and Africans of
similar ages could act as brothers or sisters. Men and women whose parents and
grandparents had lived in the same neighborhood for up to a century had extended
families composed of siblings, children, uncles, aunts, and cousins living on the same
quarter or on adjacent quarters located within a few miles of each other. The slaves
cherished these extended connections, although they often found it difficult to maintain

459

regular contacts beyond the home plantation. When faced with long-distance separations,
some slaves were willing to risk harsh punishments in order to try to remain with their
closest kin.
In addition, because many of the slave households on a given quarter were
interrelated by blood or marriage, some kin shared household chores, child-rearing duties,
and leisure moments on a daily basis. Individual families and sometimes larger kin
groups likely worked together in free hours at income-generating projects like gardening.
Even forced labor for the master could be mitigated by kinship solidarity, since most of
the adults and older children usually worked the fields together. United, the laborers
could effectively control the pace of work, and kin often tried-usually with less success-to
protect each other from the overseer‘s whip.
Extended kin networks also helped to increase the slaves‘ control over the local
landscape. The cabins and work areas at Carter‘s Grove beyond the main house were part
of their domain, and wooded ravines adjacent to the quarters afforded somewhat secluded
places where they might go to get away from white supervisors or to gather in leisure
moments. These were areas the slaves knew more intimately than did their masters. In
addition, every time Carter‘s Grove workers drove horse or ox carts laden with goods to
the ancillary quarters or carted wheat, corn, fodder, straw, meat, butter, milk, cider, or
firewood into Williamsburg, they likely encountered kinsmen during their journeys.
Gloucester boatmen, ferrying whites across the river, maintained at least a tenuous link
between the York-James City County slaves and their kinspeople at Fairfield, as did Isle
of Wight men crossing the James. At night Carter‘s Grove residents, when they could
summon the energy to make a one to two-hour walk to an adjacent Burwell plantation
and back home again, could have visited a variety of kin. Come Saturday nights and
Sundays, when they had command over their own time, this neighborhood may have
been much more Bacon-Burwell slave territory than it was Burwell property.
These African Americans maintained a strong sense of kinship and passed on a
knowledge of family history from one generation to another. This is difficult to prove
from the contemporary Burwell family records, aside from inferences one can make from
the actions of several slaves who ran away. Nor can it be proved from later direct
accounts written or narrated by their descendants, since none published an autobiography
or were among the former Virginia slaves interviewed during the 1930s. Their collective
memory of a family history is, however, powerfully confirmed in the memoirs of a
Burwell descendent published at the end of the nineteenth century.
The history of a much better documented group, the Butler family of southern
Maryland, provides a model for understanding how slaves maintained kin ties and
transmitted family histories across the eighteenth century. I introduce this evidence from
another locality only because it provides a rare insight into the circumstances that enabled
some enslaved people to preserve and transmit a detailed family history across the two
centuries that preceded general emancipation. Recently historians have emphasized the
importance of nurturing kin ties—both fictive and blood—within slave communities at
particular, unusually well documented points in time. However, surviving written records
seldom allow any evaluation of the role that retained knowledge of kin connections, to
the dead as well as to the living, played within extended communities over time.
Indeed, this is a question that scholars seldom have considered worthwhile asking.
The weight of current interpretations emphasizes the trauma that enslaved men, women,

460

and children endured in the infamous Middle Passage; multiple and often incongruent
African cultural origins; linguistic and residential isolation upon arrival; extraordinarily
high mortality; a surplus of males among forced migrants that prevented many men from
finding mates and fathering children; continuing impediments to the formation and
maintenance of stable family relationships; and, at least in the Chesapeake, the apparent
inability of most African Americans to maintain many identifiable elements of African
material culture. This terrible litany seems almost to preclude the possibility that ordinary
enslaved African Americans might have succeeded in preserving and transmitting
knowledge of a ―long-tailed‖ family history over multiple generations.
The Butler family history challenges these assumptions. Unlike most slave
genealogies this family‘s oral history did become part of the written record as a result of a
series of freedom suits initiated in the later eighteenth century. By the 1760s between 120
and 300 southern Maryland bondspeople could trace their origins back to the union in the
1680s of an African man and a white indentured servant woman, and by 1789 as many as
750 claimed descent. Over the years the original couple and their offspring had been
parceled out among numerous members of the slave-owning family living in two
southern Maryland counties. Although slave families often were split up, they still lived
on farms close enough together that many could visit back and forth. Even those sold out
of the family to more distant places kept their family history alive in their new homes,
and the core group kept track of the whereabouts of separated kinsfolk. Here the enabling
conditions for preserving and transmitting the family history were, first, that most
remained in the original owner‘s family and, second, that most continued to live no more
than twenty miles apart, and many, much closer. The Burwell slaves certainly shared
these enabling circumstances.
Confirmation that they similarly preserved and passed on a cherished family
history is found in the 1895 memoirs of Letitia Burwell, great-great-granddaughter of
Lewis Burwell IV of Kingsmill. Burwell related how, as she was growing up in Southside
Virginia in the 1840s and early 1850s, she listened to the stories that the older slaves told
around their firesides. She recollected especially a conversation with Aunt Christian,
cook in her grandfather‘s household in Mecklenburg County. Aunt Christian told the
young Letitia: "I ‘members ‘way back yonder in my mamy time fo‘ de folks come furn
de King‘s Mill plantation nigh Williamsbu‘g. All our black folks done belonks to de Burl
fambly uver sence dey come fum Afiky. My granmammy ‘member dern times when
black folks lan‘ here stark naked, an‘ white folks hab to show ‘em how to war close.‘‖
Another very old man remembered something of his father: ―My daddy tell we
chillun how he mammy liv‘ in hole in de groun‘ in Afiky, an‘ when a Englishmun come
to buy him, she sell him, she sell him fur a strong o‘ beads. An‘ ‘twas monsus hard when
he fus‘ come here to war close; ev‘y chance he git he pull off he close an‘ go naked, kase
folks don‘t war no close in he country. . . . Sometime he say he gwine sing he country,
an‘ den he dance an‘ jump an howl tell he skeer we chillun to deaf.‖
However inaccurately or selectively Letitia Burwell remembered and rendered
these stories, they were clearly important to the former Kingsmill slaves. Perhaps the
histories of the earliest migrants who had lived on the Bacon plantations in York County
and at Fairfield in the 1690s had largely been lost to time by the 1850s. But the last of the
newly enslaved Africans had arrived at Kingsmill no later than the early 1740s and most
had arrived a decade or two earlier, so that these peoples‘ collective memories

461

encompassed, at the very least, more than a century of Virginia history. Their accounts
were so vivid that the white woman remembered parts of them fifty years later. How
much richer and more compelling must have been the stories Aunt Christian and other
older Burwell slaves retold countless times in quarters scattered across Virginia in the
early nineteenth century!
…
The origins of the African-born men, women, and children who at various times were
part of the early Bacon-Burwell group are the most obscure. Seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century Africans, like contemporary Europeans, were divided into many
―countries‖ and ―nations,‖ often with different languages, religions, family and
communal arrangements, translocal government, and traditional ways for carrying out
everyday living. In the last half of the seventeenth century, the English merchants who
transported captive Africans to Virginia traded all along the West African coast, from
Senegambia in the north to the Kongo region (present-day Angola) in the south, and
occasionally to distant Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. Because we know that Lewis
Burwell II—as well as Bacon, Cole, Lear, and several others—purchased new Africans
singly or at most in twos or threes over a span of sixty years between the 1660s and the
1710s, it seems certain that the group‘s collective wisdom was compounded from a
mixed West African heritage that drew on the resources of several distinct ethnic and
linguistic groups. Over time the content of the group‘s knowledge changed as some
members died and others coming from different regions were added.
We do not know on what ships any of these captives arrived, so they cannot be
traced directly to a West African port of embarkation. Neither Bacon nor Lewis Burwell
II noted any ethnic or linguistic affiliations among their African workers. Thus, the only
direct evidence about their origins comes from the African names that some retained or
chose for their children. These are fragile clues, indeed, since we must rely on English
writers‘ perhaps inaccurate phonetic transcriptions of names foreign to their language.
Moreover, some of the names they did record are shared, at least in this century, by more
than one West African language group. Several of the names—Colly, Gaby, Sambo, and
Yambo among the men and Sama for a woman—suggest Senegambian origins. One of
the Bacon men, Cuffey, bore an Akan day-name, a hint that he may have come from the
Gold Coast, an area encompassing present-day Ghana.
…
Thus, it is almost certain that the Bacon-Burwell slaves included some men and
women who came from the area of Senegambia, given the predominance of this
northernmost region as a source for captives whom the Royal African Company sent to
Virginia, Nathaniel Bacon‘s close ties to that company, and the internal evidence from
the names. After the turn of the century, English slavers concentrated their attentions
farther south along the West African coast as these regions began to supply people in
greater numbers and at lower prices than the more northerly areas. Most of the new
African slaves transported to the Burwell plantations between the 1710s and 1740s, and
especially those at Carter‘s Grove, came from other parts of West Africa, many from the

462

Niger Delta. However, Jumper, a man whom Lewis Burwell III of Kingsmill purchased
in 1736, was clearly identified as a Mandingo, a group that in the early eighteenth century
lived along the Gambia River and in adjacent areas to the south.
A brief survey of the Senegambia region thus can suggest some of the prior
experiences and cultural resources that Africans in the Bacon-Burwell group may have
brought to Virginia.….The region‘s various peoples shared a relatively homogenous
culture and history, reflecting centuries of living together as neighbors and a continual
intermixing between members of the various groups. Three of the region‘s four primary
languages—Wolof, Sereer, and Pulaar (or Fuulbe) are closely related, and the fourth,
Malinke, the language of Mande-speaking groups who had moved into the area from the
east several centuries before, was widely used as a trade language throughout the area. In
addition, many African coastal merchants also spoke Arabic and Portuguese, and some
knew Dutch, French, and English as well. The great diversity of local resources and
Senegambia‘s strategic location between North Africa, the Central African interior, and
forest areas to the south meant that many of its resident peoples had become accustomed
to complex economic and cultural exchanges centuries before Europeans arrived on the
West African coast.
…
Although tobacco was a product of marginal importance in the overall trade, by
the early 1600s the weed was widely grown and consumed throughout Senegambia and
in Sierra Leone to the south. This New World plant had been brought from Brazil by the
Portuguese and was introduced to the West African mainland from the nearby
Portuguese-held Cape Verde Islands sometime in the 1500s. West African farmers in
Upper Guinea soon mastered cultivation of this new crop, and local consumers quickly
developed a taste for smoking it. As early as 1607 English merchant William Finch found
tobacco plants growing around most houses in Sierra Leone; tobacco ―seems to be half
their food.‖ ―Each Man‖ Finch observed, ―carries in his Knapsack, his Pipe, and a small
Purse (called Tuffio) full of Tobacco. The Women carry their Tobacco in their Wrappers,
and the Pipe in their Hands.‖ In 1620 Richard Jobson, an English visitor to the Gambia
River, met people who had never before seen white men but were prepared to exchange
―Tobacco, and fine neat Canes used for Pipes‖ for English goods. Between the 1680s
and the 1730s, European visitors almost invariably commented that farming families
along the Senegal and Gambia Rivers ―observe the proper Seasons for Planting,
especially Tobacco of which every House has a Patch. In some places farmers also
cultivated tobacco on a broader scale, and it figured as a regular article of trade in local
and regional markets. In the 1680s John Barbot reported large fields of tobacco at Caffan
(Kassan), over two hundred miles up the Gambia, ―which makes a great trade there, the
Portuguese buying considerable quantities for Juala and Cachau.‖ Similarly, in the 1690s
Andre Brue found ―whole fields covered with Tobacco‖ near Biyurt, a town near the
mouth of the Senegal.
Tobacco use was even more widely diffused. Clay pipes figured prominently
among the catalog of wares that local potters regularly fabricated. Many of the adult men
and women living between the Senegal River and the Windward Coast whom Barbot
sketched between 1678 and 1682 are pictured tobacco pipes in hand, when walking,

463

socializing, and even while riding in canoes. Passages noting farmers ―never without a
pipe in their mouths,‖ blacksmiths working in company under a tree ―each of them a pipe
of tobacco in his mouth,‖ merchants going about with oversized ―traveling pipes‖ holding
half a pint of the weed, and family groups staying up to smoke and dance on moonlit
nights reinforced the visual images. A contemporary French traveler, Le Maire, similarly
noted, ―they are always smoaking Tobacco, which serves to amuse them, and deaden the
Appetite.‖ By 1704 the Dutch traveler William Bosman commented on the widespread
use of tobacco among children as well as adults, observing ―that you may equally entrust
Bacon to a Cat‖ as tobacco to an African.
The likely contributions of enslaved Africans to the development of rice culture in
the Carolinas have been argued for years. The possibility of a similar connection
between the evolution of Chesapeake tobacco culture and the arrival of slaves from
regions of West African where tobacco raising was already well established has so far
gone unnoticed, although the evidence is suggestive. On the most basic level, tobacco
was peculiarly suited to long fallow, hoe-and-hill culture, a farming technology totally
unfamiliar to transplanted Englishmen but one which Africans had mastered over
centuries of experience. Moreover, some farmers in Upper Guinea were already raising
tobacco when the first English settlers arrived in Virginia. By the 1680s, on family farms
in Senegambia and in Sierra Leone, as well as on the Gold Coast, tobacco was widely
grown for local consumption. In some parts of Senegambia, West African farmers raised
the weed on a larger scale for use in interregional trade. Indeed, in regional markets
Senegambian tobacco held its own against New World imports until the end of the
eighteenth century. By the early 1700s tobacco was also a common crop in the Niger
Delta, and toward the end of the eighteenth century, in parts of Angola, West African
entrepreneurs were growing it for export to areas farther in land. May West Africans
brought to work Virginia or Maryland tobacco fields thus could draw on already familiar
skills. It is especially likely that Senegambian or Sierra Leonean slaves who came to the
Chesapeake before the mid-1680s, when Chesapeake planters were still experimenting
intensively with different varieties of tobacco and with new cultivation, curing, and
processing techniques, may have contributed know-how in addition to the sheer labor
power for which the planters had bought them.
Both sexes were likely familiar with tobacco growing, although perhaps on
different scales. Women in Senegambia often tended the tobacco raised in small plots
adjoining family compounds, while men likely played a greater role in those areas where
the crop was raised on a larger scale. Along the rivers tobacco was planted ―as soon as
they have cut their Corn,‖ on floodplains that could be cropped during the dry season.
Properties of the leaf were known to vary depending on the soils in which the crop was
planted. West African processing techniques were not well documented but apparently
varied across time and from place to place. According to a 1607 account, in Sierra Leone
they ―squeeze the Juice out of the Tobacco when the Leaves are green and fresh, saying
that otherwise it would make them drunk: Then they shred it small, and dry it on Coals.‖
By the third quarter of the seventeenth century, tobacco was sold in markets ―in the Leaf
which they dry themselves not having the art of making it into rolls‖ as Brazilian tobacco
growers did.
Although most West Africans (in contrast to most European-born laborers) were
well versed in tobacco growing, as was the case with rice, contemporary commentators

464

instead emphasized the particular suitability of supposedly unskilled African labor to the
year-round drudgery involved in growing tobacco, and present-day scholars have tended
to accept this assessment. Although it was widely recognized that ―each step in the
annual process required skill, judgement, and luck,‖ agricultural proficiency in the end
was judged solely by how well the crop sold in European markets. Thus, the planters
who directed the final processing tended to accumulate all the credit, with the equally
critical inputs of skill and judgment that field workers made throughout the growing
season devalued or ignored. Indeed, West Africans probably made fewer contributions to
evolving colonial technologies for processing and packing of tobacco for shipment
overseas, since in Africa there was no need to cure the leaf in such a way that it would
keep for a year or more or to pack it tightly for transoceanic carriage.
…
Sometime between his daughter Elizabeth‘s marriage to Nathaniel Burwell I in
1709 (and probably after the birth of their first child in 1710) and Nathaniel‘s death in
1721, Carter purchased Merchant‘s Hundred plantation (later Carter‘s Grove), totaling
1,003 acres, on the York-James City County line. In 1732 he bought an additional
397-acre adjacent tract which he incorporated into the plantation. Carter quickly bought
new African slaves to work it, intending that the profits of their labor go to his daughter
during her lifetime and then to one of her sons; by 1727 he decided that this favored
grandchild would be Nathaniel and Elizabeth‘s second son and his namesake, Carter
Burwell. By the terms of Carter‘s will, the numbers of working slaves and livestock were
to be kept up to the quantities present at Carter‘s death. If some of the slaves died, his
executors were to draw upon the proceeds of the tobacco crop to buy new hands to work
the land. In 1735 Lewis Burwell of Kingsmill purchased a ―Negro boy‖ for the estate
from merchant George Braxton for £14 presumably to replace one of the Merchant‘s
Hundred workers who had died.
After son-in-law Nathaniel‘s death, Robert Carter managed Merchant‘s Hundred
himself, both as current owner of the plantation and as guardian to his Burwell grandson
who would eventually inherit it. Carter disapproved of his daughter‘s second marriage, to
a Williamsburg doctor of questionable background, and made sure that her new husband
had no role in its management. Carter hired a white overseer to run the farm and relied on
the estate‘s general manager (one Richardson in 1723 and William Camp thereafter) to
handle day-to-day concerns. Carter also made frequent visits in person, since he had to
travel from his home on the Rappahannock to Williamsburg whenever meetings of the
governor‘s council or General Court were called.
The general pattern of the transatlantic slave trade to Virginia in the early
eighteenth century makes it likely that most of the Merchant‘s Hundred slaves were Ibo,
Ibibio, Efik, or Moko from the area of present-day Nigeria or adjacent Cameroon on the
east. Approximately 60 percent of Africans entering the York River between 1718 and
1726, when Robert Carter was buying slaves for the plantation, came from the Bight of
Biafra.
Indeed, there is direct evidence that a number of the slaves came from this area.
We can identify the ships on which fourteen of the Carter-Burwell slaves arrived, and all
of these sailed from either Old or New Calabar, trading states located in the Niger River

465

delta. In June 1722 Carter gave two young African girls, Iris and Lettice, whom he had
purchased along with twenty-three other slaves from a Bristol agent, to two Burwell
grandchildren at Fairfield. They were surely among the 166 slaves arriving in the York
River on June 5 in the Bristol ship Greyhound from Calabar. Four men and two women
whom Carter purchased for the Merchant‘s Hundred estate on 18 May 1724 were part of
a shipment of 231 Africans who were transported on the Commerce of Bristol anchoring
in York River from one of the Calabars about 30 April. Four more slaves whom Carter
sent to Merchant‘s Hundred in May 1725 came from Calabar with 278 others on the
Commerce‘s next voyage. Carter bought four additional slaves for the Burwell estate by
June 1727 to compensate for hands who had died over the preceding winter. These slaves
must have arrived on one or more of the five Bristol ships that had anchored in the York
by mid-June that year, one from Calabar, one from Guinea, and three from unspecified
African ports.‖ A £40 payment that Carter made on the account of the Burwell estate to a
regular slave dealer in 1728 probably represented one or two additional slaves purchased
for the Burwell estate that year, and probably also a slave girl whom he gave as a present
to his granddaughter Elizabeth Burwell. Only one ship, the Castle Gally of Bristol, is
recorded as entering Virginia in that year; she also came from Calabar.
…
Not all of the Merchant‘s Hundred slaves came from Ibo-speaking groups or
shared a similar Niger Delta area culture. Some of those transported in the early 1720s,
for example, may have come from the Benin region, just to the west. At the end of the
seventeenth century and into the early 1720s, Benin endured a violent civil war. Slaves
captured in wars and raids between the various contending parties in that conflict may
have passed through the hands of New Calabar slave dealers. Other Burwell family
slaves, present in Virginia by the 1730s, definitely came from two other nations. Jumper,
purchased by Lewis Burwell of Kingsmill in 1736, was a Mandingo from the Gambia or
Sierra Leone area, and others arriving by the 1730s and 1740s—Sambo, Juba, Gaby, and
Osman—had names that also hint at Senegambian connections. Cuffee, a runaway in
1736, and another Cuffey living at King‘s Creek in 1746, like an earlier Cuffey on a
Bacon quarter, retained African day-names that signified the day of the week on which
they were born and suggest origins on the West African Gold Coast. Between 1728 and
1739, 41 percent of all slaves arriving in the York River were Angolans, and ―new
Africans‖ whom the Burwells purchased in the 1730s may have included members of this
nation. However, there is no direct evidence that this was the case, and Angolans are
difficult to identify from their names, because most Congolese bore Portuguese saints‘
names that have close English equivalents.
People from three or more different West African cultural and linguistic regions
were present on the Burwell plantations in the second quarter of the eighteenth century.
Such diversity may not, however, have resulted in the masters English language and
culture coming, by default, to be the only operative common language and dominant
cultural influence. It is probable that the majority of the African-born Burwell slaves,
most of whom arrived in the 1720s, rather than being a heterogenous lot of individuals
from varying ethnic and linguistic groups as the usual story goes, instead shared a similar
cultural and linguistic background. Most of these transported Africans may have spoken

466

the same language or closely related dialects that some already knew and others could
quickly master. If the slaves also shared national identities, which often served in the
New World as a sort of substitute kinship, group solidarity would have helped to mitigate
their new and unfortunate situation. Thus, they may have experienced a less ―rapid and
thorough deculturation‖ than is generally postulated for Chesapeake slaves, who are
usually portrayed as isolated individuals with few collective cultural resources left to
counter an overwhelming, powerful, alien white presence.
…
The Carter letter books and inventory also suggest something of the material
conditions at Merchant‘s Hundred in the 1730s. Each slave was issued a new suit of
winter clothing annually as well as some lighter summer wear including, for the men,
shirts, fustian jackets, and linen breeches and, for the women, shifts, petticoats, and
aprons. Children got only a frock. To complete their outfits, the adults also had a pair of
imported shoes, Irish stockings or plaid hose, and Kilmarnock milled caps. Bed rugs and
blankets or hair coverlets were replaced only when those first issued became threadbare.
The Carters shipped new bedding to the quarters with ―the names of every negro they are
for‖ attached. The Merchant‘s Hundred overseer probably collected the winter clothing
at Fairfield each fall, checked the bundles to ―see that everything is right,‖ and then
distributed the individually labeled garments. He had orders not to give out the winter
clothes until the weather turned cold, as ―some of them would destroy [or, perhaps, trade]
them before.‖
The weekly rations Carter supplied consisted primarily of ground or unground
maize. Meat rations were less frequent, with the overseers only occasionally killing an
old steer or giving out some preserved pork ―that they may have a bit now and then and
the fat to grease their Homony.‖
…
Carter‘s practices represented in part simply the easiest and cheapest method for
extracting labor in the Chesapeake in the early eighteenth century. But, while Carter
surely demanded more intense labor over a longer portion of the growing season than
Africans customarily required of themselves, he and fellow Chesapeake slave owners
succeeded in large measure because they incorporated, knowingly or unknowingly, many
of the highly efficient African farming practices. Coming largely from areas infested with
the tsetse fly, African-born slaves were unaccustomed to the use of plows and draft
animals. West African farmers instead were skilled in the bush fallow, hoe-and-hill
agriculture that European tobacco and maize farmers had quickly adopted from Native
Americans. John Barbot, traveling in West Africa around 1680, had noted that there ―two
men will dig as much land in a day, as one plow can turn over in England.‖ Two men
required less food than did one man and a horse. The technology, then, was essentially
the same, and while tobacco and maize were not staple West African crops, most slaves
were well versed in raising them.
…

467

The climate in the quarters in 1738, whatever their location, may have become
tense indeed, and most unusual. Most area planters (like Burwell‘s uncle James who
bought eighteen slaves, almost certainly all newly arrived Africans, over seven years
between 1711 and 1718) scattered the newcomers among their older, often creole,
workers. Instead, Carter Burwell moved the Gloucester hands that he inherited from his
father and grandfather, surely by now almost all first- or second-generation Virginians,
onto the Merchant‘s Hundred Africans‘ turf.
It is unclear how many family slaves Burwell brought from Gloucester, but there
were likely about thirty. His wife, Lucy Grymes Burwell, entered the marriage with a
promise of a cash dowry of £1,250 sterling; her portion would have included no
bondspeople except possibly a personal servant. The Africans already at Merchant‘s
Hundred numbered between twenty and twenty-five. Cultural conflicts may have been
intense as the creole Gloucester slaves sought to maintain privileges and status over the
less acculturated Africans, who nonetheless had the advantage of greater familiarity with
the plantation itself and whatever rights, such as use of the best garden plots, that longer
residence might have conferred. Robert Carter had worried about the tendency for old
hands to ―crow over‖ new ones; such conflicts between old and new hands perhaps paled
in comparison to those which may have developed between skilled creole Burwell
artisans and domestics and the African field workers. The Fairfield creoles may have
looked down on the Africans with their unfamiliar languages and different cultures, while
some of the forced migrants—especially the Ibos who likely predominated—may have
tried to maintain a separate national identity by socializing primarily with each other and
seeking out other Ibos for marriage partners. At the same time, the overall shortage of
women, especially among the Africans, may have fueled competition between unmarried
African men and creole youths, who may have been more successful than Africans in
finding mates. On the other hand, some aspects of a shared African cultural heritage may
have united the two groups, as did their shared condition of bondage and the need to
survive and resist.
These possible reactions emphasize the importance of group identities and origins
in shaping behaviors. Interactions of course took place between two or more individuals,
each possessed of his or her own unique personality and status within the slave
community. While the passage of time has almost entirely erased the individual, we need
to keep in mind that group identity was but one of the factors that influenced the outcome
of particular exchanges.
That there were cultural differences between the two groups is certain. Many of
the Gloucester group had roots in Virginia stretching back at least one generation, and
some for two or more. Consequently they had fairly extensive kin connections on several
Burwell plantations and doubtless on other neighboring plantations as well. Kin provided
comfort and support and occasionally could help mitigate discipline, as well as sheltering
temporary runaways. Long-standing service in the Burwell family perhaps also provided
a crucial bargaining chip in acquiring or maintaining privileges or preferred work
assignments, as would greater fluency in the English language. Creole slaves could
combine their own accumulated wisdom and experiences with those of other nearby kin
to develop a broader collective knowledge of the local landscape and the surrounding
social landscape. These people knew both the local topography and natural resources

468

intimately. They knew the best places to hunt and fish, the best routes for traveling from
one plantation to another, and the location of many secluded spots where they might
safely meet in secret. They preserved knowledge of kinship trees and other
interconnected relationships within the slave community, past and present. One suspects,
for example, that a Kingsmill man named Colly, who was entailed to that estate in 1736,
was named either for Colly, an African living at King‘s Creek in 1694, or for his son,
carpenter Will Colly. They also knew something of the family histories and social
standing of most of the free householders, white and black, living in the area: who was
related to whom, who had influence and who did not, who might share a pipe of tobacco
or offer a drink, and who would buy or sell merchandise without asking too many
questions, as well as who rode patrol and harassed slaves returning from errands.
It is likely that some of the older Burwell slaves also held out hopes—
increasingly doomed by the 1730s—of obtaining a particular kind of freedom, one within
rather than outside Anglo-American society. Some blacks escaped slavery in the later
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, and their success in carving out niches in the
wider Euro-American society afforded hope for others. Most free blacks living in or near
the York peninsula just scraped by as laborers or at best tenant farmers, but a handful
managed to acquire land and with it the greater security and status that property afforded.
The York and Gloucester slaves must have known some free black families in the area
(some of them are likely relatives), who like Bacon‘s Kate had secured their freedom
before the turn of the century. Later, as laws regulating manumissions tightened, only a
few privileged slaves, most of whom had a white parent, acquired free status. We do not
know whether Kate lived long enough to leave free descendants in the area, but some of
the York and Gloucester Parratts surely did; several branches of the latter group still
appeared on local tax lists in the 1780s.
Among those who arrived in the seventeenth century such aspirations had been
reinforced by some understanding of and hopes for securing the basic ―rights of
Englishmen‖ in practice extended to all non-English immigrants who acquired free status,
although increasingly hedged for people of color. The blacks learned of these rights in the
quarters from the more bold and assertive among the indentured white servants.
Understanding of such basic rights may have been reinforced or extended through
attendance at meetings of county courts and possible participation there as petitioners or
witnesses. In the 1730s some slaves still hoped to obtain free status by converting to
Christianity, again suggesting a vision of and a desire for freedom within the dominant
society.
The recent African migrants, in contrast, had few extended kin and less
knowledge of the local topography and social landscape outside the Merchant‘s Hundred
plantation. They relied instead on bonds created during the Middle Passage, associations
or marriages reinforced by shared national identities, fictive kin relationships, and very
recently formed ties to their spouses and young children. Shared elements of their
African childhoods continued to structure much of their world, and Euro-American
culture had as yet lesser significance. Wherever possible, they employed traditional
African ways in conducting their daily lives, and many continued to mourn for lost
kinfolk and country. In addition, they likely had forged fewer close connections with
ordinary white folk than had the creoles. Because most arrived in the 1720s, after the
enactment of laws restricting slaves‘ participation in the colony‘s legal life, their only

469

experience with Virginia courts probably would have been as defendants accused of
serious crimes and in peril for their lives or as conscripted witnesses whom officials
hoped would inform against other slaves. They likely also had little knowledge of the
Christian religion and little use for it. Any hopes they entertained for freedom envisioned
escape from white control and the re-creation of African communities somewhere in the
―Back-Woods.‖
…
The written records reveal almost nothing of the means young Carter Burwell
may have employed to dampen differences between the Gloucester group of slaves and
the more recently arrived Africans and to make them work together. He seems generally
to have followed a divide and conquer strategy that encouraged cultural merging,
assigning a mix of creole and African-born workers to each of the various quarters. By
1740 these included New Quarter, Foaces, Mill Quarter, Black Swamp, and Abraham‘s,
the latter a small farm managed by a slave, Abraham, with the help of Jenny, his wife.
Burwell‘s account book shows that between 1740 and 1745 Glouster Moll lived at Foaces
Quarter, probably alongside Africans arriving in the 1720s who may have included the
men Cezar, Pompey, and Boatswain. Old Nan and Old Cato, likely members of the YorkGloucester group, were housed at Mill Quarter along with at least two younger women
and their several children who may have been related to Nan and Cato, but also with at
least one probable African, another Boatswain. Similarly, Old Moll, likely also a former
Gloucester worker, shared quarters at Black Swamp with both creoles and Africans.
Former Gloucester laborers and artisans and Merchant's Hundred Africans also
shared work and living spaces in and around the home house. Carpenters Old Dick and
the boy Dick (probably Old Dick's son), Sancho, Sam, and Jack, as also shoemaker
Jammy, were likely second-generation artisans and, given Burwell family predilections,
probably also of mixed blood. The few female house servants the Burwells employed
included Gloster Betty (likely the same woman as Betty ―in the house‖) and the cook,
Molly, who were surely former Gloucester hands rather than Merchant's Hundred
Africans, of whom the whites, and especially the mistress, would have known much less.
On the other hand, several of the men who had joined the household staff by 1745—Juba,
Cyrus, and Richmond—were likely African-born, as were Carter‘s Grove field hands
Calabar, Bristol, Nero, and Marcelllus.
In general the Burwells had inherited all the workers they could readily employ
on their existing quarters, and the family ceased buying new hands after the early 1740s.
By then, enough children were likely surviving into their teens and twenties to offset
deaths among the older adults.
…
Also by midcentury, as creole children—who ranged from the first to the third or
fourth generation born in Virginia—began to replace their African-born elders, any
conflicts resulting from the merging of the two groups of creoles and recently arrived
Africans faded, and the younger native-born generations adopted more elements of both
creolized African-American and white culture. As sex ratios began to even out and

470

native-born women began bearing children at younger ages than their mothers, family life
became possible for more of the slaves, and family size increased. Carter Burwell‘s
workforce grew from roughly 50 in 1738 to 96 at his death in 1756. Thirty years later the
family workforce numbered at least 154, although not all were then living at Carter‘s
Grove.
Once the Burwells stopped adding newly imported Africans to their workforces,
the demographic profiles of the various plantation communities began to look more like
those of stable settle populations that expanded or contracted depending on the balance
between births and deaths. Within settled populations where there is little in- or outmigration, sex ratios are relatively even, and the proportions of adult workers and of
dependent children too young to make any significant contribution to the local economy
are about equal. These changes in the enslaved population had very different
consequences for the slaves and their owners. For the slaves, more opportunities for a
somewhat more normal family life helped to ease some of the worst depravations of
bondage. For the slave owners, the necessity of supporting a growing proportion of
children too young to work, as well as a much smaller but also growing proportion of
men and women too old to work, led to diminishing annual profits and falling rates of
return on the original investment in prime-age captive African laborers. In this
transitional period slave owners likely found that younger women yielded particularly
mixed returns. The children they bore eventually would increase the numbers and overall
value of their labor forces. But in the short run women well advanced in pregnancy in the
growing season or encumbered with ―sucking infants‖ at any point in the agricultural
year reduced annual income and increased outlays for food, clothing, and medical
attention. Once these growing numbers of children reached their late teens and twenties,
profits would cease to fall and begin to rise again. However, it took forty to fifty years
for the demographic processes to evolve. Second- and third-generation slave owners who
enjoyed good life spans eventually reaped substantial benefits for themselves and their
descendents, but creole masters who died young left their heirs with transitional
workforces temporarily less productive than those they had inherited.
On the Burwell farms this meant that in the 1750s and 1760s Carter Burwell I and
the executors who subsequently managed his estate, as well as his brothers and cousins
who came of age in the 1730s and 1740s, were increasingly pressed to manage their
plantations more efficiently. They needed to extract ever more work from their slaves of
laboring age in order to offset the rising costs that growing numbers of non-working
human possessions entailed. It was young Nathaniel Burwell II, rather than his father,
who gained most from the peculiar labor system his grandfather King Carter initiated. To
his good fortune, Nathaniel came of age at the very time when the Burwells would profit
most from the changing composition of their inherited labor force.
…
During his tenure at Carter‘s Grove between 1738 and 1756, Carter Burwell
divided his hands into small work groups. The home house field laborers were quartered
somewhere near the whites‘ dwelling (the location probably changed when the Burwells
built their new mansion in the 1750s), as well as on five outlying farms, and a few
workers were at the plantation mill. A group of about five carpenters seem to have lived

471

and worked separately from the other laborers. Three and sometimes four overseers
supervised the larger quarters in return for shares of the crops produced. A general
manager, who worked for an annual salary, directed the overseers, managed the home
farm, and often looked after the mill. While some of the lesser overseers did not remain
long at their posts, lasting at best only a year or so, several of them and the manager, too,
had longer tenures of five to nine years each.
At this time most large Chesapeake planters paid overseers with annual shares of
the major crops, giving them an incentive to drive the slaves hard. Ambitious but
inexperienced or less competent overseers usually tried to increase short-term production
by attempting to eliminate the slaves‘ customary privileges and to speed up the work
pace, and sometimes by resorting frequently to the whip. Such measures almost always
proved self-defeating, and men who employed them usually were soon discharged or else
left out of frustration after a year or two. Those with more experience and skill respected
whatever customary rights the slaves had already established and found ways to maintain
or better production by enlisting the support of the more influential field workers. The
managers at Carter‘s Grove seem usually to have found and retained overseers who could
extract acceptable work efforts and maintain relative order in the quarters without, by
cruel measures, provoking the slaves into unacceptable levels of resistance.
Tobacco and grain were the major field crops. The slaves produced on average
between 725 and 965 pounds of tobacco per hand per year. In bad seasons the output
might drop to about 550 pounds, while in favorable years some of the workers made over
1,300 pounds each. In addition, on the home farm and adjacent quarters they raised about
800 barrels of corn annually. Yields per hand ranged from a low of five barrels to a high
of twenty-two barrels; the average crop was nine to twelve barrels per hand. Once food
for the slaves and corn for fattening livestock was set aside, between a quarter and a half
of the crop was marketable surplus. By the late 1740s Burwell also was growing 500 to
800 bushels of wheat a year, almost all of which was sold. Between the early 1740s and
mid-1750s, the proportion of crop revenues derived from grains rose from about onequarter to about one-half. This was more a result of a rise in the price of grains relative to
tobacco than shifts in crop mix. The slaves seem to have tended similar amounts of corn
and tobacco across Carter Burwell‘s lifetime, and these crops would have kept them fully
occupied throughout the growing season. They could sow the wheat in the fall once the
tobacco harvest was completed, but Burwell surely had to hire extra help to manage the
wheat harvest at the beginning of July.
While sweet-scented tobacco remained the Burwells‘ most important single crop,
slaves on all the larger quarters produced other goods destined for several markets, and
everywhere they pursued somewhat more diversified work than they had in Robert
Carter‘s time. Livestock became an increasingly important part of the operation.
Workers at each of Carter Burwell‘s quarters tended hogs, cattle, and horses, and by 1753
there were at least 250 sheep on two of the farms. There were many more animals than
were needed for plantation consumption. Each year excess cattle were sold or older
animals slaughtered for butcher‘s meat. Burwell also marketed as much as 10,000
pounds of pork a year. At an average weight of 100 pounds per animal, this represents as
many as 100 surplus hogs a year. In the later 1740s and early 1750s, sales of livestock
and meat brought in between £50 and £100 sterling constant value annually. Some of the

472

meat may have been exported to the West Indies or sold as ships‘ provisions. The bulk,
however, went to residents of the nearby town of Williamsburg.
Burwell was producing for several markets, a strategy that spread risk and
minimized the impact of price declines for any one of the three staple crops. Almost
invariably he consigned his high-quality tobacco to London factors in return for English
goods; in only one year did he choose to sell in the country. For corn and wheat there
were several outlets. At least once Burwell sold most of his surplus to a ship captain,
presumably bound for the West Indies; often he sold most of the grain in the form of
meal and flour processed at the plantation mill. In other years he turned to nearby
Williamsburg, which was slowly growing in population. The College of William and
Mary was the single best customer, sometimes buying over 500 bushels of wheat in one
year. Tavern keepers, the royal governor, and assorted tradespeople and professionals
also purchased grain, fodder, and cider.
For the Burwell slaves the main changes in work routines involved greater
responsibilities for caring for larger herds of livestock now including sheep, extensive use
of horses or oxen for hauling, more responsibility for delivering and perhaps marketing
produce, occasional use of plows for putting in wheat and weeding corn, in midsummer a
short but arduous wheat harvest, and more time spent collecting corn fodder and
processing cider. Late fall and winter workloads also would have increased, as the slaves
had to plow and seed the wheat fields, and then thresh and winnow the small grain and
shuck the surplus corn before it was sold.
After Carter Burwell‘s death in 1756, the slaves lived and worked for fifteen years
without a resident master. The immediate supervisors remained, with an estate manager
directing overall operations and most of Carter Burwell‘s quarter overseers staying on.
One could suppose that the slaves might have managed to carve out more time far
themselves and to slow the work pace, but this may not have been the case. By the terms
of Carter Burwell‘s will, all the slaves were to be kept as part of the family estate until
the eldest son, Nathaniel II (1750-1814), came of age in 1771. Those purchased from
Mann Page and living on Neck of Land Quarter were eventually to go to Carter Burwell
II (1754-1776), the second son.
The Burwell family, however, put off settlement of Carter I‘s estate—including
any division of slaves—until Nathaniel II came of age. In 1771 several of Carter and
Lucy Burwell‘s adult daughters and/or their husbands decided to contest his murkily
written will, hoping to get hold of some share of the slaves, or at least of the profits of
their labors. The heirs did not come to a final settlement until 1779. We can only
speculate as to what the slaves knew of these family squabbles and how much they
worried about the possible implications for their futures. The details of the dispute and
the eventual private settlement the various heirs made are not entirely clear, but in the end
the eldest son, Nathaniel II, retained almost all of the slaves. The Burwell men appear to
have been concerned to keep their slaves together, in part to guarantee family wealth and
status and in part out of moral concerns about splitting slave families. After Carter II died
the slaves attached to Neck of Land Quarter were sold to the husband of one of his
sisters. Eventually Nathaniel II repurchased some of these.
In the interim Nathaniel II‘s guardian and uncle by marriage, merchant William
Nelson of Yorktown, managed the estate until the boy came of age. Although Carter
Burwell‘s wife Lucy survived him, she apparently took no active role in managing the

473

farms, and she and all the children had moved out of the home house by 1765. Nelson
continued Carter I‘s farming strategies but sought to increase estate profits by putting
more emphasis on products for the expanding Williamsburg market. From 1763, when
Nelson‘s surviving accounts for the estate begin, he was allocating somewhat less labor
to growing tobacco than had Carter Burwell and was forcing the slaves to put more time
into raising corn, wheat, and livestock, processing cider and butter, and cutting firewood.
From Nelson‘s records it appears that in the 1760s tobacco continued to account for about
half of the gross plantation revenues, and sales of surplus corn another third. Nelson
probably had tobacco raised only on the best lands where quality leaf for the English
home market could still be produced. Between 1763 and 1771 tobacco production per
hand on the estate‘s quarters dropped, while that of other products increased. This was
almost certainly a result of conscious policy (except in 1766 and 1767 when bad weather
shortened crops), rather than of deteriorating soil or of the slaves managing to work less
diligently in the absence of a resident owner. The lowland estate tobaccos continued to
fetch top prices, albeit by this time animal manure was probably essential for maintaining
yields.
Nelson behaved as a typically conservative executor in that he invested little in
building repair; made no new investments except for a few head of livestock, primarily
horses; and maximized immediate revenues for the support of the Burwell children by
hiring out some of the slaves. Many of the domestics were sent to work in Williamsburg
households between 1765 and 1771. While these hired slaves might have returned to
Carter‘s Grove late Saturday night and gone back to town early Monday morning, or their
kin may have made traveled into town if the Williamsburg domestics had to work on
Sundays as well as weekdays, this hiring out clearly imposed hardships upon the affected
families. Similarly, to the advantage of the heirs but not that of the resident slaves,
Nelson seems to have looked after the farms more closely than the average executor, for
under his guardianship levels of salable surpluses increased. Gross revenues per hand in
sterling constant value from field crops alone rose from about £12 in the early 1760s to
over £18 between 1769 and 1771. These were higher returns than most large planters had
achieved in the 1750s (indeed, Carter Burwell had averaged only £10 10s. a hand
between 1740 and 1755) and were equal to or better than those most resident owners
managed to get in the late 1760s and early 1770s.
Nelson engineered such high returns in part because, like some other large
tidewater planters of the period, he paid close attention to exploiting the labor of all the
slaves year-round and more often assigned tasks according to gender. The men, for
example, cut trees, plowed the fields in the fall and again in the spring, handled the
heaviest tasks during the wheat and tobacco harvests, plowed under weeds in the
cornfields early in the summer, and put in the wheat in the fall. The women and younger
children worked alongside the men in planting the tobacco and corn but often toiled in a
separate gang when they hoed the tobacco and corn, manured the fields, put up fences,
grubbed out brush from newly cleared fields, and cleaned up pastures. Very likely Nelson
required more night work from everyone, such as shucking corn and tying up hands of
tobacco, and increased off-season tasks as well. Some activities geared especially to the
town market, such as cutting firewood, could be done by the men in the winter. Others,
like making butter, drew more women into market production. Here Nelson recruited
overseers‘ wives to supervise dairying and paid the couples a share of the butter the

474

wives and the slave women made. By the mid-1760s the estate was producing butter on a
level equivalent to that of a middling-size Pennsylvania dairy producing for the
Philadelphia market in the mid-nineteenth century. Some of the slave women thus
acquired new domestic skills usually reserved for whites, while overseers‘ wives gained
an opportunity to supplement family income through production for market.
The shifting demographic makeup of the Carter‘s Grove slaves surely affected
Nelson‘s management decisions, as it may also have influenced Carter Burwell‘s
strategies toward the end of his life. The younger adult workers were all native-born
African Americans, and the creoles‘ greater command of the English language and
greater familiarity with white ways may have made Burwell and then Nelson more
confident about their willingness and ability to learn new skills, to accept the addition of
more new crops in the annual agricultural cycle, to manage more responsibilities like
huckstering produce in town on their own, and generally to adapt more readily to change.
Often the economic opportunities that local urban markets afforded must also have
meshed with an increasing need to make fuller use of those slaves too old or too young
for heavy field work.
Starting in 1771, when Nathaniel Burwell II had turned twenty-one and began
active management of the estate, the Carter‘s Grove slaves had to adapt to the demands of
a young and inexperienced owner and, by the end of the next year, to those of a new
mistress as well. Nathaniel‘s first wife, Susannah Grymes Burwell (1752-1788), like most
of the Burwell brides, brought a cash dowry rather than slaves to her marriage. She and
his second wife, Lucy Page Burwell, seem to have concerned themselves only with
running the household, hardly surprising since both bore, many children. Barely twenty
when she wed, Susannah Burwell was faced with managing her new domain with the
help of older domestics who had become accustomed to her mother-in-law‘s ways, and
some of whom had then worked for assorted temporary masters and mistresses in
Williamsburg. The Carter‘s Grove domestics probably trained the young couple in the
ways a white gentry household should operate.
Nathaniel Burwell, directly or through William Graves, his general manager,
supervised the work of most of the slaves. He was the sort of man who always put a high
priority on the welfare of his own family. While accepting the public duties expected of
one of his rank, he never sought a prominent public role in the increasingly turbulent
times. Perhaps managing his estate and raising the sixteen children he fathered were
enough. Eventually Nathaniel acquired a reputation among his peers as it ―one of the
most skilful managers in the country, and of untainted integrity.‖ What kind of existence
this meant for the slaves is unclear.
Burwell embarked on his career as a great planter with a firm determination to
increase estate revenues and to effect general improvements on all his farms. These now
included both the older tidewater quarters in James City and York Counties and newer
farms in the west in distant Frederick and Prince William Counties. He started out by
turning the home farm into a specialized unit geared to the comfortable living of its
owners and to the production of specialized crops that required more supervision or
expertise than an ordinary overseer could give. Upon his marriage in 1772, most of the
hired domestics returned to Carter‘s Grove. There Burwell also concentrated the artisans,
carters, and stock of horses. By 1774 Nathaniel had stopped growing tobacco at the
Grove and raised only enough corn for plantation use. Instead, he ordered the slaves to

475

grow more wheat and large quantities of oats to feed his horses, along with some other
small grains. He may also have added improved meadows from which hay was cut for
home consumption and for sale. In 1774 the Carter‘s Grove slaves were tending about
125 acres each year: fifty acres in corn, about thirty-three acres each in wheat and oats,
and lesser amounts in barley, peas, and hay. Other Burwell cousins were pursuing a
similar course. In 1769 Nathaniel‘s cousin Lewis of Fairfield, for example, seeking to
adopt English-style agricultural improvements based on small grains and pasture,
employed Robert Mountain, an English farmer who had earlier worked in New Jersey,
for his expertise in raising grain and fattening livestock . And by the early 1760s Lewis
IV of Kingsmill, neighboring planter Philip Lightfoot (who had married James Burwell
I‘s widow), and William Nelson were all experimenting with clover meadows.
Such reallocations of the workforce usually have been interpreted as an indulgent
shift on the part of the owners from production to consumption, but this scenario is only
partly borne out from the evidence of similar operations in the 1780s and 1790s. The
handful of very large planters who exempted their home plantation laborers from regular
staple crop production did increase the complement of domestic servants, stable hands,
ornamental gardeners, and the like to some extent. But more significantly, they redirected
most of the former field laborers into long-run improvement projects like replacing
traditional temporary worm fences with more permanent (and hopefully less resourceconsuming) barriers such as hedges and banks, draining periodically waterlogged fields
with a series of permanent ditches, improving storage facilities and housing on both the
home farm and outlying quarters, creating and maintaining self-sustaining low-ground
meadows, and developing better strains of livestock which could be achieved only with
constant tending. Some of the former field hands on the home farm also served as a
critical floating temporary workforce who could cut and secure larger crops of small
grains than the regular quarter laborers could manage, as well as assist in weeding
overgrown cornfields and get in tobacco harvests suddenly threatened by an early frost.
Perhaps anticipating the trade stoppages that growing political difficulties with
England would bring, Nathaniel Burwell began to shift more labor into locally tradable
products. He continued to make tobacco at Foaces and New Quarter, though in
decreasing quantities, and pitched larger crops of corn and wheat. On each of these
quarters, the hands worked about 125 acres a year, seventy to eighty acres in corn, twenty
in wheat, and twenty-four in tobacco. They also produced surplus pork, beef, wool, cider,
and butter. In 1772 Nathaniel built a new plantation mill, and by 1775 he was selling
wheat, flour, and cornmeal to rural neighbors and townsfolk in Williamsburg and
Yorktown. The grain came mostly from his own farms or was purchased from a few local
planters; his was not a large-scale merchant mill geared to the export trade.
The Burwells survived the Revolution better than did many other large
Chesapeake slave-owning families, whose heads suffered declining fortunes through
some combination of preoccupation with military service and politics, bad management,
and sheer bad luck. Whenever masters fell on hard times, their slaves suffered
disproportionately. Material hardships, forced migrations, and sales that widely separated
family members became increasingly common in tidewater Virginia as the war wore on.
Bankrupt planters first mortgaged and then sold off slaves. Many local slave owners
moved their wives and children and most of their workers farther west to inland quarters
where there was greater safety from British raiders and less chance for slaves to escape to

476

the enemy in response to promises of freedom. While some slaves ran away during the
temporary chaos that always ensued when British soldiers or sailors appeared in the area,
many others remained on the quarters, frightened and uncertain. Periodically throughout
the war British raiders passed through the Burwell plantations, and in 1781 so did units of
the American army, the Virginia militia, and their French allies en route to Yorktown. So
too did strange slaves on the run; a man from New York, for example, was taken up near
Nathaniel Burwell‘s mill in the spring of 1782.
Burwell, in contrast to many of his neighbors and his cousins at Kingsmill and in
Isle of Wight, chose to ride out the war at home, always keeping a sharp eye open for
new opportunities. He further curtailed tobacco crops, which he no longer could be sure
of selling, beginning in 1776. His crop allocations later in the war are uncertain, for
Nathaniel stopped paying his overseers in shares between 1778 and 1781, but it is likely
he planted little tobacco, concentrating instead on surer things. Although imported goods
were scarce and expensive throughout most of the Chesapeake during the war, Burwell‘s
location near the entrance to the bay guaranteed him first chance at whatever came in.
Access to imported necessities also meant that he could keep the slaves working most of
the time at things that would turn a profit, not just something to make do or to get by.
Obtaining enough salt to preserve meat, for example, was surely a problem, but he
managed to buy it through 1777. By the end of that year he directed his slaves to begin
distilling salt from James River water, but only enough for plantation use. Unlike most
other large Chesapeake slave owners, Burwell also managed to lay hands on sufficient
cloth to clothe the slaves. Before the war few local whites were spinning and weaving for
wages; in 1771 and 1772 Nathaniel hauled surplus wool from the peninsula farms west to
Frederick County in order to sell it. In 1775 he tried growing some cotton and probably
assigned some old slave women and younger girls to spinning that and the plantation‘s
wool. However, his accounts show no sign of the all-out effort, so evident on plantations
farther up the bay, to make most or all of the coarse cloth required for home use.
So long as Williamsburg remained the state‘s capital, the town market was
Burwell‘s first recourse. Nathaniel sold large amounts of meat, fodder, meal, flour, cider,
butter, and milk to urban tavern keepers and professionals. In 1776 and 1777 he sold
most of the flour his mill ground to two commercial bakers. He began using bran, a
by-product of milling, to fatten extra hogs. Responding to an increased demand for
firewood, Burwell had his slave men cut down so much timber that one suspects his
farms may have been seriously depleted of cover by the end of the war. In 1776 alone the
slaves carried into town over two thousand cartloads of firewood, worth over 475 sterling
constant value, most of it sold to the state government. Burwell also traded in whiskey,
suddenly in great demand as supplies of West Indian rum dried up. He built a distillery in
Frederick County in 1776 and by the next year was receiving regular shipments back
east. This he retailed, along with locally made cider, in town and at his mill. His gross
revenues for 1776 from the tidewater farms exceeded £1,000 sterling constant value,
exclusive of the value of foodstuffs consumed on the home farm and quarters. The
removal of the state capital from Williamsburg to Richmond must have been a blow, and
indeed, Nathaniel‘s accounts suggest that sales of butter, wood, and fodder declined
considerably in 1780 and 1781 when many of his best customers moved away.
The arrival of the French army in 1781 for the campaign against Cornwallis at
Yorktown helped to offset these losses, and Burwell was able to sell food and whiskey to

477

officers and commissary agents for welcome French gold. By 1782 the remaining
residents of Williamsburg resumed regular purchases of flour, whiskey, meat, and wood.
Williamsburg‘s mental hospital, on whose board of governors Burwell served, became an
additional customer. From firewood alone Burwell grossed between £130 and £150
sterling constant value annually between 1782 and 1784, and the whiskey business also
continued brisk. Although Burwell was surely pleased with this peacetime revival of the
local produce market, the accompanying postwar reopening of transatlantic tobacco
markets promised more lucrative opportunities and, indeed, a rare chance to reap windfall
profits from an alluring substance that had been for some years scarce and dear in most
European markets.
Overall Nathaniel Burwell‘s family appears to have suffered remarkably little
from the war. Although they could not count on making much from tobacco while
hostilities lasted, until the exceptional year of 1781 they could rely on continued sales of
grain, firewood, livestock products, and liquor to Williamsburg and Yorktown residents,
markets more augmented than curtailed by the conflict. Consequently, the Carter‘s Grove
slaves did not have to worry, as did many others, that their owner‘s declining fortunes or
wartime misfortunes might result in the sale of some family members. In addition, the
Burwells usually could buy imported cloth and even for a time could get salt, despite
acute shortages elsewhere. Their workers probably did not suffer the shortages of
clothing, shoes, salt, and medicines that many bondspeople living farther inland endured
during the war.
Even at nearby Kingsmill, where both father and son were in economic and
political trouble, the slaves appear to have undergone greater material hardships. A
Kingsmill man who ran off in 1779, for example, wore a homespun shirt, patched
homespun breeches, and a short jacket without sleeves or buttons which he fastened with
a lace, clear evidence of a shortage of cloth and reduced clothing issues. Finally, while
many area planters suffered heavy losses to the British in 1781, there is no evidence of
enemy depredations at Carter's Grove. Legend has it that Banastre Tarleton occupied the
farm that spring, and indeed, recent archaeological excavations uncovered a brass
insignia with his family crest in the vegetable garden. But if the enemy did raid the farm,
Burwell apparently had ample warning. His accounts suggest no significant damage, and
none of the slaves chose or were able to join the British forces. instead, it was the
American army that in 1781 seized corn from Foaces Quarter and from the mill, and the
Virginia assembly later compensated Burwell for the loss.
The Burwell family records reveal very little about how the Carter‘s Grove slaves
coped with daily life during the Revolutionary War, nor anything of what they thought of
these events. Throughout the South, in the wake of the Stamp Act crisis of 1765, racial
tensions had become more strained. As white colonists began to pursue public debate
about the meaning of slavery and freedom for free property holders, enslaved African
Americans began to hope for some alteration in their condition. Since many of the
Carter‘s Grove domestics worked in Williamsburg households between 1765 and 1771
and other hands carted grain and produce into the town at least once a week from the
mid-1760s on, the Carter‘s Grove community had ready access to current ideas and news
and came into contact with literate town slaves and free blacks. Thus, their political
education may have begun almost as soon as that of their owners.

478

…
As tensions between the colonists and their British rulers escalated in 1774, the
possibility that slaves might also choose armed rebellion increased dramatically. In the
spring of 1775, Williamsburg‘s mayor reported widespread rumors that a local slave
revolt was imminent. By May, Governor Dunmore was threatening to arm his and other
slaves and to ―declare Freedom to the slaves and reduce the City of Williamsburg to
Ashes‖ if local whites continued to foment disorder in the town. By fall the embattled
Dunmore, who had first left the capital for the safety of a British ship and later was
conducting raids along the James, issued a proclamation promising freedom to any
servants or slaves of the opposing rebel faction who would join the army. A military
defeat in December, followed the next spring by an outbreak of smallpox decimating the
perhaps one thousand slaves who had reached Dunmore‘s ships, discouraged others from
pursuing this possible path to freedom. Although none of the Burwell slaves are known
to have cast their lot with Dunmore, they likely knew some who did.
Everywhere in the South slaves followed the progress of the war and ―fully
appreciated its implications for their own lives.‖ At Carter‘s Grove there could be no
doubt about the outcome; the deciding battle at Yorktown was fought only a few miles
away. But even before the war began, the egalitarian political philosophy underpinning
the whites‘ revolution had reached some of the Burwell quarters, and by the war‘s end,
ideas of liberty and equality were surely widely diffused. While almost all of the Burwell
slaves were likely illiterate, the transforming power of the revolutionary ideology
grounded in universal natural rights could not be confined to the educated and the free.
With the return of peace, tidewater Chesapeake planters turned their energies to
recouping their fortunes and making up for economic opportunities absent during the
war. This was no easy task, for most found their workers increasingly discontented with
their lot and disturbingly insubordinate. Slaves were loath to relinquish the greater
control over the work pace that many had won during the unsettled war years. And even
ordinary field hands were coming to believe that they, too, had a right to freedom.
Masters and overseers alike faced at best increasing daily grumbling and discontent.
Whatever the atmosphere among his own workers, Nathaniel Burwell again
turned his energies to tobacco. He began increasing production in the early 1780s, and
by 1789the field hands were making crops as large as those set out before the war. By
1787 revenues per hand from tobacco, sterling constant value, again equaled those of the
1760s. Presumably he cut back some side activities once the laborers returned to fullscale tobacco cropping, but Burwell also may have further increased work requirements.
Foaces and New Quarter continued to be highly productive unties because Nathaniel
maximized profits there by carefully regulating the number of workers. From the mid1780s well into the nineteenth century, between thirty and forty adult slaves (about equal
numbers of men and women in the 1780s) worked at the two quarters. Young children
lived with their parents, but the older children were likely sent west, and men and women
too old to work the fields were transferred to Carter‘s Grove. Tax lists for 1783 through
1786 record a larger and more diverse slave population on the home farm. The fortythree adults and twenty-six children living there in one or more of these years included
field hands, domestics, carters, carpenters, gardeners, and old men and women.

479

Burwell also began renting more land to tenants, and this decision brought about a
significant change in the social composition at Carter‘s Grove and on the adjacent
quarters. During Nathaniel‘s minority four white families had regularly rented tenements.
All died or moved on by the early 1770s, and at first Burwell seems to have paid little
attention to rental property. Income from rent doubtless became increasingly attractive
during the war as other sources of revenue dried up; many other large tidewater planters
let more small farms during the war than they had before. Burwell began renting lots in
1779, and by 1782 he had fourteen tenants, many of whom stayed at least into the 1810s.
Burwell‘s accounts do not indicate the size of the size of the rental tracts or the
improvements—dwellings, outbuildings, fences, or orchards—that were on them.
Nathaniel let the properties for one year at a time, the rent coming due at the end of the
year. Each of the tenants paid either £3 or £5 a year. Three pounds probably bought the
use of a house and perhaps two to three acres of land, enough for a garden and pasture for
a cow. A yearly rent of £5 likely included another ten or twelve acres on which the
tenant could raise enough corn to feed his or her family.
Burwell apparently paid for the initial construction of the rented dwellings and
later assumed responsibility for their repair. Between 1777 and 1789, for example, he
paid Humphrey Harwood, a local building contractor, for plastering the interiors of
several of the tenants‘ houses and for building or repairing chimney. The dwellings were
likely one- or two-room wood structures either laid directly on the ground or underpinned
with brick. Most of the chimneys were also built of wood, with hearths and lining of
brick to reduce the chance of their catching fire.
Four of the tenants were white shoemakers who paid their rent by making shoes
for the Burwell slaves. They, along with other white families who rented from Burwell,
were younger members of small planter or tenant farmer families who had lived near
Carter‘s Grove for several generations.
More surprisingly, at least seven of the tenant families—and probably several
more—were free blacks. With the exception of Old Tom, who may have been a freed
slave, and a tenant of 1803 identified only as ―a negro man,‖ most of the free black
tenants were descended from families who had also lived in lower York County for
nearly a century, but not on Burwell lands. These free blacks seem to have lived a
hand-to-mouth existence, paying small portions of their rents across the year whenever
they came into a little cash. Three of them, Israel Olvis (or Alvis) and Anthony and John
Roberts, along with Daniel Hughes, a white, were part-time watermen who paid a portion
of their rent in oysters for Burwell‘s table and in oyster shells that were burned to make
lime for repairing plantation buildings. A fourth black tenant, William Roberts, had been
apprenticed to a white bricklayer in 1754. By 1801-3 six adult male members of the
Roberts family—Anthony, Godfrey, James, John, Richard, and Robert—rented lots from
Burwell. In addition, a free black woman, Betty Armfield (or Amphill), also rented a
house from 1782 to at least 1813. In 1800 Betty, who was a midwife as well as a farmer,
was described as a ―bright mulatto,‖ age sixty-six, five feet six inches tall, with long gray
hair, who had been born locally of free parents.
How and why these arrangements developed is unclear. Burwell apparently
offered the blacks secure homes—so long as they paid their rent on time—while getting
income in cash, produce, and services from parcels of marginal land he probably
otherwise would not have used. Between 1782 and 1785 these tenants paid nearly £40

480

sterling constant value annually in rent. However, Burwell surely could have secured
white tenants who would likely have been in a better position to pay than the free blacks.
Had he chosen to manumit his own slaves, Burwell‘s decision to rent to local free blacks
would make some sense. Since he did not free any of his slaves, his motives remain a
mystery. The presence of so many free blacks surely must have increased the slaves‘
discontent with their lot, and one would suppose that like many other planters, the
Burwells would worry about the free blacks harboring runaways or receiving stolen
goods from family slaves. Evidence from the York County records suggests that free
blacks and white laborers and tenant farmers sometimes traded goods and services and
shared occasional leisure hours together. Slaves on the Burwell plantations surely also
bartered with the free tenants and perhaps joined from time to time in their recreations
and communal celebrations.
…
The combined evidence from the demographic models and the particular
enumerations of the King‘s Creek slaves, as well as the more generalized accounts, all
lead to the same conclusion. The origins of most adults on the Burwell plantations
shifted quickly from African to creole between about 1760 and 1770. By then almost all
of the surviving Africans were either rapidly aging or already exceptionally old. The
respect and authority accorded elders in West African and also in African-American
societies make it likely that these older men and women continued to influence and shape
tidewater slave community life to a greater degree than their numbers alone might
suggest. But by the 1790s almost all had joined their ancestors in another world.
Thereafter, their multiple African heritages would be reflected in the evolving culture
only in the selected manners, modes of living, and values that their children and
grandchildren recollected and retold to younger generations.
Before the Revolution most of the creole adults were first-generation African
Virginians, although some who descended from the Bacon-Burwell group could trace
their American ancestry further back to African grandparents and occasionally greatgrandparents. By the time the war ended, the youngest cohort of adults included
increasing numbers of second-generation creoles. All of these people, who were forming
families and raising the upcoming generation, had no direct knowledge of Africa and had
experienced life much differently than their elders. To take an extreme example, recall
the man who had grown up at Kingsmill in the middle of the eighteenth century with an
African-born father and a creole mother. As a child he had huddled in fear with his
brothers and sisters whenever his father chose to ―sing he country‖ in an unknown
language and to dance and chant in a manner which also seemed to them ―outlandish.‖
Inevitably, this boy, and other creole children who grew up in similar situations, did not
acquire or intentionally discarded some of the elements of African culture that their
parents, often referred to as ―salt-water negroes,‖ retained, such as language. They
transformed and reinterpreted others, such as body language, foodways, and music.
However oppressive the slave system continued to be, these people had not experienced
forced transportation across the Atlantic. In addition, while growing up in Virginia, most
creoles surely had also absorbed and adopted more elements of Anglo-American culture
than had many of their parents. With different perceptions of experienced history, large

481

and small, and blessed with the energy of relative youth, this generation was likely more
open to creative innovation and change, and also to the multiplying expressive
possibilities afforded by shifting local fashions in dress, other material goods, music,
dance, and the like.
The creole slaves, like their African-born forebears, continued to have limited and
highly constrained choices. However, the rules that governed interactions between slaves
and slave owners and other controlling whites—or in the terminology favored by some
contemporary historical archaeologists, ―the context of power‖—also changed with the
emergence of a creole majority. Early Virginia slave owners like Lewis Burwell, who
grew up in the 1640s and 1650s when few blacks lived in Virginia, probably had little
contact with black servants or slaves when they were young. Although Robert Carter
more likely encountered some black people in his early childhood in the 1660s, he spent
most of his impressionable adolescent years in England. Later in life, neither Burwell nor
Carter seems to have had much understanding of, or sympathy for, the culturally alien
men, women, and children whom they purchased as heritable property. in the absence of
some special personal relationship, they, like most other contemporary whites, surely
tended to privilege creoles, who at the least were more-fluent in English, over
―outlandish‖ Africans with whom they could sometimes barely communicate.
In contrast, their children, born around the turn of the century, and to an even
greater extent their grandchildren and great-grandchildren grew up in households where
most of the domestic workers were black slaves, who sometimes wielded considerable
authority over youngsters of all races. In their earlier years the whites, especially the
boys, shared playtime with black children. These white children came to learn (and at
times to speak) African-American English as a normal part of growing up. Although the
modes of interaction changed drastically once putative masters and mistresses became
aware of their future positions, all entered into the altered relationships with a much more
intimate knowledge of each other‘s individual character and ways of daily living. Later
both would take some advantage, however unequal, of this greater familiarity. Creole
slave owners might turn their knowledge of private relations within the slave community
to devastating advantage, using threats of family separation to enforce plantation
discipline. Increasing family responsibilities clearly diminished available options among
the slaves. Mothers were unwilling to desert their children, and fathers more constrained
to choose seeming accommodation over overt resistance. But creole slaves sometimes
also could employ their knowledge of their owner‘s customs and social mores, as well as
of individual quirks and foibles, to avoid punishment, to secure minor privileges, and to
subvert plantation operations in ways that could not be easily detected or countered.
The situation of the ever-diminishing numbers of African-born men and
women-within the slave community and also within the overall plantation power
structure-likely also changed in the last third of the eighteenth century. These older
people posed much less of a threat to plantation discipline than did the by then more
numerous, younger, and physically stronger creole adults. Some small measure of respect
for the elders‘ age and experience began to color personal interchanges between master
and slave, and some of the Burwell owners may have cherished the links to their own
pasts that these elders represented and to some extent transmitted. This may have been
particularly true for many of the Burwell men who came of age in the first three-quarters

482

of the century, for most could recall only childhood memories of fathers (and of some
mothers), many of whom had died soon after they were born.
In addition, as older slaves became too weak or infirm to keep pace with the
majority of younger workers, they gained some exemption from dawn-to-dusk plantation
regimens. Although many were likely granted superannuated status only after they were
too sick or too feeble to take much advantage of leisure time, some few at last could
pursue hunting, trapping, and gardening, use any craft skills they possessed, and practice
traditional modes of healing in ways of their own choosing. That these were often
African ways is evidenced by the fact that in the last third of the eighteenth century slave
owners tended to distinguish ―old Africans‖ from other aging slaves. This greater
measure of control over their own time and labor at the end of their lives, as well as a
belated grudging modicum of respect from their masters, reinforced their position in the
quarters and surely enhanced the influence of the last African migrants within the local
―culture world.‖
Consequently, for a variety of reasons, some shaped by specific developments on
particular plantations and others more characteristic of tidewater populations in general,
one would expect to find evidence of increasing cultural change and diminishing African
influences in the tidewater Chesapeake beginning in the 1760s and 1770s and
accelerating by the 1780s and 1790s. This does not mean that individuals were
necessarily reshaping their cultural identities, but rather that the makeup of the group had
profoundly changed, with evolving creole preferences coming suddenly to the forefront.
If the later eighteenth-century Chesapeake had indeed been a closed world for
both blacks and whites, charting the course of their shared cultural worlds and of separate
developments within the two coexistent colonial societies might be possible. However,
external events in the last quarter of the century brought profound change to almost every
aspect of daily life and social relations. These events transcended individual contests of
power between master and slave and diverted the course of local history into new and
unanticipated directions.
The American Revolution upset the established order, at first in specific ways in
particular localities but eventually in fundamental ways throughout the new American
Republic. Its egalitarian rhetoric provided slaves everywhere with a potent ideological
justification for protesting and resisting bondage and for a time led privileged whites to
reconsider—and sometimes to reject—their justifications for holding human property.
The rapid expansion of geographic territory and the seldom-noticed abolition of special
property rights—especially entail—that removed restraints on slave sales that had
previously inadvertently protected slave communities shortly overwhelmed humanitarian
considerations. The result was a brutal, forced transplantation of African Americans
throughout the limits of the new Republic that pales in the levels of suffering it created
only in comparison to the initial forced removal across the Atlantic. The Revolution
altered some of the basic rules of community organization, and westward migration
partially undermined the internal institutional arrangements essential for fostering and
sustaining separate cultural developments.
There were also incremental changes in attitudes toward material goods, as well
as some real alterations in lifestyles and living standards in the last half of the century.
From the 1750s Chesapeake colonists were inundated with an unprecedented flow of
nonessential consumer goods, including a wide variety of textiles, ceramic dining wares,

483

cutlery, mirrors, and timepieces, some of which free families, middling and poor as well
as rich, eagerly embraced, for reasons of both practicality and social utility. Such goods
began to appear on slave quarters as well, although there is as yet little consensus as to
how or why the slaves acquired them.
Across the same years widespread changes in religious expression and belief
accompanied the spread of evangelical Protestantism in the Chesapeake backcountry and,
to a lesser extent, the tidewater. These developments began to restructure spiritual and
material life among the enslaved, the slaveholding elite, and less-privileged free
commoners.
Two centuries later there seems no way to disentangle the intertwined
consequences of demographic change within local tidewater slave communities from the
effects of transforming spiritual, political, and material events and processes that
originated far outside these ―relatively separate, embryonic communities‖ but profoundly
altered slave societies throughout the American South in the last quarter of the eighteenth
century.
The case for an expanding and relatively stable residential community toward the
end of the eighteenth century is much stronger than is clear evidence of a coherent
culture, either on the various Burwell plantations or more widely shared with other
African Americans on neighboring plantations. Neither documentary nor archaeological
records reveal much about the specific elements of African culture that the Burwell
family slaves may have preserved and passed on to later generations, about the extent to
which they adapted various elements of Anglo-American culture over time, or about the
multiple ways in which they combined elements of each into a distinctive creole AfricanAmerican culture. We are left trying to make some larger sense out of tantalizing but
incomplete pieces of evidence of changes in coping strategies, involvement in Christian
rituals (although not necessarily in Christian beliefs), choice and significance of names,
degrees of autonomy and control in economic matters and health care, and living
conditions on various of the Burwell plantations. Much of this evidence cannot be dated
very precisely and so cannot be fashioned into a coherent chronological narrative. Nor
does it address broad issues of cultural evolution systematically.
The available evidence does suggest that between about 1740 and 1770
Virginia-born Burwell slaves developed ways for coping with their enslaved condition
that differed from those of their parents and grandparents. They put more effort into
creating and maintaining some autonomous private life within the quarter community and
into devising ways to survive as comfortably as possible within the institution of slavery.
Hopes for freedom—either by escaping from the colony or by acquiring free status within
it—dimmed with each passing year. Almost none of the Burwell slaves ran away for any
extended period of time between the mid-1740s and the mid-1760s. Instead, in the middle
of the century, the creoles built on a greater understanding of white culture in general and
the psychologies of their masters in particular. They developed collective methods of
resistance, such as controlling the work pace, and also fashioned public personas that
afforded both some measure of protection against discipline and some individual
advantage within the system.
We can gain insights into these various adaptations from the descriptions that
several of the Burwells gave of slaves born in the 1730s and 1740s who ran away for
extended periods of time when faced with new and unacceptable changes in the 1760s

484

and 1770s. Although the advertisements for runaways only provide information about a
few slaves who were likely more privileged and probably more independent than the
majority, they are the sole source that reveals anything about the outward behavior or
inward motivations of individual slaves. Jack, for example, lived on the Burwell quarters
in Isle of Wight County. He was born about 1736 and in 1771 at age thirty-five appeared
to his master a ―talkative, artful, and very saucy Fellow.‖ His wife, Venus, three years
younger, had worked as a domestic in a gentry house for five years and had mastered
enough of white ways so that her owner described her as ―very smooth tongued.‖
Kingsmill Joe, born about 1743, ran off in 1778 when, like Jack, he was in his
mid-thirties. In contrast to Jack and Venus, Joe usually displayed ―a down look,‖ spoke in
―a rough voice,‖ and ―appeared to be very humble.‖ Another Kingsmill slave, Johnny—
who also used the name Jack Ash—probably resembled Jack and Venus more than Joe.
He employed deception when he ran off in 1768, hoping to escape from Virginia by ship,
or so his master, Lewis Burwell IV, speculated. ―To favour his making his escape out of
the colony, as he might think I should suspect he had drowned himself,‖ Johnny acquired
an extra set of clothes and left behind at the river's edge those he had been wearing.
Another Johnny, probably born at Fairfield around 1728, lived at Carter‘s Grove from
about 1740 to the 1760s. He was then sent to a frontier quarter in Frederick County from
which he ran away repeatedly. He appeared ―a cunning sensible fellow‖ like Johnny from
Kingsmill often used an alias, John Turner. This man managed to travel freely through
the colony in 1768, convincing a gullible magistrate in Middlesex County of the validity
of the forged pass he had somehow obtained. These examples illustrate the broad range
of coping strategies the slaves employed: from feigned humility to brash assertiveness
and from rather naive deception to a sophisticated understanding of the power of writing,
perhaps even extending to acquiring the ability to write.
There is ample evidence of the Burwell slave community‘s increasing
involvement in Christian rituals across the eighteenth century. Yet the extent to which
some members were also adopting and possibly adapting Christian beliefs is less certain.
Most historians have emphasized the quite small proportions of the enslaved population
who surviving records suggest were baptized into the established church, as well as the
firmly documented resistance of both the majority of slaves and slaveholders to Anglican
missionary efforts, each for quite different reasons. One recent survey concluded: ―After
nearly three-quarters of a century of itineracy, Christian missionaries had little to show
for their efforts. Some slaves had been baptized and some had become communicants,
but the mass of slaves were still [in the words of a late eighteenth-century observer] ‗as
great strangers to Christianity, and as much under the influence of Pagan darkness,
idolatry and superstition, as they were at their first arrival from Africa.
Both African-born and creole slaves had abundant reason to reject a foreign
religion that preached total obedience to their masters and unquestioning acceptance of
perpetual bondage. Moreover, most recent historians argue, Anglican forms of worship
could have held little appeal for either forced African migrants or their locally born
descendants. Services were conducted in unwelcoming, formally designed buildings
where influential white parishioners occupied center stage. Black worshipers either had
no assigned place to sit or were relegated to a section set aside for them in the rear that
underscored their inferior status and could accommodate only limited numbers. A formal
liturgy, devoid of compelling emotional content, was conducted by staid educated

485

ministers. Reinforcing the social message conveyed by setting and service, the sermons
declared that it was the slaves‘ divinely sanctioned obligation to accept their station,
however involuntary, in the local hierarchy and their inescapable duty to give
unquestioning obedience to those who claimed dominion over their lives and persons.
The established church catered almost exclusively to the needs and expectations of
well-connected parishioners. Slaveholding gentlemen dominated local parish vestries that
regulated clerical appointments and clerical salaries, and ministers had little choice but to
accommodate their views to those of the men who controlled their fortunes.
Although some Anglican clergymen in the Chesapeake transcended the
unflattering stereotypes that prevailed even among their contemporaries—ill-trained,
ineffectual, sometimes lazy, often greedy, and not infrequently dissolute—even the most
energetic could seldom minister effectively to all potential parishioners living isolated
lives in large, thinly populated rural parishes. Even the best intentioned could not wiggle
around inherent contradictions between Christian doctrines that posited the equality of all
souls and a legal system that mandated perpetual bondage for some. In the end, the clergy
had no alternative but to uphold the established order.
Despite the fact that beginning in the 1660s both the Virginia and Maryland
legislatures repeatedly passed laws affirming that conversion to Christianity in no way
changed a slave‘s hereditary servile status, until about 1740 slave owners continued to
worry that a slave‘s conversion might compromise their property rights. Concomitantly,
from the 1660s into the 1730s, many slaves retained the opposing hope that acceptance of
the master's religion might offer a route to eventual freedom. Indeed, in 1730 a rumor
spread that local authorities were suppressing an order from England to free all Christian
slaves, and several hundred blacks living in the Norfolk area planned a widespread,
narrowly averted revolt. Thereafter, more systematic surveillance seems to have
eliminated any opportunities for tidewater slaves to orchestrate large-scale collective
resistance. But for some time thereafter many local slave owners continued to oppose any
missionary initiatives that might entail gatherings of more than a few bondspeople,
fearing ―the Consequences of so many meeting together at one time & one place, might
be dangerous.‖
Thus, the record for the Burwell slave community is both unexpected and difficult
to interpret. Between 1721 and 1761 the baptisms of 126 slaves from the Burwell
plantations in Gloucester County are entered in the Abingdon Parish church register (their
owners were Nathaniel Burwell I and subsequent Lewis Burwells of Fairfield). A few of
those baptized were adults, forty-four were children, and an even larger number were of
an unspecified age. Registers for Bruton Parish (including the Kingsmill and Bray
quarters, some of those attached to Carter‘s Grove—but not the home plantation—and,
officially, none of the King‘s Creek farms) document a similar story. From 1747, when
slave baptisms were first noted in the Bruton register, to 1768 (after which black
baptisms were not systematically recorded), 73 Kingsmill slaves, both adults and infants,
were baptized at Bruton church, as were 40 from Carter‘s Grove and Foaces Quarter, and
2 adults from King‘s Creek. Seven more came either from Kingsmill or Carter‘s Grove.
These totals reflect fewer births than we have reason to suppose occurred over these years
at Fairfield, Kingsmill, and Carter's Grove. Nevertheless, for the late 1740s and early
1750s, when the two parish registers cover all three of these plantations, the number of
baptisms is substantial—between ten and twenty-seven a year. Moreover, the pattern of

486

baptisms on the Burwell plantations differs markedly from that found on many other
neighboring farms and in nearby households in Williamsburg where few or none of the
resident slaves chose or were allowed to profess a new faith or to baptize their children in
it.
In contrast to the prevailing view that most slaveowners in the southern colonies
were largely indifferent or openly hostile to Anglican missionary efforts among slaves
early in the century, Anthony Parent recently has argued that large gentry planters in
Virginia turned to Christianity as another means for controlling their bondspeople. When
in the 1720s they encountered mounting difficulties controlling increasingly numerous,
culturally alien, and rebellious black workers, ―Christianizing the slaves was part of a
larger attempt to create an acculturated and more servile labor force.‖ Parent concluded
that a change of mind among gentry planters, rather than laws (more often ignored than
observed) or ministerial zeal, best accounts for the growing numbers of slave baptisms in
most Virginia parishes. Certainly various members of the Burwell family appear to have
encouraged their bondspeople to attend Anglican services, and they seem to have allowed
adults who wanted to become Christians time off to learn the basic catechism that
Anglican ministers considered essential for adult baptism. Some may also have stood as
sponsors for baptized infants. To the extent that fairly regular church attendance and
frequent service in the offices of churchwarden or vestryman provide evidence of a wider
commitment to Anglicanism, the Burwell men might be judged committed churchmen.
Aside from the numerous baptisms of slaves from their home farms and quarters,
however, the owners left no statements about their true intentions.
In the first third of the century, Anglican ministers (and perhaps Anglican masters
and mistresses) concentrated their efforts on Virginia-born slaves, considering Africans
too ―indocile.‖ In addition, as one minister confessed, the Africans ―understand not our
Language nor me their‘s.‖ Doubtless many of the African-born clung to traditional
African spiritual beliefs and religious practices. They were probably unable, however, to
maintain coherent religious systems without a supporting social system or the guidance of
priests and wise men. Some of the beliefs they likely retained were those that Olaudah
Equiano emphasized: belief in a single creator who lived in the sun and governed human
events, transmigration of souls (accepted by some), and the intervention of the dead
(―spirits‖) in the affairs of living friends and relatives. Among his people spirits were
honored with libations of food and drink offered before meals and at their graves. A few
Burwell bondspeople may have practiced other world religions. The Mandingo, for
example, of whom there was at least one at Kingsmill, were Moslems. If any of the slaves
came from Angola, they may have embraced Catholicism in their homeland. Not
surprisingly then, the first Anglican converts came from the largely creole Gloucester
branch.
By 1729 a Williamsburg minister reported to the bishop of London that ―the
Negroes themselves in our Neighbourhood [including those at Kingsmill and the Bray
quarters] are very desirous to become Christians; and in order to it come and give an
Account of the Lords prayer, and the Creed and ten Commandments, and so are baptized
and frequent the [Bruton] Church; and the Negro children are now commonly baptized.‖
The slaves‘ reasons for attending catechism and receiving baptism did not always
coincide with the aims of the clergy, who hoped, among other things, that they would
become better slaves as a consequence of conversion. However, ―the greater part,‖ this

487

minister thought, ―little mind the serious part, only are in hopes that they shall meet with
so much the more respect, and that some time or other Christianity will help them to their
freedom.‖
By the middle third of the century, there was a shift in emphasis from conversion
and baptism of adults to encouraging primarily the baptism of young children, for whom
a profession of Christian belief was not a prerequisite for christening. Clergyman Hugh
Jones, for example, argued that baptizing ―New Negroes, who have not the least
knowledge nor inclination to know and mind our religion, language and customs, but will
obstinately persist in their own barbarous ways….[might be] a prostitution of a thing so
sacred.‖ Their children, however, ―ought all to be baptized; since it is not out of the
power of their masters to take care that they have catechism, and go to church, and not
accustom themselves to lie, swear, and steal.‖ Most adult Africans had proved ―indocile‖
and ―obstinately persistent‖ in traditional beliefs, while many of the more acculturated
creole adults had seized equally tenaciously on the most challenging egalitarian
implications of Christian doctrine. Consequently, most Virginia slave owners who
supposed that religion could have any role in solidifying their heretofore unorthodox
social hierarchy concluded that creole children were the only appropriate candidates for
instruction in an attenuated creed that preached only acceptance of the inevitable and
their duty to obey established authority.
Indeed, at both Carter‘s Grove and Kingsmill, baptisms were largely confined to
infants rather than to adults by the 1760s. This may have become the general practice
several decades earlier, as it was in the neighboring parish of St. Peters. The timing of the
change among the Burwell group is uncertain because the Abingdon and Bruton registers
do not always indicate the ages of those baptized.
Parish register entries alone do not explain much of the slaves‘ experience with
Anglican Christianity. The inseparable connections between the established church and
the established social order in tidewater Virginia meant that matters of individual faith
and conscience were intertwined with contests between slave and master or mistress over
larger issues of autonomy and control. After the fact and in the absence of any
documentary records that speak to painful internal struggles of faith or morals, these can
be abstracted all too readily into a sterile calculus of potential costs and benefits.
Although the Burwells indeed may have pursued a strategy of Christianization as one
more means of controlling enslaved workers, the slaves, too, were surely making
considered choices. If, for example, baptism of slave children became standard practice
among area slaveholders and adoption of at least the outward elements of Anglican belief
and worship was restricted to a privileged few of the adult slaves, the evidence would
reveal more about the religious inclinations of the owners and the aspirations and
accommodations of those few domestics in closest contact with the whites than about the
religious experience of ordinary enslaved men and women.
However, the record (notably incomplete) is at once less and more revealing.
Slave mothers at Fairfield between the 1710s and 1740s, for example, may have had a
choice about whether or not their children would be baptized. Their various masters and
mistresses began to comply, albeit rather haphazardly, with a law of 1713 that required
slave owners to notify parish authorities within twenty days of the birth of every child on
their quarters. The Abingdon register notes seventy-two such births at Fairfield between
1714 and 1753, but only twenty-five of these infants were baptized within the following

488

few months. The birth dates of an additional fourteen children were not recorded, so their
age at baptism is uncertain. This group may have included older children whose parents
had become Christian converts.
Some aspects of the Christian faith apparently were more appealing initially to
enslaved women at Fairfield than to the men. Up to 1750 almost twice as many females
were baptized than males. The Abingdon register does not always indicate whether those
baptized were infants, older children, or adults, but almost all of the nineteen slaves
identified as adults throughout the register were women. These women, perhaps as an
outcome of close contact with the owner's family, may have chosen to profess Christian
beliefs out of personal conviction, as a protective strategy, or with the hope that
conversion to the master‘s religion might lead to eventual freedom for themselves or
their children. Perhaps also they were especially concerned to have their daughters
similarly baptized or could exert more influence over the upbringing of their daughters
than of their sons. Moreover, the Burwell mistresses may have taken special interest in
the spiritual status of their female slaves or have been in a position to influence them
more strongly. Another hint that at least one of the parents, more likely the mother, was a
practicing Christian is that baptized children, especially those born before 1750, were
somewhat more likely than other children on the Burwell quarters to have Biblical names,
especially ones taken from the Old Testament….After 1750, when infant baptism became
a more standard practice, girls and boys were christened in equal numbers. Subsequent
naming patterns show no increased preferences for biblical over common English names
through the end of the century, suggesting no pronounced awakening of the spirit on the
Burwell quarters.
Many of the slaves at Carter‘s Grove who chose to attend Christian services seem
also to have chosen between churches. Forty-some Carter‘s Grove blacks, for example,
were baptized at the Bruton Parish church in Williamsburg. The home plantation and the
outlying quarters were attached to a different parish, Yorkhampton, for which there are
no surviving records. The Burwell family appears to have gone either to the main
Yorkhampton Parish church in Yorktown or else to the Chiscake Church, a chapel of ease
attached to Yorkhampton Parish that was only about two miles from the Grove on the
road to Yorktown. Other slaves from Carter‘s Grove, and perhaps those at New Quarter
and King‘s Creek, may well have been baptized in and later attended one of these
Yorkhampton churches. But many of the Carter‘s Grove people who attended Anglican
services, as well as the two men from King‘s Creek, made the longer journey into
Williamsburg, where they could meet with friends or relatives from the neighboring Bray
and Kingsmill farms.
Nor did all the adults who chose to profess the Christian religion come from a
single occupational or generational group. Some of the Burwell slaves who sought
baptism as adults—including Venus, Michael, and Jacob at Kingsmill or Carter‘s Grove;
Juno, Isaac, Hannah, and two Jennys at Kingsmill; Henry at Fairfield; Old Cuffey and
Marcus at King‘s Creek; and George, Mary, Judith, and two women named Jenny from
Carter‘s Grove—may have worked in and around the great houses, but it is unlikely that
all were domestic servants. Elizabeth from Foaces Quarter, whose daughter was baptized
in 1767, was almost certainly an ordinary field hand. Although many of the professing
adults were likely creoles, Marcus at King‘s Creek was baptized at age twenty-five,
twelve years after his forced transportation from West Africa, and Cuffey, an older man

489

baptized in 1766, was an African migrant who had been in Virginia for at least thirty
years.
By the mid-eighteenth century participation in Anglican rituals afforded people
from the various Burwell quarters an otherwise rare chance to meet together without fear
of their masters or local white slave patrols intervening. ―Repairing to and meeting at
church to attend divine service‖ was one of the few occasions for ―lawful meetings‖
recognized in otherwise harshly repressive legislation. On the first Sunday in May 1749,
for example, three children from the Carter‘s Grove quarters, four from Kingsmill, and
four from the adjacent Bray plantation were all baptized at Bruton church; likely many
other Burwell workers were present at this christening. Perhaps only blacks witnessed the
service; one area minister noted, ―As for the negro Children, them I baptize after the
Congregation is dismiss‘d (that I may give no offence) [to white parishioners].‖ Some
slaves may have garnered material as well as spiritual and social benefits from such
gatherings. The Burwells, like the staunch Anglican planter William Lee, who lived at
Green Spring plantation just above Jamestown Island not far from Kingsmill, may have
promoted the established religion among their slaves by rewarding those who regularly
attended Sunday services with incentives to ―Make it their interest to do their Duty‖
similar to those Lee adopted: larger weekly food rations or an annual or twice-annual
reward of ―an additional shirt, more than the rest.‖
While the evidence from the surviving parish registers hints at the possible
beginnings of an adaptive and perhaps separate sense of religiosity within the Burwell
slave community, the absence of information after the mid-1760s allows only speculation
about later developments. Religious awakenings in the 1740s appear to have been
confined to areas well to the west or north of the Burwell plantations. By 1771 William
Lee of Green Spring reported that ―wandering new light preachers from the Northward,
have put most of my Negroes crazy with their new light and the New Jerusalem.‖
Burwell slaves may have attended these and later religious gatherings conducted in and
around Williamsburg, often in secret, by black Baptist preachers. Doubtless most of the
Burwell slaves who adopted, and over time surely adapted, some elements of their
owners‘ Anglican Christianity did so for varying, individual reasons. The surviving
record is so slight that it seems impossible now to penetrate the pervading silence.
Naming patterns among the Burwell slaves provide a few more bits of evidence
about their often forced adoption of one element of Anglo-American culture early in the
century and the creative adoptions that preceded and later followed. From the parish
registers, account books, wills, inventories, and tax lists of the early 1780s we can
identify 964 Burwell slaves who were born on or present at one of the family plantations
between 1711 and 1814. The names among this later group show some differences from
those found among the York-Gloucester group between 1692 and 1710 and differ also
from the list of largely owner-assigned names appearing in Robert Carter's inventory of
1733.
In the seventeenth century there was no clearly established custom of the country
for naming slaves. Masters surely chose names for many of the people they bought or
inherited, but others in the Bacon-Burwell group seem to have had the liberty to name
themselves. From the outset women apparently had much less bargaining power; with
one exception all of the Bacon-Burwell females were accorded English given names.
However, over a quarter of the males‘ names were of unmistakable African origin, ones

490

which adult captives managed to retain or which parents were permitted to choose for
their sons. Equally telling is that none of the men or boys present before 1711 were
saddled with the sorts of classical names or place-names, never used in the free
population, that were almost certainly imposed by owners and often were chosen in a
chance moment out of whim.
In contrast, by the 1710s and 1720s, slave owners like Robert Carter routinely
picked out names for newly arrived Africans and forced the slaves to answer to them. The
traumatized captives who disembarked at Corotoman or Fairfield were seldom in any
position to bargain over assigned names within a few days of their arrival in Virginia.
Likewise, many of the new Africans whom James Burwell I bought between 1711 and
1718—Cato, Caesar, Martius, Juno, and Venus—were victims both of their master‘s
superior power and his recent schooling in the classics. Cato, Caesar, Marcellus, Nero,
Paris, and Pompey at Carter's Grove suffered equally from either King Carter‘s or one of
the younger Burwell's classical education.
….
While basic shelter remained something of a constant across this period, material
conditions in the quarters did improve incrementally from mid to late century in less
obvious ways, almost entirely from the slaves‘ initiatives. At Carter‘s Grove, where the
owner‘s family lived on the plantation, from 1755 on in a great house, there were more
household goods, good, and livestock on hand than at other quarters. As many kinds of
European goods became cheaper and more readily available and amenities such as finer
fabrics, ceramics, glassware, and mirrors became more widely distributed among white
families, one would expect that these things would also begin appearing in slave
households. Such goods were becoming so widely available and so much a part of
everyday life in ordinary free households that slave owners could not entirely prevent
their bondspeople from acquiring some of them. At adjacent Kingsmill, for example,
where housing for all the slaves except the domestic servants remained small and spartan
across the eighteenth century, by the 1770s and 1780s Burwell field hands had numerous
ceramic tablewares including a surprising amount of Chinese porcelain. Archaeologist
William Kelso concluded, ―House servants and fieldhands were equipped with, or
equipped themselves with, a good representative sampling of whatever the owner had on
hand.‖
The slaves acquired such inessentials largely through some combination of
recycling, theft, gift, barter, and purchase. As the Burwell slave community grew in
numbers and connections increased among those dwelling on the various home farms and
quarters, opportunities for movement, sanctioned or not, and for exchange of goods also
increased. So too in the third quarter of the eighteenth century did opportunities for
making a little money from the sale of poultry or produce raised in free time. Both the
various Burwell families and the urban population of Williamsburg afforded slaves new
customers for their produce and a greater variety of ways to acquire a broader range of
goods. The Burwell owners‘ redirection of plantation operations away from staple crop
production and toward a more diversified output for provisioning local markets
unintentionally created conditions that the laborers could turn to their own advantage to
develop a separate and increasingly vibrant internal slave economy.

491

One can get some sense from the Burwell family account books of when, and
eventually of how thoroughly, the Carter's Grove slaves took advantage of growing
opportunities for petty trade with the master and other neighboring gentry families, and
surely also with townspeople, slaves residing on adjacent plantations, and free black and
poor white families in the area. The Burwell records are inadequate for tracing the early
development of this trade. By the late 1770s and early 1780s, when Nathaniel Burwell II
began recording frequent small cash transactions with his bondspeople, it is clear that the
slaves were already active and knowledgeable, though still tightly circumscribed,
participants in a lively local cash-based trading economy.
This was surely a development that neither Robert (―King‖) Carter nor even his
grandson Carter Burwell envisioned, and one of which they would likely not have
approved. Only on rare occasions in the late 1740s and early 1750s did Carter Burwell
trust any of his slaves with cash to cover incidental expenses they might incur while
traveling or conducting business. The £2. 3d. given to ―my Negroes at Shenandoa‖ in
1745 and 10s. 10d. given to Pompey at Neck of Land in 1749 were exceptional. So were
tips of 1s. 3d. paid to ―Major Taliaferro‘s boy‖ in 1745 and the ―governor‘s coach man‖
two years later. Burwell also seldom trucked with neighbor's slaves. His accounts record
only 7s. 11d. paid to ―Potter‘s Bob‖ for chickens and ten shillings paid to neighbor
William Diggs‘s blacks for unspecified goods or services. From Carter Burwell‘s records
one would suppose that the slaves seldom if ever managed to trade independently in
goods and almost never laid hands on any cash.
Had Lucy Burwell‘s household accounts survived, however, we might have a
somewhat different perspective. The 16s. 1d. Carter Burwell paid to his brother Robert‘s
cook in 1749 and the 3s. 9d. he paid the next year to the Carter‘s Grove cook to cover her
purchases of fowls for the family table are likely the tip of the iceberg. Other period
plantation records suggest the beginnings of a regular, owner-sanctioned trade in fowls
and eggs between neighborhood slaves and gentry households. The archaeological
evidence from Rich Neck and Kingsmill points to the same conclusion: area slaves were
acquiring consumer goods and accumulating hard currency by one means or another.
Probably the Carter‘s Grove and Kingsmill workers took advantage of the increasingly
frequent trips they made to Williamsburg to deliver or peddle produce for their owner to
trade on their own account.
Years of relaxed oversight between Carter Burwell‘s death and Nathaniel Burwell
II‘s majority likely opened up other opportunities, although executor William Nelson‘s
accounts offer little corroborating evidence. However, even the little suggests much.
Would Nelson have handed over cash to Billy, Daniel, Tom, and three unidentified slaves
to cover their traveling expenses from Carter's Grove to western quarters on Bull Run in
Prince William County or to the Frederick quarters on the Shenandoah if he was not
certain that these men already knew the value of a coin and the customary charges they
should pay for food, forage, and ferriage along the way? The domestics who were hired
out to work in Williamsburg also would have had more opportunities to learn about cash
transactions, to earn money by working on their own time, and to collect tips than did
those living in the country.
Nathaniel Burwell II‘s daybooks confirm the extent to which the Carter‘s Grove
slaves became involved in the local economy as the Revolution ended and the relatively
sophisticated level of financial knowledge that some had acquired. Between 1775 and

492

1786 he recorded cash transactions with thirty-four of his own bondsmen and women.
Burwell also entrusted cash to Billy and Bristol from King‘s Creek and to Hugh Nelson‘s
Jack. Almost all of the individuals with whom Nathaniel recorded transactions lived on
the home plantation, and most of them were wagoners, millers, artisans, or domestics.
Whatever trading networks field workers on outlying quarters developed seem not to
have involved many exchanges with the master.
Nathaniel‘s records provide no more than a glimpse into the home farm workers‘
trading activities, because he was often absent in the west, and his wives usually handled
the housekeeping accounts. From the beginning of their marriage, Nathaniel regularly
handed over cash to Susannah to pay for produce and other household goods she
purchased from slaves or free peddlers who brought their wares to Carter‘s Grove. Surely
Nathaniel‘s second wife, Lucy, controlled a similar housekeeping fund, as well as her
share of proceeds from the quarter dairies. Susannah‘s and Lucy‘s household accounts
would likely document an increasing trade between Carter‘s Grove slaves and others
from neighboring farms with the plantation mistress in poultry, eggs, fish and shellfish,
fruits, and vegetables.
The master‘s dealings were not restricted to simple exchanges of a few pence or
shillings for produce the slaves sold Burwell or for goods that they bought from him.
Hard coin remained in short supply, and Nathaniel sometimes resorted to borrowing
money from domestics Nelly, Old Nanny, and Billy to cover small, unexpected
household purchases. He also made small loans—usually repaid within a month or two—
to Nanny, Sukey, Caesar the barber, and Harry to finance independent purchases. In
addition, Burwell regularly trusted some of the men, including Sam, Joe, Tom, and
Daniel, with cash to cover their expenses en route when they left the county, sometimes
on journeys of several weeks. A few of the slaves began retailing goods for the master,
for which the customers paid cash on the spot. Occasionally some of the bondsmen
handled several pounds‘ worth of cash at a time. Amos at Mill Quarter, for example, was
selling butter for cash in 1778, and Cyrus collected £5 2s. for cider he marketed in 1783.
In addition, in the 1780s, whenever the white miller was absent, miller Gregory collected
payments from customers who brought grain to be ground at Burwell‘s mill or else came
to purchase flour, cornmeal, cider, or whisky.
Thus, between the 1740s and 1780s, many of the Burwell slaves had acquired an
accurate knowledge of the customary prices of locally traded goods and services, the
values of the various denominations of European coins periodically in circulation, and
Anglo-American conventions regarding the lending and borrowing of money. For people
who theoretically could own nothing, this knowledge surely was gained over the years
from some combination of observation, barter transactions sanctioned or at the least
tolerated by the owner, and unsanctioned trades in goods or cash negotiated outside the
view of owners or supervisors. By the 1780s, Nathaniel Burwell apparently was forced to
accept his slaves‘ incongruent, independent participation in a market economy as an
accomplished fact. Perhaps, by becoming more involved in their internal trading, he
hoped to maintain some control over it.
The greater availability of a variety of new goods, the gradual redefinition of
former amenities into present necessities among the white population, and some increase
in slaves‘ opportunities for buying, selling, and trading all encouraged the acquisition of
new goods. Yet these trends were partly offset by the general perception among whites

493

that a mode of living affording little beyond bare subsistence remained appropriate for
people of a different race and status. The composition of the typical owner-supplied issue
of housing, food, clothing, bedding, and cooking equipment remained fundamentally
unchanged until slavery ended; there was no change at all until about the 1830s. Slaves‘
material conditions were in theory and in many ways in practice frozen at the spartan
levels common among all bound laborers at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The
scanty rations, especially those of meat, that most masters doled out forced slaves to put a
higher priority on obtaining additional foods than on acquiring personal or household
goods.
The ways in which slaves regarded personal or family possessions cannot be
separated from their own exceptional status, in which they themselves were considered
property. Theoretically they could own nothing, and mere possession of goods outside the
standard plantation issue, however managed, might invite ill will, accusations of theft,
and at times arbitrary confiscation. Near-paranoid slave owners sometimes ordered
overseers to conduct wholesale searches of houses and root cellars for evidence of
pilfered pigs or butter pots. Sharp-eyed and suspicious white neighbors sometimes also
felt free to intervene. The level of community policing of slave possessions can be
glimpsed from scattered records such as a written pass for travel in which the master
attested that the old beaver hat and fine yam stockings his carter was wearing were recent
gifts and not stolen adornments. Other slaves had to appeal to their master to get back a
large iron pot which everyone on the plantation acknowledged to be their property after a
neighboring planter had confiscated it because he supposed they must have stolen it.
In such circumstances some slaves may have decided that acquisition of other
than owner-supplied European goods was not worth the heightened scrutiny that mere
possession might elicit. Others probably concealed whatever items they had acquired
when whites were present. Also, people who lived under the threat of arbitrary separation
from home and kin had reason to place a higher value on commodities that could be
consumed and enjoyed immediately over more durable items whose use they might lose
at any time. Still others were well aware that colorful, fashionable clothes and other
nonessential goods did indeed convey social messages, and doubtless some gained no
small measure of satisfaction from annoying the ruling whites by violating implicit
sumptuary rules.
Dress was one of the most readily available means of self-expression, and one
probably especially appealing to creoles who had grown up accustomed only to European
clothing standards. Various pieces of evidence, runaway advertisements in particular,
demonstrate that from the middle of the eighteenth century, some bondsmen and women
managed to acquire a range of clothing and headgear of different, more colorful materials
and sometimes more fashionably tailored than the dreary standard issue, possessions to
which they attached special importance. The clothing that several Burwell runaways wore
illustrates this trend. In 1736 Cuffee and Essex left King‘s Creek attired only in
standard-issue white cotton waistcoats, breeches, and oznabrig shirts. Two years later
Jumper, an African captive who had been in Virginia for only two years, went off from
Kingsmill dressed in the plains jacket and breeches, oznabrig shirt, felt hat, and
European-made shoes and stockings that Lewis Burwell III had supplied, but also with a
distinctive linen cap bordered with calico. Thirty years later Johnny (Jack Ash) had built
up a large enough wardrobe to abandon one set of clothing on the riverbank in the hope

494

that his master would conclude he had drowned rather than run off. Jack and Venus left
their Isle of Wight quarter equipped with ―several different Kinds of Apparel.‖
Varied clothing offered many advantages for fashioning a distinctive personal
identity and enhancing status in the slave community. Even ordinary articles could be
decorated or reworked to express individuality. Clothing was highly portable, and it could
be readily resold. Also, unlike household goods, which were both more functional and
more meaningful when used within a family group, clothing helped to define identity for
everyone including single folk forced to live apart from spouses and other kin. Young
women and men seeking a mate might improve their outward prospects as well as their
personal self-esteem if they could enter courtship with the advantage of distinctive or fine
dress.
From the Burwell family accounts, we gain some insight into changes in the
nature of the clothing that the various owners chose to provide their slaves across the
eighteenth century. This evidence says nothing about the initiatives that the slaves may
have taken to rework standard-issue garments or to acquire additional outerwear and
accessories that could be used to fashion more personal, individualized identities.
Scissors, straight pins, and dozens of discarded buttons found in excavations of the
various Burwell quarters provide clear evidence of these activities. Moreover, even the
owners‘ records give some hints about increasing responsibility within the slave
community for producing basic clothing and definite evidence for greater variety in
owner-issued apparel that, among other things, reinforced status differences within the
African-American community.
Carter Burwell likely continued Robert (―King‖) Carter‘s practice of twice-yearly
issues of standardized sets of clothing to all slaves of working age. His accounts do not
mention clothing, but there is every reason to suppose that like most other large planters
at midcentury, he ordered supplies of British-made caps, stockings, and yard goods from
his London factors Edward Athawes and Robert Cary. Someone other than the slaves
likely cut out and sewed up the customary complement of shirts, shifts, breeches, coats,
and petticoats. There is no evidence that Lucy Burwell took any responsibility for making
up the slaves‘ clothing while her husband was alive, and she definitely did not do so after
his death. The Burwells, however, must have required all the women to make garments
for their younger children and perhaps expected some to make clothes for themselves,
although not for the menfolk. This is inferred from the fact that after Burwell‘s death his
executor regularly supplied all the men and boys with ready-made suits, but made no
provision for children too young to work, and did not regularly provide clothes for all the
adult women.
The account books do relate the annual distribution, between 1740 and 1745, of
imported English-made caps to all adult workers, both at the home house and on the
various quarters. Carter Burwell also doled out identical imported bed rugs, usually one
every other year, to all the working slaves. Women with several young children,
including Hester at Foaces and Charlott and Fanny at Mill Quarter, received additional
bed coverings for their youngsters, and in 1740 he issued extra bedding to two ―sick
people‖ at Carter‘s Grove. Although the Burwells almost certainly relied on British
imports for most of the slaves‘ clothing, by the 1740s there were ample resources and
craftsmen on or near the plantations to supply the necessary footwear. The workers‘
shoes were entirely of local manufacture. Shoemaker Jammy made up some of the

495

several dozen pairs required each year, and Burwell purchased the rest from local white
artisans.
In the 1760s executor William Nelson continued to clothe most of the resident
workers in standard-issue sets of garments fashioned from imported cloth. In 1763, for
example, he employed a local free white woman, Mrs. Whidby, to ―make negroes
Clothing for the year,‖ and later he paid unnamed seamstresses or tailors for making up
between sixty-one and ninety-two suits per year. The white artisans were willing to work
for low rates: eighteen pence for cutting and sewing a man‘s ―suit,‖ which would have
consisted of a shirt and breeches, and fifteen pence for the shift and petticoat supplied
each of the women. Nelson undoubtedly found it more cost effective to pay these free
artisans to make the clothing, rather than to divert the energies of the slave women from
more productive field labor.
Nelson continued to provide ready-made clothing for the women tending tobacco
on the quarters in Frederick County. Each year he carefully noted the shipment of both
men‘s and boys‘ and women‘s suits ―to the mount[ain]s.‖ However, most of the suits
distributed in the tidewater quarters were only for men and boys. Some or all of the
tidewater women must have had to sew their own garments. Although most of the slaves,
and especially the field workers, continued to wear similar, standardized sets of
outerwear, by the later 1760s, on the few occasions when the majority of the home
plantation residents managed to come together, their dress would have been much more
varied than in earlier years. The domestics who were hired out to work in various
Williamsburg households—ranging from the colony‘s governor to town doctors,
ministers, and tavern keepers—would have arrived wearing the assorted clothing that a
dozen different employers had chosen to provide, likely further diversified with garments
and lesser accessories that the hired workers had purchased in town.
Once Nathaniel Burwell II took over management of Carter‘s Grove, some of the
workers‘ wardrobes, especially on the home farm, took on a new appearance. As in
previous years, all their shoes came from local sources. Burwell rented tenements to
several free white shoemakers—Thomas Badgett, George Morris, and William Taylor—
and encouraged them to pay most of their rent by making the hundred-odd new pairs of
shoes that were needed each year, as well as by repairing old ones. After Burwell moved
west, manager John Bryan made similar annual arrangements with other local
shoemakers. In the early 1770s Nathaniel also began to pay these artisans to make more
individualized footwear for some of the male domestics and carters. Custom-made shoes
may thus have come to serve as a mark of status, as well as affording a better fit.
Instead of hiring local white seamstresses or tailors to produce the annual supplies
of new clothing, Nathaniel‘s wife Susannah (and later Lucy) must have taken on the
responsibility for supervising some of the women in the cutting out and sewing of most
of the slaves‘ clothing. Only in 1784, when Susannah may have been too ill to carry out
her regular duties, did Nathaniel turn to tailor John Grymes, who regularly made clothing
for the Burwell boys and the male domestics, and pay him £2 12s. 6d. to make thirty-five
suits ―for crop people,‖ adding to the pre-war rate of eighteen pence apiece an extra six
shillings ―for putting pockets in them.‖ Unlike most rural slaves who were usually issued
homespun clothing during and after the Revolution, Burwell laborers living in the
tidewater continued to wear English-made fabrics. The Burwells never attempted serious
fiber production on the tidewater plantations. While some slaves unable to work the fields

496

surely spun wool shorn from Burwell‘s flocks of sheep and then used the yarn to knit
stockings and gloves, they never engaged in weaving.
On the other hand, Nathaniel began to pay local tailors John Grymes and later
John Baptist to make more fashionable suits for the male domestics at Carter‘s Grove.
Perhaps during his years in town as a student at William and Mary, he had concluded that
well-dressed waiting men and coachmen were essential to the overall image he wished to
project. Between 1779 and 1783 he paid Grymes and Baptist to make coats, breeches,
and more rarely a waistcoat for Joe, Caesar, Harry, Kitt, Bristol, Baron, Jimmy, Michael,
and other unspecified servants. By the 1780s between six and nine male domestics
received tailor-made clothes as standard issue. If the Burwells followed the practice of
other gentry families, they also issued cloth of better quality and brighter colors to
women and girls working in the mansion house.
Source: Lorena S. Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s Grove: The History of a Virginia
Slave Community, (Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1997), pp.
48-52, 53-54, 56, 61-65, 66-68, 76-77, 89, 93, 115-116, 116-117, 110-113, 119-129, 129133, 145-159, 182-191.

An Agricultural Calendar for Carter’s Grove
Lorena S. Walsh used the Burwell Account Books to develop the agricultural calendar
for training sessions for interpreters at Carter’s Grove.

WEEK

CORN

WHEAT

OTHER
GRAIN
Thresh oats
Plow for oats
Plow for barley

HAY

OTHER
CROPS
Thresh peas

ORCHARD

JANUARY 1-7

Gather
Measure
Clear new
ground
Hoe ground for
Plow for, if dry

Thresh
Fan, if heating

JANUARY 814

Gather
Husk
Cut stalks
Plow for

Thresh

Thresh oats

Clean meadow
Sow timothy
Cut up straw
for stock

Thresh peas

JANUARY 1521

Gather
Husk
Cut stalks
Clear new
ground
Plow for, if dry

Thresh

Thresh oats
Clean oats
Plow for oats
Plow for barley

Sow timothy
Sell straw in
town

Earth
cauliflower
Thresh peas

FEBRUARY 17

Gather
Husk
Shell
Clear new
ground
Plow & hoe
ground
Cut stalks
Cart to town

Thresh
Clean
Cart to town

Plow for oats
Plow for barley

Grub meadows
Ditch meadows
Sow timothy
Thresh clover
seed
Clean clover
seed
Cut up straw
for stock
Sell straw in
town

FEBRUARY 814

Husk
Shell
Cut stalks
Plow & hoe
ground
Cart to town

Thresh
Cart to town

Plow for oats
Plow for barley
Clean seed
oats

Cut marsh
sedge
Plow for
meadow
Sow timothy
Sow clover
Cut up straw
for stock
Sell straw, hay
in town

FEBRUARY
15-21

Husk
Shell
Cut stalks

Thresh
Clean
Cart to town

Plow for oats
Plow for barley
Sow oats

Sow lucerne
Sow burnet
Plow for

Plow ground
for
Hoe swamp for
Grub meadow
Sow timothy
Sell straw in
town

LIVESTOCK

TOB

Calves born
Lambs born
Pen & feed
cattle
Kill hogs
Fatten beeves
Inventory stock
Sell hogs
Sell muttons

Stem
Priz
Set
hog

Cart cider to
town

Feed cattle
Kill beeves
Kill hogs
Salt hogs
Haul out
manure
Hunt ducks
Sell hogs

Stem
Strip
Priz
Set
hog

Make
persimmon
beer
Cart cider to
town

Kill hogs
Fatten beeves
Feed stock
Haul out
manure
Hunt ducks
Sell hogs

Priz
Burn
bed
Man
bed
Sow

Plant trees
Cart cider to
town

Kill hogs
Calves born
Lambs born
Build goose
pen
Clean stable
Heap & cart
manure
Hunt ducks

Priz
Prep
Sow
Mak

Sow early
garden veges
Plow for
turnips

Transplant
peach, nut,
pear, cherry
trees
Cart cider to
town

Feed cattle
Litter penned
cattle
Heap & cart
manure
Hunt ducks

Priz
Prep
bed
Sow
Mak

Set out turnips
for seed

Cart cider to
town

Heap & cart
manure
Pen & feed

Prep
bed

498
Plow & hoe
ground
Cart to town

meadow
Cut up straw
for stock
Sell straw, hay
in town

FEBRUARY
22-29

Shell
Grub new
ground
Plow & hoe
ground
Cut up stalks
Manure fields
Cart to town

Thresh
Clean
Cart to town

Plow for oats
Sow oats
Harrow in oats
Clean seed
oats

Sow timothy
Sell straw in
town

MARCH 1-7

Shell
Cut & burn
brush
Cut stalks
Plow & hoe
ground
Cart to town

Thresh
Clean
Cart to town

Plow for oats
Thresh seed
oats
Sow oats

Sow timothy,
lucerne,
orchard & rye
grass
Plow ground
for seed
Dung
meadows
Thresh clover
seed
Cut up straw
for stock
Sell straw in
town

MARCH 8-14

Shell
Burn brush
Cut up stalks
Plow ground
Lay off fields
Cart to town

Thresh
Clean
Cart to town

Plow for oats
Thresh seed
oats
Sow oats
Harrow in oats

MARCH 15-21

Stack stalks
Plow & hoe
ground
Make hills
Cart to town

Thresh
Clean
Roll, if frost
heaved
Cart to town

MARCH 22-31

Plow & hoe
ground
Burn brush
Cut stalks
Lay off field
Cart to town

Clean
Plow fallow
Cart to town

cattle
Litter cattle
Kill beeves
Fatten sheep
Kill weathers
Lambs born
Hunt ducks
Seine fishing
Bottle cider
Plant cherries,
pears,
peaches,
plums, apples
Cart cider to
town

Pen & feed
cattle
Kill hogs
Lambs born
Heap & cart
manure
Kill beeves

Prep
Sow

Sow carrots
Prepare vege
garden

Bottle cider
Plant trees
Graft trees
Cart cider to
town

Heap & turn
manure
Kill beeves
Calves born
Lambs born
Sell lambs

Sow

Plow meadows
Burn brush off
meadows
Thresh clover
seed
Sow timothy,
orchard grass
Sell straw in
town

Plow for
turnips
Plow for peas
Sow beans
Sow peas

Graft trees
Plant trees
Plant peach
seeds
Cart cider to
town

Kill beeves
Turn manure
Lambs born
Seine fishing
Sell lambs

Ten
Sell

Plow for oats
Spread
manure
Clean seed
oats
Sow oats
Roll in oats
Sow barley

Sow clover,
lucerne,
timothy, rye
grass, orchard
grass
Ditch meadow
Sell straw in
town

Plant veges
Sow cabbages

Graft trees
Set out grape
cuttings
Plant nut & fruit
trees
Cart cider to
town

Heap & cart
manure
Set poultry
Lambs born
Calves born
Kill beeves
Seine fishing
Sell lambs

Sow

Plow for oats
Plow for barley
Sow oats
Harrow in oats

Plow meadows
Hoe & harrow
meadows
Manure clover
Ditch meadow
Sow timothy,
trefoil, clover,
lucerne
Clean pastures
Harrow & roll in
timothy
Thresh clover
seed
Weed lucerne
Sell straw in
town
Sell hay in
town

Plant veges

Graft apple,
cherry, apricot,
quince, pear,
nut trees
Transplant
seedlings
Plant grape
seed
Cart cider to
town

Heap manure
Lambs born
Calves born
Castrate ram
lambs
Sell lambs

Prep
Sow
Sell

499

APRIL 1-7

Plant
Plow & hoe for
Break new
ground
Heap stalks
Fan, if heated
Cart to town
Sell extra
fodder

Thresh
Clean
Cart to town
Roll
Plow fallow

Sow oats
Harrow in oats
Sow barley

Sow trefoil,
clover, timothy,
st. foin
Plow for
lucerne
Harrow & roll in
Thresh clover
seed
Sell straw in
town

Plant veges
Plant pumpkins
Plow for
turnips & peas
Manure turnip
plot

Graft fruit trees
Cart cider to
town

Feed sheep
Lambs born
Sell lambs
Kill beef
Calves born
Heap manure
Make butter
Seine fishing

Mak

APRIL 8-14

Plant
Manure
Plow, hoe & hill
Stack stalks
Cart to town
Sell surplus
fodder

Thresh
Clean
Cart to town

Sow oats
Sow barley
Manure barley
Roll oats

Sow, plow &
harrow in & roll
clover, orchard
grass
Manure
meadow
Sell straw, hay
in town

Sow field peas
Sow field
carrots
Plow for peas
& pots
Plant
jerusalem
artichokes
Plow for
turnips
Plant pumpkins
Plant parsnips
Make swt pot
hills

Plant grape
vines
Cart cider to
town

Heap & cart
manure
Kill beef
Fatten veal
calves
Lambs born
Calves born
Castrate lambs
Sell lambs
Make butter
Seine fishing

Mak
Man

APRIL 15-21

Plant
Replant
Plow & hoe
ground
Manure
Cut up stalks
Cart to town

Thresh
Clean
Cart to town

Sow oats
Harrow in oats
Sow barley

Sow lucerne,
clover, st. foin,
trefoil, burnet,
timothy,
orchard grass
Harrow in seed
Sell straw in
town

Plant veges
Plant Irish &
sweet potatoes
Sow peas
Sow field
carrots Plant
turnips

Cart cider to
town

Heap & cart
manure
Calves born
Sell lambs
Make butter
Seine fishing

Wee
Mak
Man

APRIL 22-30

Plant
Replant
Plow & hoe
ground
Cut up stalks

Thresh
Cart to town
Weed

Sow oats
Harrow & roll
oats

Sow timothy,
orchard grass
Harrow & roll in
seed
Clean meadow
Sell straw in
town

Plant field
beans, peas,
parsnips,
carrots
Plant Irish &
sweet potatoes
Plant veges

Cart manure
Calves born
Fatten lambs
Castrate lambs
Sell lambs
Seine fishing
Make butter

Wee
Rep
eate
Plan

MAY 1-7

Plow & hoe
ground
Grub new
ground
Plant
Replant

Clean
Cart to town

Sow oats
Resow barley

Sow clover,
timothy
Harrow & roll
seed
Sell straw in
town

Plant
pumpkins,
peas, potatoes,
parsnips,
carrots
Plant
watermelons

Cart manure
Castrate &
mark sheep
Calves born
Sell lambs
Seine fishing
Make butter

Man
Plan

MAY 8-14

Plant
Replant
Manure
Weed

Sow oats

Sow timothy,
clover, orchard
grass

Plant veges,
peas, pots,
pumpkins,
cabbage,
carrots

Shear sheep
Sell lambs
Castrate &
mark sheep
Calves born
Breed horses
Fish for
sturgeon
Make butter

Mak
Man
Plan
Wee

MAY 15-21

Plant
Replant
Manure
Weed

Harrow & roll
oats & barley

Sow lucerne,
st. foin, clover,
timothy
Weed trefoil
Harrow & roll
clover

Plant peas,
beans, carrots,
cabbage,
turnips,
pumpkins, Irish
& swt pots

Breed horses
Shear sheep

Wee
bed
Mak
Man
Plan

Weed around
young trees

500
MAY 22-31

Replant
Manure
Weed with
plows & hoes

Plow fallow

JUNE 1-7

Break ground
with plow &
hoe
Make ridges
with plow
Plant
Replant
Weed with
plow & hoe
Cart last year’s
to ships or
town

Cart last year’s
to ships or
town

JUNE 8-14

Break ground
Plant
Replant
Weed with
plow & hoe
Thin

JUNE 15-21

Break ground
Replant
Plow & cross
plow
Weed and wet
with hoes

JUNE 22-30

Plant
Replant
Plow & cross
plow
Weed and set
with hoes

JULY 1-7

Manure barley
Sow oats

Ditch meadows
Cut clover

Plant peas,
pots,
Cabbages,
turnips
Water veges if
dry
Replant
pumpkins,
watermelons
Plow for
turnips

Shear sheep
Separate
sheep
Breed horses
Make butter

Wee
Mak
Man
Plan

*cut

Sow turnips
Plant peas
Replant peas
Sow veges
Plant potatoes

Shear sheep
Make butter
Kill muttons for
sale
Sell wood

Wee
seed
Plan

Sow alfalfa
*cut
*cock & turn

Plant peas
Replant peas
Plant potatoes
Weed
pumpkins
Weed peas

Shear sheep
Wean calves
Make butter
Tend young
poultry
Kill veals for
sale

Plan
Rep
Wee

Cut barley

*Mow meadow
hay
Sow orchard
grass
Gather hay
seed
*Haul in hay

Weed peas
Replant
potatoes
Replant
cabbage
Weed potatoes
Earth potatoes

Make butter

Plan
Rep
Wee
Man

Cut

Cut oats
Cut barley

Make meadow
hay
Cock and stack
Cut timothy
Haul in hay

Replant
potatoes
Weed potatoes
Weed peas

Make butter

Plan
Rep
Man
Wor
Wee

Plow & cross
plow
Hill with hoes
Sucker
Cart last year’s
to ships or
town

Cut
Stack
Cart last year’s
to ships or
town
Sell straw in
town

Cut barley

Cut hay
Cut hay seed

Weed peas

Kill beef for
sale to ships
Make butter
Kill mutton,
veal for sale

Plan
Rep
Wee
Wor

JULY 8-14

Weed with
plows & hoes

Cut
Bind & stack

Cut barley
Cut oats

Cut clover
Cut meadow
hay

Weed potatoes
Weed peas

Wean calves
Make butter

Plan
Rep
Wee
Top

JULY 15-21

Weed with
plows & hoes

Cut if late
Haul in
Thresh for
seed
Sow

Cut oats
Haul in oats
Thresh rye

Cut clover
Cut meadow
hay

Weed & hill
peas
Sow turnips

Make butter

Wee
Rep

JULY 22-31

Weed with
plows & hoes

Sow

Cut oats
Thresh oats

*make
meadow hay

Sow turnips
Weed peas

Make butter

Rep
Wee

501
Thresh barley

cut timothy
seed

Weed
pumpkins
Weed potatoes

AUGUST 1-7

Weed with
hoes

Tread
Sow
Cart straw to
town
Cart to town or
ships

*cut meadow
hay
cock & stack
cut timothy

Sow turnips

AUGUST 8-14

Weed & hill

Sow
Tread
Haul in

*cut timothy
seed
*thresh timothy
*cut marsh hay

Sow turnips

AUGUST 1521

Weed

Sow
Haul in
Tread

Thresh barley
Sow barley

*cut hay

Sow
Plow & harrow
in
Haul in

Thresh oats
Clean oats

Top
Suc

AUGUST 2231

Make butter
Separate
sheep
Kill mutton,
veal, shotes for
sale
Sell wool

Wee

Make cider
Gather
peaches

Separate
sheep
Make butter
Choose cattle
for fattening

Wee
Wor
Suc

Sow turnips
Weed turnips
Weed peas
Weed
pumpkins

Make cider

Make butter
Separate
sheep

Wor
Suc

Cut meadow
Sow clover

Go fishing
Sow turnips

Get peaches
for brandy
Still brandy
Press cider

Make butter

Gath
Wee
Wor
Beg

SEPTEMBER
1-7

Weed

Tread
Thresh
Clean
Sow
Plow & harrow
in

Stack oats
Sow oats

Sow timothy
Gather clover
seed
Head clover
seed
Carry in marsh
hay

Weed turnips
Resow turnips
Gather peas

Make cider
Make peach
mobby
Make
pumpkerin

Turn sheep on
wheat fields
Make butter
Sell butter
Sell muttons
Fish
Carry out
manure

Wor
Suc
Top
Cut
Put
scaf
Put

SEPTEMBER
8-14

Gather tops &
blades for
fodder
Dry fodder

Thresh
Clean
Sow
Plow & harrow
in

Sow barley
Plow & harrow
in barley

Cut 2nd time
Ditch meadow
Sow timothy
Sow orchard
grass

Gather peas
Weed turnips
Weed
cabbages

Gather apples
Still brandy

Make butter
Fish

Wor
Suc
Top
Cut
Put
Put

SEPTEMBER
15-22

Cut tops &
blades
Dry fodder
Plow fields for
next year

Tread
Thresh
Clean
Sow
Plow & harrow
in

Thresh barley
Plow barley
field
Tread oats
Thresh oats
Clean oats

Gather peas
Sow turnips
Replant turnips

Gather grapes
in woods
Cart in apple

Make butter
Butcher sheep
Fish

Wor
Suc
Top
Cut
Put
scaf
Put

SEPTEMBER
23-30

Cut tops &
blades
Haul in fodder
Make fodder
house
Plow fields for
next year

Thresh
Sow
Plow in

Clean oats
Plow barley
field

Sow timothy
Sow sainfoin
Transplant
alfalfa
Cut meadow
Mow marsh
Sow orchard
grass
Grub meadows
& swamps

Gather peas

Make cider
Breed sheep
Fatten hogs
Make butter
Fish

Top
Cut
Put on
scaffolds
Put in house

OCTOBER 1-7

Cut tops &
blades
Haul in fodder
Make fodder
house

Tread
Thresh
Sow
Stack straw
Cart straw to

Plow meadows
Sow trefoil
Sow timothy
Sow sainfoin
Ditch meadows

Gather peas

Gather apples
Make cider
Still brandy

Fatten forward
hogs
Make butter
Breed sheep
Sell sheep

Cut
Put
scaf
Put

502
Clear fields for
next year
Cart fodder to
town

town for sale
Cart wheat to
town

Sell shoats
Sell butter
Hunt ducks

OCTOBER 814

Cut fodder
Haul in fodder
Pull early corn
Husk early
corn
Clear & plow
for next year

Tread
Thresh
Sow
Plow & harrow
in
Stack straw

Plow barley
field
Thresh oats

Sow orchard
grass
Sow clover
Sow timothy
Mow marsh
Cure hay

Gather peas
Dig potatoes
Pull pumpkins

OCTOBER 1522

Cut fodder
Haul in fodder
stack fodder
Pick up fallen
corn
Husk

Tread
Thresh
Sow
Plow in

Sow barley

Cut marsh hay
Plow new
meadow
Sow trefoil
Sow winter
vetch
Sow clover &
harrow in
Stack hay

Gather peas
Gather beans
Dig potatoes

OCTOBER 2331

Stack fodder
Haul in fodder
Gather corn
Husk
Plow fields for
[next year?]

Tread
Thresh
Sow
Plow in

Sow barley
Tread oats
Clean oats
Measure &
store oats

Sow timothy
Sow orchard
grass
Sow clover

Dig turnips
Store turnips
Gather peas
Clean & store
peas
Dig potatoes
[
]
Sow turnips

NOVEMBER
1-7

Gather corn
Haul in corn
Husk
Plow fields for
next year

Tread
Thresh
Clean
Stack straw
Sow
Cart straw for
sale
Cart wheat for
sale

Sow barley
Tread oats
Plow oat field

Sow trefoil
Sow timothy

NOVEMBER
8-14

Gather corn
Gather corn
stalks
Husk
Measure
Clear new
fields
Plow fields for
next year

Tread
Thresh
Clean
Sow

Tread barley
Measure
barley

Sow timothy
Harrow in
timothy
Cur marsh hay

NOVEMBER
15-22

Gather corn
Cart in corn
Measure & loft
corn
Husk
Clear new
fields
Plow fields for
next year

Clean
Plow fields for
next year

NOVEMBER
23-30

Gather corn
Cart in corn
Measure & loft
corn
Husk
Plow fields for
next year

Thresh
Cart wheat for
sale

Make cider
Sow apple
seeds for new
trees

Fatten hogs

Cut
Put
scaf
Put
Strik

Fatten hogs
Kill forward
hogs
Make pens for
cattle

Reh
Strik
Strip
Tie
nigh
Pac
Priz

Transplant
cherries

Fatten hogs on
corn &
potatoes
Fatten beeves
Fatten
weathers

Strik
Strip
Tie
nigh
Priz

Dig potatoes
Store potatoes
Thresh peas
Set turnips for
seed
Store
cabbages

Cart cider for
sale

Fatten hogs
Kill forward
hogs
Sell muttons
Sell hogs
Sell steers

Strik
Strip
Tie
Pac

Dig potatoes
Store potatoes
Thresh peas
Store peas
Gather beans

Sow apple
seed
Cart cider for
sale

Fatten hogs
Fatten beeves
Build shelters
for cattle
Feed cattle
corn stalks

Strik
Burn
patc
next
Hoe
next

Tread barley
Clean barley
Measure
barley

Dig turnips
Dig potatoes
Store potatoes
Thresh peas

Plant grapes

Fatten hogs
Butcher hogs
Fatten cattle

Strik

Thresh oats
Clean oats

Dig potatoes
Sort & store
potatoes
Dig carrots

Plant grapes

Rake up dung
Fatten hogs
Butcher hogs

Strip
Stem
Brea
grou
year
Sow

503

DECEMBER 17

Gather corn
Cart in corn
Measure & loft
corn
Husk
Plow fields for
next year

Tread
Thresh
Clean

Tread oats
Clean oats
Measure oats

Dig turnips
Dig carrots
Thresh peas
Gather beans
Thresh beans
Store potatoes

Plant grapes

Butcher hogs
Cut up pork &
salt
Feed cows
pumpkins
Litter cow pens
Turn stock on
clover

Strik

DECEMBER 814

Gather corn
Cart in corn
Measure & loft
corn
Husk
Cut stalks
Clear new
fields
Plow fields for
next year

Tread
Thresh
Clean
Cart straw for
sale

Thresh oats
Clean oats

Clean
meadows

Dig carrots
Dig potatoes
Store potatoes

Plant peach
trees

Sell muttons
Sell hogs
Butcher hogs
Feed cows
potatoes
Clean stock
yards
Count stock

Strik
Mak
next

DECEMBER
15-22

Gather corn
Cart in corn
Measure & loft
corn
Husk
Cut stalks
Plow fields for
next year

Thresh
Clean
Store

Clean oats

Clean
meadows

Dig potatoes
Store potatoes

Plant peach
trees

Cart out dung
Butcher hogs
Sell sheep
Fatten steers
Litter cattle
pens
Gather oysters

DECEMBER
23-31

Cut stalks
Measure & loft
Husk
Plow fields for
next year

Thresh oats
Clean oats

Cut grass &
sedge for litter

Thresh peas

The College of William and Mary
Surviving documents indicate that slaves lived and worked at the College of William and Mary
by 1702.
Thad W. Tate includes information about the slaves who lived and worked at the College of
William and Mary in his book, The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg.
A number of Negroes were also employed for various housekeeping tasks at the College
of William and Mary, apparently from a very early date. It was a Negro man who went with
Commissary Blair to force the doors of the grammar school in the celebrated ―barring out‖
incident of 1702 and Governor Nicholson gave the college a Negro man valued at £30 in 1704.
In addition to its slaves in Williamsburg, the college also owned Negroes on its lands along the
Nottoway River. Students also occasionally brought personal servants with them to

Cart out dung
Butcher hogs
Smoke bacon
Move cowpens
Feed cattle
Make sheep
shelters
Hunt game

Mak
next
Sow
plan
Plow
man

504
Williamburg. In 1754 there were eight slave boys at William and Mary, brought to wait on their
young masters.1
Generally the college‘s Negroes at Williamsburg worked under the direction of the
housekeeper. One housekeeper, whose supervision was not all that the president and masters
wished, was ordered in 1763 not to trust the Negroes with keys or to go away from the college
too often, ―As we all know that Negroes will not perform their Duties without the Mistress‘s
constant Eye especially in so large a Family as the College.‖
It is not clear how many Negroes were normally used at the college, but in 1768 it was
necessary to hire two extra ones for cutting and carting wood. Three years later the college
officials planned to purchase a Negro woman from Lord Botetourt‘s estate for college use. It
may have been more or less a regular practice to use some hired Negroes, because in the fall of
1777, when the president and masters decided to sell the land on the Nottoway and the slaves
held there, they planned to bring two men and a boy from there to replace hired Negroes at
Williamsburg.
More elaborate changes occurred in December 1779, as a result of the discontinuance of
the grammar school and the commons. The kitchen Negroes were to be leased to a steward who
would contract to provide meals for students, a sufficient number of slaves were to be retained
for cleaning, and any surplus ones were to be hired out at public auction. It turned out that the
steward was allowed two men and a boy and that five slaves were retained for cleaning. Then in
1782 some of these remaining eight or else some of the ones offered for lease were to be sold to
meet the cost of repairing the buildings.
Source: Tate, The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg, pp. 37-39.
1769 to 1776—Excerpts from the ―William and Mary College Historical Notes.‖ This research
report includes information from the Journal of the Meetings of the President & Masters of
William & Mary College…[1729-1784] and the Virginia Gazette.
November 16th, 1769
At a Meeting of the President & Masters of Wm & Mary College.
Present, The Revd Mr Horrocks, President, Mr Camm, E. Jones & Mr Johnson.
John Byrd, after calling for a Servant which was at that time employ‘d by the House
keeper in the Hall, came into the said Hall with a Horsewhip in his hand and taking hold of his
Servant, with his whip lifted up threaten‘d to whip him if he did not immediately go with him,
the Housekeeper answer‘d ―that he should not‖; upon which the said Byrd replied, ―that if she

The students who had slaves with them at William and Mary in
1754 were Mr. Graham, Mr. G[eorge] Braxton, Mr. C[arter]
Braxton, Mr. [George] Plater, Mr. [Charles] Carter, Mr. Whiting,
Mr. [Severn] Eyre, and Mr. [John] Fox. William and Mary
Quarterly, 1st ser., 6 (1897-1898):188.
1

505
were in the Boy‘s Place, he would horsewhip her also‖; to which she said, ―It was more than he
dared to do,‖ she supposing that he threaten‘d to horsewhip her.
Upon the above complaint, the President sent for the said Byrd; when he appear‘d, he
behaved with great rudeness to the President, and made use of many oaths and indecent
expressions which evidently show‘d a gross contempt of the President, upon which the Society
made the following resolution:
Resolved unanimously, that John Byrd, out of regard to his general better deportment be
forgiven the above very ill behavior on condition that he ask pardon of the President for the
personal affront to him, and of the Society, for disobedience of their order and ill treatment of
their Servant; and profess to conduct himself with proper respect to the President & Masters for
the future, & that if hereafter he should in practice contradict such professions, he be then
immediately expell‘d the College as totally unfit to be any longer a Member of that Society.
Source: Journal of the Meetings of the President & Masters of William & Mary
College…[1729-1784], pp. 184-185.
****
May 3d, 1771.
At a meeting of the President and Masters of Wm. & Mary College,
Resol: unanimously that a Negro Woman belonging to his late Excellency‘s Estate be purchas‘d
for the Use of the College; if to be had at a moderate price.
Source: Journal of the Meetings of the President & Masters of William & Mary
College…[1729-1784], p. 203.
February 26th, 1773.
At a meeting of the President and Masters of Wm. & Mary College,
Resol: that four Loads of Wood be sent to Mrs Wager who has the Care of some young Negroes
belonging to the College.
Source: Journal of the Meetings of the President & Masters of William & Mary
College…[1729-1784], p. 218.
William & Mary College, May 27th, 1775.
James, Innis, William Yates, Joseph Eggleston,
John White, William Steptoe, Thomas Evans,
Granville Smith, and James Monroe.

)
)
)

Complts

506
Maria Digges

)

Deft

To the Honble & Revd the Commissary, Emmanuel Jones, John Dixon, Samuel Henley,
Thomas Gwatkin & James Madison Professors of the College of William & Mary.
The humble Petition of the Ushers & Students of the sd College Sheweth,
Art: 2d.

That she has kept a sumptuous Table at the very time that the Provisions in
the Hall were scarce and intolerable, is a Fact too notorious to be deny‘d –
Her Partiality to her Brother in indulging him in all the Delicacies &
Conveniencies of the College is well known. – It can be proved too that he has
part of the public Stores, such as Candles.

Art: 4th

That she has intrusted the Keys of the Store-Room to the Slaves to which
they have been seen to have free Ingress & Egress.

Art: 7th

That the Losses in the Laundrey have been particularly great since Miss
Digge‘s Management, and for which no Remedy can be obtained.

After mature Consideration of the above Allegations, the President & Professors
agreed that the Ushers & Students should be severally sent for to hear what they had to say in
Support thereof. The following is a true Copy taken down immediately in their own Words, Vizt
[Included are only those responses that mention slaves, servants, or blacks]
Mr. Innis.
Art: 3d Has seen Meat Carry‘d to [barber George] Lafong‘s more than a Year ago by a
Negro-Boy.
Art: 6th Says nothing to the first part. To the latter part affirms that Servants canot be
had to clean his Rooms…
Mr. Yates –
2d

To the first part says nothing – Heard a Negroe-Boy ask for Candles for Ned
Digges. A Woman answer‘d, One would do for him.

4th

Has seen the Keys entrusted to Negroes frequently.

Mr White.
4th

Has seen Slaves go into the Store Room frequently.

507

Mr Steptoe.
Art: 4th Has seen Servants in the Store-Room.
Source: Journal of the Meetings of the President & Masters of William & Mary
College…[1729-1784], pp. 233-245.

[May 27, 1775]
Thomas Gwatkin, Clerk, Professor of Humanity in the College of William and Mary is ready to
make Oath to the following Particulars.
Vizt
That Maria Digges housekeeper of the said College keeps a very frugal Table,
often dining upon cold Meat; or Meat out of the hall, or a Mutton Chop, or a Beef Steake; and
that she does not entertain Company oftener, or in a better manner than the late Mrs Garrett, or
what may reasonably [sic] allow‘d to a Person in her Station….that the Negroes are not often
entrusted with the Keys of the Storeroom, and that the College has receiv‘d no loss on that
Account…
Sign‘d,
Thomas Gwatkin.
Source: Journal of the Meetings of the President & Masters of William & Mary
College…[1729-1784], pp. 247-249.

THE College of WILLIAM & MARY has been lately cleaned, and will be immediately
plastered and whitewashed, to render it fit for the Reception of Professors, Students, Grammar
Scholars, and Servants; and the several Schools will be opened at the Beginning of Trinity Term,
namely on Monday the 17th of next month.
EMMANUEL JONES, Clk.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Dixon and Hunter, eds., June 1, 1776.

1749 to 1782—Baptism of Slaves Who Belonged to the College of William and Mary.
The College officials sponsered the baptism of seventeen enslaved men, women, and children
between 1749 and 1782. They also sent two slave children—Adam and Fanny—to the Bray
School in February 1769.
Name
[torn], son of Molly

Date
2 October 1763

508
Andrew, a man
Andrew, son of Molly
Antony, son of Franky
Elizabeth
Fanny, daughter of Hannah
Frank Addison, son of Molly
Glascow
Henry, son of Charlotte
James, a man
Katherine, a woman
Lucy, daughter of Charlotte
Margaret
Sucky, daughter of Priscilla
Tom Mask, son of Molly
Violet, daughter of Epha
William, son of Peggy

6 May 1754
18 November 1782
[13] April 1785
7 March 1753
[ ] June 1766
born 4 October 1768; baptized 6 November 1768
7 May 1749
born 23 April 1764; baptized 2 June 1764
6 May 1754
6 May 1754
born 9 August 1768; baptized 2 October 1768
7 May 1749
13 March 1768
9 February 1766
born 11 May 1764; baptized 3 June 1764
2 March 1766

Source: Bruton Parish Birth and Baptism Register, original at Swem Library, College of
William and Mary.

The Courthouse
In 1692 the colonial legislators established oyer and terminer courts in order to try enslaved men
and women who were accused of committing a felony. The law required a ―more speedy
prosecution of slaves committing Capital Crimes‖ because it was ―absolutely necessarie‖ to
make other slaves ―affrighted to commit the like crimes and offenses.‖ A capital crime was
defined as an offense that would be punished by death or ―loss of member.‖ The 1692 statute
empowered a sheriff to hold an accused slave in the county gaol ―well laden with irons.‖ The
sheriff then notified the governor who issued a commission of oyer and terminer to the justices
of the peace in the county in which the crime took place. At least four of a county‘s justices of
the peace conducted the trial and determined the guilt or innocence of the accused slave. An
enslaved man or woman was denied the right of a jury trial.2 In 1705 the members of the
General Assembly decided that a master would be compensated for the value of any slave who
received a death sentence. These laws defined an enslaved person as both an individual who was
responsible for his or her own actions and as a master‘s property.
The first recorded oyer and terminer trial in York County was on June 30, 1704. The justices
convicted Bridgett, a slave owned by John Page, of arson. York County‘s justices of the peace
attended a total of 115 oyer and terminer trials that examined the actions of 154 slaves between
1704 and 1780. The following discussion of the York County oyer and terminer trials is taken
2

Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, vol. 3, pp. 402-403.

509
from Anne Willis‘s study ―The Master‘s Mercy: Slave Prosecutions and Punishments in York
County, Virginia, 1700-1780.‖ The proceedings of the oyer and terminer cases tried in the York
County Court from 1769 to 1776 follow the overview of oyer and terminer trials.
The shifting strategies of the gentlemen justices in reaction to the accelerating rate of
slave crime against property can be examined through an analysis of the public punishments
given to convicted slave felons after 1750. Public hangings dramatically reflected the gentlemen
justices‘ attitudes towards the persons and crimes they considered most threatening to the safety
and security of their slaveholding community.
Forty-four slaves were sentenced to hang for their crimes from 1700 to 1780; seven
slaves were convicted of committing violent crimes and sentenced to hang while the remaining
37 slaves had all been convicted of breaking and entering and burglary. From 1750 to 1770 the
number of slaves convicted and sentenced to hang for property crimes increased significantly
even with the adjustment for the growth of the slave population over time. For the first fifty
years from 1700 to 1750 the York County records indicate that eight slaves had been sentenced
to be executed; three were convicted of violent crimes while five were convicted of breaking and
entering and burglary. For the thirty year period from 1750 to 1780 (which does not include
trials held from 1754 to 1759 since the records are missing) 36 slaves had been sentenced to
hang; five were convicted of violent crimes and 31 were convicted of breaking and entering and
burglary. For the first fifty years three-fifths of the condemned slaves had committed violent
crimes as compared with approximately one-sixth of the slaves during the last thirty years from
1750 to 1780. The increase in the number of slaves sentenced to be executed and the
proportional decrease in violent crime adjusted to the growth of the slave population in York
County suggests that as crimes against property increased after 1750, the gentlemen justices
turned to the death penalty with much greater frequency for lesser crimes of breaking and
entering and burglary in an effort to purge their communities of threatening convicted slave
felons and to establish a strong deterrent for such subsequent behavior among slaves.
…
Governor Francis Fauquier altered the pattern of justice for convicted slave felons long
established by the gentlemen justices in York County. In his instructions as royal governor in
Virginia from King George II. and Parliament, Fauquier was directed that he
shall endeavor to get a Law passed (if not already done) for the restraining of any
inhuman Severity, which by ill Masters or Overseers may be used towards their Christian
Servants and their Slaves; and that Provision be made therein, that the willful killing of
Indians and Negroes may be punished with Death. And that a fit Penalty be imposed for
the maiming of them.
Governor Fauquier in legislation of 1765, perhaps in a response to his Instructions, modified the
punishments for convicted slave felons by outlawing the dismemberment of slaves and
liberalizing the slave law by making it impossible for slaves accused of murdering a slave to
plead manslaughter. He did not, however, secure legislation that curbed masters from ―inhuman
Severity‖ or ―the willfull killing of Indians and Negroes‖ which would make those crimes
punishable by death. The law of 1669 remained unchallenged, protecting masters and overseers

510
from prosecution if they caused the death of their slaves by correction. Fauquier undoubtedly
turned to the practice of granting pardons to moderate the barbaric severity of slave punishments
in York County.
During his tenure as governor from 1758 to 1768, Governor Fauquier pardoned eight of
the eighteen convicted slave felons that the York County Court had sentenced to be hanged.
From February 15, 1759, until October 1761, he had pardoned all five slaves who had been tried
for breaking and entering and burglary and been condemned.
…
After 1766, however, Fauquier did not pardon the five slaves sentenced to hang for theft crimes
which ranged in valued from 20 shillings to 226 shillings. The value of the thefts which led to
the death penalty during Governor Fauquier‘s tenure varied from seven shillings to £ 113. Of the
convicted felons Governor Fauquier pardoned, the value of their theft varied from seven shillings
to £ 6 30 shillings. All pardons with one exception were given to a slave who had acted alone.
…
The great majority of the prosecutions of accused slave felons involved breaking and
entering and burglary of personal property. The items stolen and the circumstances under which
they were stolen changed over time. The absence of testimony makes it impossible to determine
what motivated a slave to commit a particular crime. Considering the items allegedly stolen
provides some insights into motivations for committing burglary: subsistence for individual
slaves, their families, or friends (foodstuffs, money, and some clothing); pleasure (rum and
wine); economic advantage through illegal or underground markets (spirits, linens, textiles, fine
pieces of clothing, and luxury goods).
In the late 1740s there was a shift in the items stolen from goods that would have been
used by slaves themselves to bolts of textiles and several items of clothing that could be retailed
easily which suggests the presence of an underground market in the area. These thefts were
often committed by more than one slave. Before 1750 most burglaries were personal, but after
1750 some crimes became more impersonal as the focus shifted to merchant‘s warehouses,
stores, and wealthy households in urban areas suggesting some criminal organization and the
theft of more valuable goods.
…
Slaves rarely committed violent crimes in York County and a higher proportion of them
were committed before 1750. The one charge of suspected slave rebellion and insurrection
resulted in an acquittal.3 Of the 38 accused slave felons tried from 1704 to 1750 10.5% were
3

In April 1753 Harry, a slave owned by John Goodwin Junior of York County, and Tom, the
slave of Peter Goodwin of York County, faced the charge that ―with force and arms . . . [they]
feloniously did consult, advise, and conspire to rebel and make an insurrection and did also plot
and conspire the murder of divers of His Majesty‘s good and faithful subjects in the parish and
county.‖ The justices decided that Harry and Tom were notguilty. York County Judgments and
Orders (2) 204-205, 4 April 1753.

511
tried for crimes of violence, two arson cases (convictions), and a murder of a fellow slave
(conviction). From 1750 to 1780 5.2% of accused slave felons were tried for committing violent
crimes out of 116 persons charged; two rapes (one conviction and one acquittal), one poison and
murder (conviction), one case of arson (conviction), one case of mutilation (reduced to a
misdemeanor), and one case of murder which was reduced to manslaughter (conviction with a
plea for mercy). From 1700 to 1780 there were only six clear convictions, one of the
convictions involved a slave victim and another so tentative that the court invited a review and
pardon by the governor and Council.
Unlike the growing number of prosecutions for breaking and entering and burglary, slave
rebellion and insurrection, as well as criminal violence on the part of slaves against the white
community, were not major factors in the life of York County. The threat to slaveholders in
York County was against their property not their lives or the stability or survival of their slave
system.
Of the 115 cases prosecuted by the justices in York County from 1700 to 1780 the
number of accused slave felons involved in the commission of a single crime varied; 72% were
committed by a single slave, 22% by two slaves, and 6% by three slaves or more. The
percentage of slaves accused of committing crimes together increased and peaked in the 1740s
and 1750s suggesting that social cooperation among slaves was stronger at that time. Before
1740 there were only two crimes committed by two slaves, but from 1740 to 1770 there were 32
crimes committed by two or more slaves accused of working together. The different slaves
accused of committing a particular crime together were more often not slaves of the same master.
Of those 32 crimes prosecuted that were allegedly committed by two or more slaves, 30
were theft, one was arson, and one was suspected slave rebellion and insurrection. Burglaries
ranged from the theft of hogs, turkeys, and sheep to ambitious thefts of expensive clothing and
textiles, which probably could not all be used by the slaves committing the crime, but found their
way into an underground marketing network. After 1750 more slaves joined together to commit
crimes against masters‘ warehouses, mills, and stores, making the threat to the slave holding
community more impersonal and challenging. Preventing the criminal activity of a single slave
was difficult enough, but preventing organized crime planned and executed by two or more
slaves was daunting, and slaves undoubtedly knew that. Slaves who banded together were able
to develop networks that provided them support and far more resources for criminal activity,
directly challenging the masters‘ control of their own property. Crimes that were committed by
more than one person also involved more planning and coordination to execute, and thus served
to strengthen bonds between perpetrators.
Anticipating the time and place crimes were likely to be committed was of tremendous
importance in order to guard against possible crime. Slaves were safer and more mobile at night
when they were not under the direct supervision of the master or overseer and when the towns
were wrapped in darkness. The law of 1732, extending benefit of clergy, specifically stated that
any crime of breaking and entering a house at night committed by a negro, Indian, or mulatto
was not eligible for consideration.4 Fifty-three cases in the records documented the time of day
when the crime was committed—all of them took place at night.

4

There were times, however, when slaves were granted benefit of clergy even when the charges
read against them exceeded the limits placed upon accused slave felons by the law of 1732.

512
From 1740 to 1770 there was a growing increase in both the black population of the
colony and in the concentration of slaves in the urban areas of Williamsburg and Yorktown
which encouraged close associations among slaves and a greater opportunity for criminal
behavior. For the decade of 1770 to 1780 there was a decided decrease in the number of slaves
accused of committing crimes and 81% of those alleged crimes were committed by a single
individual. This phenomenon perhaps reflects the impact of Dunmore‘s Proclamation and the
disruptions of the Revolution both of which decreased the black population of the county from
an estimated population of 3,527 in 1775 to 2,864 in 1776.
…
The great majority of accused slave felons were male; only 8% of the 154 slaves arrested
and tried from 1704 to 1780 were women. Females made up 38% of all slaves prosecuted
before 1735, but from 1735 until 1780 only 5% of accused slave felons tried were women. In
spite of the fact that the rate of crime in the county accelerated after 1740 only five female slaves
were accused of committing a felony and brought to trial from 1743 to 1780. Four of the five
women were prosecuted for theft and the four of them were accused of committing the crime
with a male slave. Of the five female slaves brought to trial during those years 40% were
acquitted and discharged while 33% of all accused male slave felons were acquitted.
…
This significant difference in the prosecution rate from 1743 to 1780, of male and female
slaves tried suggests that powerful cultural influences were exerted on female slaves both from
their African heritage and their African-American families and communities in Virginia. Before
1730 family formation was more difficult for slaves in the Colonial Chesapeake. The higher
proportion of women who were indicted for felonies in the early years of the eighteenth century
may be explained by the fact that they were not as likely to be tied to families and children and
could therefore act more independently.
After 1730, however, family formation was more possible and women would have been
responsible for their young children. Black women, in their child bearing years, were having
children on the average of every two to two and one-half years; consequently many slave women
were often pregnant or nursing their infants and caring for young children. The master would
also have had a potent weapon in his control of slave women in that he could threaten to sell the
children away from their mothers at any time for their misbehavior.5
Slave women would have been far less willing to take the risk of committing a felony
than many male slaves who were often unable to live with their families. Male slaves often had
more freedom of movement. On plantations work assignments in the fields were very similar for
both men and women, but male slaves were more mobile as carters or skilled craftsmen. Towns
like Williamsburg and Yorktown had concentrated populations of African Americans and
offered more opportunities for the theft of valuable goods. In Williamsburg the majority of
5

It is interesting to note that about one-tenth of all runaways in Virginia and Maryland before the
R
evolution were women—the vast majority were men.

513
slaves in 1775 were female, and many were employed by masters in service-related work in
taverns, businesses, and homes where they would have had access to valuable items. Perhaps
women could more easily take things from households or businesses over a period of time and
not be detected. It is also possible that masters regarded female slaves as less threatening to
themselves and their property.
…
Many slaves, especially male slaves, would have been familiar with the landscape,
knowing well where a wealthy planter or merchant lived as well as knowing when warehouses
were stocked and which mills were unprotected at night. Knowing escape routes and hiding
places would have been essential for slaves seeking to exploit their masters.
Slaves knew where valuable objects were to be found in the households of the wealthy or
in the storehouses of merchants of Williamsburg and Yorktown. Slaves living in the urban areas
would have had much greater access to the goods of other households and businesses. In an
urban area, with a higher concentration of slaves, it would have been easier to commit crimes cooperatively and gain assistance for the commission of that crime from others. The county was
―home‖ for the majority of slaves by mid century, and they knew where the opportunities for
slave crime were. Dwelling houses, mansion houses, and outbuildings with their valuable and
marketable goods were places where most slave crimes were committed. Shops, houses,
storehouses, warehouse, and mills were also vulnerable as they held goods that could be easily
used or sold by slaves in the underground markets and were more likely to be unprotected at
night. Only one alleged crime was committed on shipboard even though Yorktown was a busy
commercial port.
…
Thomas Cox, a free white man from Charles Parish, was examined by the York County
Court on the ―Suspicion of endeavoring to raise a Conspiracy and Insurrection among the Slaves
in this County‖ on July 17, 1775. Cox pled not guilty to the charge, witnesses were examined,
and the court decided that he was not guilty of the felony, but guilty of a ―misdemeanor lending
to a breach of the Peace.‖ He was ordered to serve one year in prison or give security for one
year‘s good behavior and to ―keep the Peace towards all his Majesty‘s Leige People for one
Year.‖
Thomas Cox‘s arrest occurred shortly after Governor Dunmore had seized the gunpowder
from the Public Magazine in Williamsburg on April 20, 1775, creating great public fear of slave
insurrection and rebellion in Virginia communities from that spring through the Revolution.
Ironically the threat in July of 1775 came not from a slave, but from Thomas Cox who was a free
white man. Fears of particular persons instigating a slave revolt were now not centered only on
the enslaved persons.
…
Despite the acute anxiety of a slave revolt throughout this revolutionary period there was
not a single white person who lost his life in a slave rebellion in Virginia. In addition from 1700
to 1780 there was not a single conviction of a slave for instigating a slave rebellion or

514
insurrection in York County. This fact is especially significant because the county included over
half of the city of Williamsburg which was the colonial center for much of the revolutionary
activity and home to a large and strong African-American community where property crimes had
increased dramatically since the 1750s.
Prosecutions of property crimes adjusted to the population growth of slaves in the county
grew substantially during the 1700 to 1780 period. From 1700 to 1729 the rate per 1,000 adults
was 0.12, but the rate increased to 2.42 from 1750 to 1780. The security of individual masters
and their slave society, however, was not threatened by more violent crime directed against them
after 1740. In fact the rate of conviction for violent crimes fell from 8% for the 1700 to 1729
period to 3.5% for the 1750 to 1780 period when there was such a dramatic increase in
prosecutions and convictions of slave felons for theft.
Only one white person died as a result of slave crime in York County, and the
extenuating circumstances of that case prompted the court to reduce the charge to manslaughter
and to issue a plea for mercy for the convicted. The slaveholder‘s authority in York County,
with the possible exception of three cases of arson (two of which occurred before 1730), one
case of suspected rape, and one case of attempted poisoning and murder was not challenged by
slaves committing violence against those who held them in bondage.
The absence of a single conviction of a slave for suspected insurrection or rebellion in
York County from 1700 to 1780 clearly demonstrates that slaves were not attempting to
overthrow their masters. It is especially significant because York County embraced two
important urban areas where it was more likely for group actions among slaves to be planned and
executed.
The white community after 1730, however, was threatened by a significant increase in
property crimes—breaking and entering and burglary. Most of that suspected crime was
allegedly committed in Williamsburg or Yorktown or by slaves who were owned by
Williamsburg masters. The property crime rate increased significantly as Williamsburg doubled
its population from 1750 to 1775. The growing opportunity for crime in urban areas where
valuable goods were centralized and strategically available for theft and redistribution influenced
the increased rate of suspected property crime. The concentration of wealth, the presence of a
densely settled black community, which was largely enslaved, and relatively easy access to that
wealth offered opportunities to slaves for criminal activity and made whites more vulnerable to
crimes against their property in Williamsburg and Yorktown than in the countryside.
The increase in the prosecution rate prompted the gentleman justices after 1750 to
condemn to death a proportionally larger number of convicted slave felons charged with
breaking and entering and burglary than they had in the preceding fifty years when after 1732
more slaves were granted Benefit of Clergy for similar crimes. Governor Francis Fauquier
granted pardons to eight condemned slaves from 1758 through 1768 mediating some of the
harsher punishments for slaves. Slave crime, according to the prosecution rate, did not abate as
harsher punishments were given by the gentlemen justices. In fact the greater number of
hangings seemed to coincide with an ever greater increase of the contradiction in which slaves
and masters were caught where a slave was defined as chattel property but held responsible for
his behavior as a human being who was denied all natural rights. The experience acted out in the
courtroom expressed the terrible ―conflict, fear, and accommodation‖ that existed in all slave
societies.

515
Source: Willis, ―The Master‘s Mercy,‖ pp. 59-60, 70-71, 72-73, 84-85, 88-91, 92-93, 94-95,
100-102, 109-110, 112-115.

****
Oyer and Terminer Cases—1769
At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Court house of York County in the Town of York
for the Trial of Paul and Peter Negro Slaves belonging to John Chisman for Felony the 1st day of
March 1769
Present
Robert Sheild
Robert Smith

David Jameson &
Jaquelin Ambler Gent Justices

The said Paul and Peter were led to the Bar in Custody of the Sherif and Benjamin Waller Esqr
the Attorney for our Lord the King in this County comes into Court and Gives the Justices
aforesaid to understand and be informed that the aforesaid Paul and Peter the nineteenth day of
February in the ninth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the third by the Grace of
God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the faith &c with force and arms at
the Parish of York hampton in this County One Sheep of the price of fifteen shillings of the
Goods and Chattels of the Honourable William Nelson Esqr then and there found feloniously did
take steal and carry away against the Peace of our Lord the King his [torn] and Dignity. An
[torn] nd Paul and Peter being thereof arraigned severally Pleaded Not Guilty and for their trial
did put themselves upon the Judgment of the Court Whereupon divers Witnesses were Sworn
and Examined and the Prisoners fully heard in their Defence. On Consideration whereof It is the
Opinion of the Court that the said Paul and Peter are Guilty in Manner and form as in the
Information aforesaid against them is alledged and the said offence being within the benefit of
the Act of Assembly It is Considered by the Court that the said Paul and Peter be severally burnt
in the left hand which being done It is Ordered that the Sherif give each of them twenty five
Lashes at the Public Whipping Post on their bare backs well laid on and then discharge them out
of his Custody. The minutes of these Proceedings were signed ―Robt Sheild‖
Source: York County Judgments and Orders (1768-1770) 214-215.

At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Courthouse of York County in the town of York for
the Trial of Allaka a Negro Slave belonging to Benjamin Powell for Felony and Burglary and
Jack a Negro Slave belonging to Samuel Johnson for Felony and Burglary the 11th day of
October 1769.
Present
Dudley Digges
Thomas Nelson Junr

David Jameson and
Jaquelin Ambler Gent Justices

516
The said Allaka was led to the Bar in Custody of the Sherif and Benjamin Waller attorney for
our Lord the King in this County comes into Court and gives the Justice aforesaid to understand
and be Informed that Allaka a Negro Man Slave belonging to Benjamin Powell of the City of
Williamsburg the twenty seventh day of September in the ninth year of the Reign of our
Sovereign Lord George the third by the Grace of God Great Britain France and Ireland King
Defender of the faith &c between the hours of nine and twelve in the Night of the same day the
Smoke House of William Moody situate in the Parish of Yorkhampton in this County with force
and arms feloniously did break and enter and one stone Jug containing five Gallons of Rum of
the Value of thirty shillings of the Goods and Chattels of William Baker and four [torn] of
twenty shillings Current Money of the Goods and Chattels of the said William Moody in the
said House found then and there feloniously did Steal take and carry away against the form of
the Act of the General Assembly in such case made and provided and the said Allake being
thereof arraigned pleaded Not Guilty and for his trial put himself upon the Judgment of the Court
Whereupon divers witnesses were sworn and Examined and the Prisoner being heard in his
defence On Consideration whereof It is the opinion of the Court that the said Allaka is Guilty of
the Felony in the Information aforesaid mentioned but that he is not guilty of the Burglary as his
pleading he hath alledged and the said offence being within the benefit of the Act of Assembly in
such case made It is considered that the said Allaka be burnt in the left hand which was done in
the presence of the Court and It is Ordered that the Sherif give the said Allaka twenty Lashes at
the Public Whipping Post on his bare back well laid on and then discharged him out of custody.
The said Jack was also set to the bar by the Sherif and the said attorney for our said Lord the
King and Gives the Justices aforesd to understand and be informed that the said Jack a Negro
Man Slave belonging to Samuel Johnson of the Province of North Carolina the [blank] day of
[blank] in the Ninth year of the reign of our said Lord the King with force and arms the dwelling
House of John Dunford situate in the Parish of York Hampton in this County between the Hours
of Nine and twelve in the night the same day feloniously and burglariously did break and enter
and one Mans Rushia Drab coat of the Value of thirty shillings on womans Waistcoat and
Petticoat of the value of twenty shillings two Pounds of Spun cotton of the Value of ten
shillings and three pieces of Spanish called Silver called Bitts of the Value of one shilling and
ten pence half penny of the Goods and Chattels of the said John Dunford in the same dewelling
House found then and there feloniously and burglariously did steal take and carry away against
the Peace of our said Lord the King his Crown and Dignity and against the form of the Act of the
General Assembly in such case made and provided and the said Jack being thereof arraigned
pleaded Not Guilty and for trial put himself upon the Judgment of the Court Whereupon divers
witnesses were Sworn and Examined and the Prisoner heard in his defence [torn] hereof whereof
It is the Opinion of the Court that the said Jack is Not Guilty of the Felony and Burglary
aforesaid as in pleading he hath alledged but it appearing to the Court that the said Jack is
Runaway from his said master who lives out of the Coloy it is ordered that the said Jack be
committed to the Goal of the County and that the Sherif advertize his commitment in the
Virginia Gazette. The minutes of these proceedings were signed by Dudley Digges Junr.
Source: York County Judgments and Orders (1768-1770) 354-356.

Oyer and Terminer Cases—1770

517
At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Courthouse of York County in the Town of York
the 23d day of January 1770 for the Trial of Isaac a Negro Man slave belonging to Catherine
Hubard and David a Negro Man Slave belonging to James Hubard for Felony.
Present
Dudley Digges
Robert Sheild

Jaquelin Ambler and
Augustine Moore Gent Justices.

The said Isaac and David led to the bar in Custody of the Sherif and Benjamin Waller Attorney
for our Lord the King in this County comes into Court and gives the Justices aforesaid to
understand and be informed that the said Isaac a Negro Man Slave belonging to the said
Catherine Hubard of the City of Williamsburg not having the fear of God before his Eyes but
being moved and seduced by the Instigation of the Devil the ninth day of January in the tenth
year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the third by the Grace of God now King of
Great Britain &c with force and arms the swelling house of James Hubard situate and being in
the Parish of Bruton in the County of York aforesaid feloniously willfully and of his Malace
aforethought did set on fire and burn against the Peace of our Lord the King his Crown and
Dignity and against the form of the act of the General Assembly in such case made and provided
and further the said attorney in formeth the said Justices that the said David a Negro Man Slave
belonging to the said James Huberd the day and year aforesaid at the Parish and County
aforesaid with force and arms feloniously did comfort and aid abet assist Counsel hire and
command the said Isaac feloniously to set on fire and burn the said House against the Peace
aforesaid and contrary to the form of the act aforesaid Wherefore &c which Information was
read and the said Isaac & David being thereof severally arraigned they pleaded Not Guilty and
for their trial put themselves upon the Judgment of the Court whereupon divers witnesses were
Sworn and Examined and the said Isaac and David heard in there defence On Consideration
whereof It is the Opinion of the Court that the said Isaac is Guilty of the Felony aforesaid in
manner and form as in the Information aforesaid against hi [torn] red and that the said David is
not Guilty as in pleading he hath alledged and it being demanded of the said Isaac if he had any
thing to say why the Court should not proceed to pronounce Sentence of death against him upon
the Consideration aforesaid he said he had nothing but what he had before said Whereupon It is
Considered by the Court that the said Isaac be hanged by the Neck until he be dead and the
Sherif is commanded that he cause Execution thereof to be done on Friday the second day of
February next and It is further Considered by the Court that the said David be acquitted and
discharged of the felony aforesaid But on the motion of the said James Hubard and it appearing
to the Court that the said David is a dangerous Person he is committed to the Goal of the County
there to remain until he shall be thence discharged with the consent of his master and some
Justice of the Peace of this County.
The said Isaac was by the Court Valued at Seventy Pounds Current Money (Certified to the
Assembly May 1770) The minutes of these Proceedings were signed Dudley Digges Junr.
Source: York County Judgments and Orders (1768-1770) 419-420.

February 19, 1770

518

Ben a Negro Man Slave belonging to Thomas Nelson Junr Gent who stands accused of Stealing
two Piggs the Property of John Howard was brought into Court and It being demanded of the sd
Ben whether he was Guilty thereof he said he was Not Guilty whereupon two Negro witnesses
were Sworn and Examined and the said Ben was heard in his defence On Consideration whereof
It is the Opinion of the Court that he is Guilty of the offence aforesd and It is Ordered that he
receive at the Public Whipping Post twenty fine Lashes on his bare back well laid on by the
Sherif who is then to discharge him out of Custody.
Source: York County Judgments and Orders (1768-1770) 421.

At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Court House of York County the 28th day of April
1770 for the Trial of Pant a Negro Man Slave belonging to William Potter on suspicion of
Feloniously breaking and Entering in the Night time the House of Severinus Durfey and Stealing
thereout a Quantity of Paper Money the Property of the said Durfey.
Present
Dudley Digges
Thomas Nelson Junr

William Digges Junr &
Jaquelin Ambler Gent Justices

The said Pant was set to the bar and it being demanded of him whether he was Guilty of the
Felony aforesaid or not he said he was not thereof Guilty whereupon divers Witnesses were
sworn and Examined and the sd Pant heard in his defence on Consideration whereof It is the
Opinion of the Court that he is not thereof Guilty thereupon It is Considered that he be acquitted
and discharged of the sd Felony and nothing further appearing against him he is discharged out
of Custody. Dudley Digges Junr
Source: York County Judgments and Orders (1768-1770) 462.

Oyer and Terminer Cases—1771
At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Court house of York County in the Town of York
on the fifth day of January 1771 for the Trial of Scipio and Lucy Negro Slaves belong to
Catherine Hubard on suspicion of Felonisusly [sic] and Buglariously stealing twenty Pounds
Current Money the Property of Robert Hyland.

David Jameson
Jaquelin Ambler

Present
William Digges jr. &
Augustine Moore gent. Justices

The said Scipio and Lucy were set to the Bar and the Attorney for our Lord the King exhibited
and Information against the said Scipio and Lucy and they being arraigned Pleaded not Guilty to
the said Information and for their Trial put themselves upon the Judgment of the court
Whereupon divers Witnesses were Sworn and Examined and the said Scipio and Lucy heard in

519
their defense on Consideration whereof It is the Opinion of the court that the said Scipio and
Lucy are Not Guilty of the Felony and Burglary aforesaid as in Pleading they have alledged
Therefore It is Considered by the Court that they be acquitted and discharged of the Felony and
Burglary aforesaid and nothing further appearing being alledged against them It is Ordered that
they be discharged out of Custody. The Minutes of these Proceedings were Signed David
Jameson.
Source: York County Judgments and Orders (1770-1772) 155.

At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Court house of York County in the Town of York
the 26th day of June 1771 and in the Eleventh Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King
George the Third for the Trial of Paul a negro Slave belonging to George Chaplin and Joe a
Negro Slave belonging to Samuel Meredith for Felony and Burglary.
Before Dudly Digges, Robert Shield, Thomas Nelson, David Jameson, and Jaquelin Ambler
Gent. Justices.
The said Paul and Joe were set to the Bar and Benjamin Waller Esqr. Attorney for our Lord the
king in this County comes into Court before the Justices aforesaid and gives the said Justices to
understand and to be informed that the said Paul and Joe the fourteenth day of June aforesaid in
the nighttime with force and arms the Warehouse of William Cary Merchant situate and being in
the Parish of Yorkhampton in the County of York aforesaid feloniously d[
a]nd five Gallons of Rum of the Value of [
] loaves of Sugar at the Valu[e of
] Shalloon of the Value of
five shillings five pounds of Shag Tobacco of the value of six shillings one Peice of Woollen
Cloth of the Value of twenty shillings and two Peices of Duroy of the Value of four Pounds of
the Goods and Chattels of the said William Cary in the same Warehouse found then and there
feloniously did take steal and carry away against the Pence of our said Lord the King his Crown
and Dignity and against the form of the act of the General Assembly in such Case made and
provided and the said Paul and Joe being thereof arraigned they severally pleaded not Guilty and
for their trial they put themselves upon the Judgment of the Court Whereupon sundry Witnesses
were Sworn and examined and the Prisoners were heard what they had to say in their defence On
Consideration whereof It is the opinion of the Court that the said Paul is Guilty of the Felony and
Burglary aforesaid as in the Information against him is alledged that the said Joe is Guilty of the
said Felony but not Guilty of the Burglary [
] being severally demanded of the sd. Paul and
Joe if they had anything to say why the Court should not proceed to Judgment and Execution
against them on the Conditions aforesaid the said Paul said he had nothing but that he had before
said and the said Joe Prayed the benefit of the act of Assembly in such cases made to him to be
allowed and to him it is granted Therefore It is Considered that the said Paul be hanged by the
neck until he be dead and that the said Joe be burnt in the left hand which being done in the
Presence of the Court It is Ordered that the Sherif give him thirty nine Lashes at the Public
Whipping Post on his Bare back well laid on and then discharge him out of Custody.
The Court Valued the said Paul at Eighty five Pounds Current Money and Ordered him to be
Executed by the Sherif at the Usual Place on Saturday the sixth day of July next.

520
Marginal Note: Cert: delivered to Chaplin.
These Proceedings were Signed Dudley Digges.
Source: York County Judgements and Orders (1770-1772) 311-312.

November 18, 1771
Peter a Negro Man Slave belonging to Robert Howard committed to the Goal of this County on
suspicion of Stealing a Hog the property of John Chisman was set to the bar and it being
demanded of him if he was Guilty of the said offence he said he was not thereof Guilty
whereupon divers Witnesses were Sworn and examined and the said Peter heard in his defence
on Consideration whereof It is the Opinion of the Court that the said Peter is Guilty of Stealing
the said Hog and thereupon It is Ordered [that he] rec[ei]ve twenty Lashes at the Public
Whipping Po[st on his ba]ck well laid on and the Sheriff is commanded that he re[
ex]ecution thereof to be done.
Source: York County Judgements and Orders (1770-1772) 429.

Oyer and Terminer Cases—1772
At a Court held at the Cour[t house] of York County the fourth day of April, 1772 for the
Examination of Jemima a free Mulatta Woman on suspicion of Stealing sundry Goods the
Property of Damaris Rogers.
Present Robert Sheild, David Jameson, William Digges Junr. and Augustine Moore Gent
Justices.
The Prisoner was set to the Bar and it being demanded of her whether she was Guilty of the
Offence aforesaid or not she said she was not thereof Guilty Whereupon divers Witnesses were
Sworn and Examined and the Prisoner being heard in her defence It is the Opinion of the Court
that she is Guilty of Stealing the said Goods to the Value of Ten Pence and the said Jemima
waving any further trial acknowledged herself to be Guilty of the said Offence and put herself
upon the Judgment of the Court and thereupon It is Considered by the Court that for the said
Offence she receive at the Public Whipping Post twenty five Lashes on her bare back well laid
on and It is Ordered that the Sherif cause immediate execution thereof to be done and then
discharge her out of Custody.
The Minutes of these Proceedings were Signed
Robert Sheild
Source: York County Judgements and Orders (1770-1772) 513.

521
At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Court House of York County the fourth day of April
1772 for the Trial of Moody a Negro Man Slave belonging to Elizabeth Mingham on Suspicion
of breaking and entering in the nighttime a House of his Excellencys of the Right Honble John
Earl of Dunmore and stealing from thence nin[et]een Turkies the Property of the said John Earl
of Dunmore.6
Present Robert Sheild, David Jam[eson], Anthony Robinson, William Digges Junr., [Augustine]
Moore Gent Justices
The Prison was set to the bar [
B]enjamin Waller Esqr. Attorney of Our Lord the King
preferred an Information against the said Moody which Infor[
] read and the said Moody
being thereof arraigned p[lea]ded not Guilty and for his trial put himself upon the Judgment of
[the] Court and thereupon divers witnesses were Sworn and examined and the said Moody was
heard in his defence on Consideration whereof It is the Opinion of the Court that the said Moody
is not Guilty of the Burglary but that he is Guilty of Stealing the said Turkies and the said
Offence being within the benefit of the Act of Assembly It is Considered by the Court that he be
burnt in the left hand which was done in the presence of the Court and it is further Considered
that he receive at the public Whipping Post Thirty nine Lashes on his bare back well laid on and
It is Ordered that the sherif cause immediate Execution thereof to be done and then discharge
him out of Custody.
The minutes of these Proceedings were Signed Robt. Sheild.
Source: York County Judgements and Orders (1770-1772) 513-514.

At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Courthouse of York County in the Town of York
the 21st day of July 1772 for the Trial of Mingo a Negro Man slave belonging to Benjamin

6

Thomas Everard and John Randolph placed the following announcement in the Virginia
Gazette after nineteen turkeys were stolen from Lord Dunmore:
WHEREAS complaint hath been made upon oath that in the night of the 14th of this
instant, an outhouse of his Excellency the Lord DUNMORE was broke open, and
nineteen TURKIES stolen thereout, and that there is good reason to suspect a Negro man
slave named MOODY, belonging to [
] Mingham; the said Negro is about 5 feet 9
inches high, a sl[i]m made fellow, and had on when he went away a cotton jacket, and
blue breeches: These are therefore, in his Majesty‘s name, to require and command all
sheriffs, constables, and other his Majesty‘s liege people, to make diligent search and
pursuit after the said Negro slave Moody, and him having found, to apprehend and carry
him before some Justice of the Peace, in order to be dealt with as the Law directs.
Everard and Randolph also noted that ―A reward of FIVE POUNDS will be paid to the person
who shall apprehend the thief, upon his conviction of the above offence.‖ Virginia Gazette,
Rind, ed., 26 March 1772.

522
Powell on suspicion of stealing a Sheep the property of his Excellencey the Right Honourable
John Earl of Dunmore
Present Dudley Digges, Thomas Nelson Junr., Starkey Robinson, Augustine Moore,
Dudley Digges Junr., Hugh Nelson and John Dixon Gent Justices.
The said Mingo was set to the Bar and the Attorney of our Lord the King proferred an
Information which was read and the said Mingo being thereof arraigned pleaded not Guilty and
for Trial put himself upon the Judgment of the Court Whereupon divers Witenesses were Sworn
and Examined and the Prisoner was heard in his defence on Consideration whereof It is the
Opinion of the Court that the said Mingo be burnt in the left hand which was done in the
presence of the Court and It is Ordered that he receive at the Public Whipping Post twenty five
Lashes on his bare Back well laid on and It is Commanded the Sherif that he cause execution
thereof immediately to be done and then to discharge the said Mingo out of Custody.
The Minutes of these Proceedings were Signed Dudley Digges.
Source: York County Judgements and Orders (1772-1774) 83.

At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Court House of York County in the Town of York
on Tuesday the 22d day of December 1772 and in the thirteenth Year of the Reign of our
Sovereign Lord King George the third.
Present
Dudley Digges, Thomas Nelson Junr., Wm. Digges Junr., and John Dixon Gent Justices
Patrick a Negro Man Slave belonging to William Baptist and Moody a Negro Man Slave
belonging to Elizabeth Mingham committed to the Goal of this County on suspicion of Felony
and Burglary in breaking and entereing in the Night Time a House of Mary Potter and Stealing
from thence [
] the property of the said Potter were
led to the Bar and the Attorney for our Lord the King Exhibited an Information against them for
the said Offence which Information was read and the said Patrick and Moody Pleaded not Guilty
of the Felony aforesaid but not Guilty of the Burglary and that the said Moody is not Guilty as in
pleading he hath alledged but that he is Guilty of a Misdemeanor and the said Patricks Offence
being within the benefit of the Act It is Considered by the Court that he be burnt in the left Hand
which was done in the presence of the Court and It is Ordered that the said Patrick and Moody
severally receive at the Public Whipping Post thirty nine Lashes on his bare back well laid on
and It is Commanded the Sherif that he cause immediate Execution thereof to be done and that
they be then discharged out of Custody.
These Proceedings were Signed Dudley Digges.
Source: York County Judgements and Orders (1772-1774) 193.

523
Oyer and Terminer Cases—1773
At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Courthouse of York County in the Town of York on
Monday the 18th day of January 1773 and in the thirteenth year of the Reign of our Sovereign
Lord King George the Third for the Trial of Sam a Negro Slave belonging to William Eggleston
on suspicion of a Rape Committed on the Body of Molly a Mulatto Woman Child under the agst
of ten Years the property of George Pitt.
Present Peyton Randolph, Dudley Digges, Thos. Nelson Junr. & Hugh Nelson Justices
The said Sam was set to the Bar and the Attorney of our Lord the King Exhibited an Information
against the said Sam for the said Felony and he being thereof arraigned Pleaded not Guilty and
for his Trial put himself upon the Judgment of the Court Whereupon divers Witnesses being
Sworn and Examined and Sam was heard in his defence On Consideration whereof It is the
Opinion of the Court that the said Sam is Not Guilty of the Rape aforesaid as in pleading he hath
alledged and nothing further appearing against him It is Ordered that he be discharged out of
Custody.
The Minutes of these Proceedings were Signed Peyton Randolph
Source: York County Judgements and Orders (1772-1774) 210.

At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Courthouse of York County in the Town of York on
Monday the 18th day of January 1773 and in the thirteenth year of the Reign of our Sovereign
Lord King George the Third for the Trial of Jack a Negro Man Slave belonging to John Murray
for Felony and Burglary. Present the same Justices as above
(Peyton Randolph, Dudley Digges, Thos. Nelson Junr. & Hugh Nelson Justices).
The said Jack was set to the Bar and the Attorney of our Lord the King preferred an Information
aga[inst
] that he the eighth day of this Instant Jan[uary
] the Kitchen of George Riddell between the Hours of ten and twelve in the Night of the same
day Situate in the Parish of York- hampton in the County aforesaid did break and enter and one
holland Shirt of the Value of twenty shillings one Waistcoat and one pair of Britches of the
Value of twenty shillings one Waistcoat and one pair of Britches of the Value of twenty shillings
of the goods and Chattels of the said George Riddell then and there being found feloniously did
Steal take and Carry away against the Peace of our said Lord the King his Crown and Dignity
and against the form of the act of Assembly in such Case made and Provided and the said Jack
being thereof arraigned pleaded not Guilty and for his trial put himself upon the Judgment of the
Court Whereupon sundry Witnesses were Sworn and Examined and the said Jack was heard in
his Defence On Consideration whereof It is the Opinion of the While Court that the said Jack is
Guilty of the Felony and Burglary aforesaid in Manner and form as in the Information aforesaid
against him is alledged and it being demanded of him what he had to say why the Court should
not proceed to pronounce Sentence of death against him according to Law he said he had nothing
beside what he had before said Whereupon It is Considered by the Court that the said Jack be

524
hanged by the neck until he be dead And It is Commanded the Sherif that he cause Execution to
be done on Friday the fifty day of February next and the said Jack is remanded to Goal
The said Jack was Valued by the Court at Ninety Pounds Currt.

Money

The Minutes of these proceedings were signed Peyton Randolph
Source: York County Judgements and Orders (1772-1774) 210-211.

At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Court House of York County in the Town of York
on Saturday the fifth day of June 1773 and in the thirteenth year of the Reign of our Sovereign
Lord King George the third
Present Dudley Digges
John Blair

Thomas Nelson Junr &
John Dixon Gent Justices.

Fanny a Negro Woman Slave belonging to Richard Charlton committed to the Goal of this
County on suspicion of the Murder of John Donaldson was led to the bar by the Sherif and the
Attorney of our Lord the King Exhibited an Information against the said Fanny which
information was read and the said Fanny being thereof arraigned and pleaded not Guilty thereof
and for her Trial put herself upon the Judgment of the Court Whereupon divers Witnesses were
Sworn and Examined and the Prisoner heard in her defence On Consideration whereof it is the
Opinion of the whole Court that the said Fanny is Guilty of Manslaughter and it being demanded
of her what she had to say why the Court should not proceed to pronounce Sentence of Death
against her according to law she said she had nothing but what she had before said Therefore it is
Considered by the Court that she be Hanged by the Neck until she be dead and It is Ordered that
the Sherif cause Execution thereof to be done on Friday the 18th day of this Instant and she is
thereupon remanded to Goal. The said Fanny is by the Court Valued at Ninety pounds Current
Money and by the Whole Court recommended to the Governor as a proper Object of Mercy
The Minutes of these Proceedings were Signed Dudley Digges.
Source: York County Judgements and Orders (1772-1774) 284.

At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Court house of York County in the Town of York
the 30th day of August 1773 for the trial of Moody a Negro Man Slave belonging to Elizabeth
Mongham on suspicion of feloniously M[ai]ming by putting out the left Eye of Jack a Negro
Slave beloning to the Vineyard under the direction of Andrew Estave
Present Dudley Digges, David Jameson, William Digges Junr. and John Dixon Gent
Justices
The said Moody was set to the bar and [
thereof [

] against him being read and he
] thereto and for his Trial put himself

525
upon the Judgment of the Court whereupon sundrey Witnesses were Sworn and examined and as
well the Attorney of our Lord the King as the said Moody were fully heard on Consideration
whereof It is the Opinion of the Court that the said Moody is not guilty of willfully and on
purpose putting out the Eye of the said Jack Therefore It is Considered by the Court that he be
aquitted of the Felony aforesd. But it appearing that the said Moody hath great mesbehaved
himself in this matter It is Ordered that he receive thrity nine Lashes at the Public Whipping Post
on his bare back well laid on that the Sherif cause the same immediately to be done and then
discharge the said Moody out of Custody
The Minutes of these proceedings were Signed Dudley Digges.
Source: York County Judgements and Orders (1772-1774) 362-363.

Oyer and Terminer Cases—1774
An act of Oyer and Terminer held at the cthouse in the town of York the eighth day of March
1774 for the trial of Hannibal a Negro man slave belonging to James Sheilds for felony
Present: Dudley Digges, Thomas Nelson Jr., David Jameson, Jaquelin Ambler, and
William Reynolds gent justices
The sd Hannibal was set to the bar and Benajmin Waller attor for our Lord the King comes into
ct and gives the justices aforesd to understand and be informed that the sd Hannibal the thirteenth
day of February last w/ force and arms at the Psh of Bruton in the cnty of York eight Turkies of
the value of twenty five shillgs of the goods and chattels of the right Honourable John Earl of
Dunmore his Majestys Lieutenant and Governor General of Virginia then and there found
feloniously did take steal and carry away agt the peace of our Lord the King his crown and
Dignity to wch the sd Hannibal upon his arraignment pleaded not guilty and of his trial put
himself upon the judgmt of the ct whereupon divers witnesses were sworn and examined and the
sd Hannibal was heard in his defence on consideration whereof it is the opinion of the whole ct
that the sd Hannibal is guilty of the felony aforesd in manner and form as above agt him is
alledged and it appearing that the sd Hannibal was at a ct of Oyer & Terminer held in James City
Cnty the 4th day of Dec. last convicted of felony and burnt in the hand for the same the record of
wch conviction was produced in ct he is now denied the benefit of the act and it being demanded
if he had any thing further to say he sd he had nothing. Therefore it is considered by the ct that
he be hanged by the neck until he be dead and he is thereupon remanded to goal and it is ordered
that the sherif cause execution of this judgment to be done on Tuesday the twenty second day of
this instant March. The sd Hannibal is valued by the ct at seventy five pds. current money.
The minutes of these proceedings were signed
Dudley Digges.
Source: York County Judgements and Orders (1772-1774) 529.

526
At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Courthouse in the Town of York in the County of
York on Tuesday the fifteenth day of November 1774 and in the fifteenth Year of the Reign of
our Sovereign Lord King George the third for the Trial of Ned a Negro Man Slave belonging to
John Randolph Esqr for Felony and Burglary.
Present
Dudley Digges Jaquelin Ambler Hug[h] Nelson John Dixon and Joseph Hornsby Gent Justices.
The said Ned was set to the Bar by the Sherif and Benjamin Waller Esqr attorney for our Lord
the King in the said County of York comes into Court before the Justices of our said Lord the
King and Gives the said Justices to understand and be informed that the said Ned a Negro Male
Slave belonging to John Randolph of the city of Williamsburgh Esqr the thirtieth day of October
in the fifteenth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the third now King of Great
Britain &c with force and arms the dwelling House of Christiana Campbell widow situate and
being in the Parish of Bruton in the County of York aforesaid between the Hours of nine and
twelve in the Night of the same day feloniously and burglariously did break and enter and two
Trunks of the Value of twenty shillings nine shirts of the value of Nine Pounds six pair of
Stockings of the value of three Pounds six handkerchiefs of the Value of twenty shillings and
sundry Pieces of cut Silver of the Value of twelve pounds ten shillings of the Goods and Chattels
of Simon Fraiser merchant nine shirts of the Value of Nine pounds six pair of stockings of the
Value of three Pounds and six handkerchiefs of the value of twenty shillings Current Money of
the Goods and Chattels of Bennet Brown Merchant in the same dwelling House found then and
there feloniously and burglariously did take Steal and Carry away against the Peace of our said
Lord the King his Crown and Dignity. And the said Ned being thereof arraigned he Pleaded Not
Guilty and for Trial put himself upon the Judgment of the Court and thereupon sundry witnesses
were Sworn and Examined and the said Ned was heard in his defence On Consideration whereof
It is the Opinion of the whole Court that he is Guilty of the felony and burglary aforesaid in
manner and form as above against him is alledged And It being demanded of the said Ned if he
had anything to say why the Court should not proceed to pronounce the Sentence of Death
against him upon the Conviction aforesaid he said he had nothing beside what he had before said
Whereupon It is Considered by the Court that he be hanged by the Neck until he be dead and he
is remanded to Goal, And It is Commanded the Sherif that he cause Execution of this Judgment
to be done on Tuesday the twenty ninth day of this Instant November.
The said Ned was by the Court Valued at Eighty Pounds currt Money
The minutes of these Proceedings were signed Dudley Digges
Source: York County Order Book 4 (1774-1784) 60-61.

At a Court held of Oyer and Terminer held at the Courthouse in the Town of York on Monday
the 21st day of November 1774 and in the fifteenth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord
King George the third.

527
Present
Dudley Digges Thomas Nelson Junr Hugh Nelson and William Reynold Gent Justices
Ben a negro man Slave belonging to John Toomer committed to the Goal of this County on
suspicion of Felony was led to the Bar and Benjamin Waller attorney for our Lord the King in
this County comes into Court before the Justices aforesaid and Gives the said justices to
Understand and be Informed that Ben a Negro man Slave belonging to John Toomer of the said
County the seventh day of October last past with Force and Arms Six Sides and two Skins of
Leather out of the Tan Vat of Thomas Pescod of the County aforesaid of the Value of fifty
shilling the Property of the said Thomas Pescod in the Parish of Yorkhampton in the County
aforesaid then and there being feloniously did steal take and carry away against the Peace of our
said Lord the King his Crown and Dignity And the said Ben being thereof arraigned Pleaded not
Guilty and for his Trial put himself upon the Judgment of the Court Whereupon diverse
witnesses were sworn and Examined and the said Ben was heard in his defence On
Consideration whereof It is the Opinion of the Court that the said Ben is not Guilty of the felony
aforesaid as in pleading he hath alledged and nothing further appearing or being alledged against
him Therefore It is Considered by the Court that he be aquitted of the felony aforesaid and
discharged out of Custody.
The minutes of these Proceedings were signed Dudley Digges
Source: York County Order Book 4 (1774-1784) 62.

Oyer and Terminer Cases—1775
At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Courthouse of York County in the Town of York on
Wednesday the 29th day of March 1775 and in the fifteenth year of the Reign of our Sovereign
Lord King George the third for the Trial of Ned a Negro Slave for Felony.
Before David Jameson Jacquelin Ambler Joseph Hornsby and William Reynolds Gent
Justices
The said Ned being set to the bar by the sherif Benjamin Waller Esqr attorney for our Lord the
King comes into Court and Gives the said Justices to understand and be informed that the said
Ned a Negro man Slave belonging to Elizabeth Davis orphan of John Davis decd the 20th day of
Februrary last past at the Parish of Bruton in this County with force and arms two Turkies of the
Value of five shillings of the Goods and Chattels of William Rose then and there found
feloniously did take steal and carry away against the Peace of our Lord the King his Crown and
Dignity and the said Ned being thereof arraigned pleaded Not Guilty and of his trial put himself
upon the Judgment of the Court Whereupon divers witnesses were sworn and examined and the
said Ned was fully heard in his defence On Consideration whereof It is the opinion of the Court
that the said Ned is Guilty of the felony aforesaid in manner and form as in the Information
aforesaid against him is alledged and the said offence being within the benefit of the Act of
Assembly It is Considered by the Court that the said Ned be burnt in the hand which was
accordingly done in the presence of the Court and he is thereupon discharged out of Custody.

528
The minutes of these Proceedings were signed David Jameson.
Source: York County Order Book 4 (1774-1784) 85.

At a Court of Oyer and terminer held at the Courthouse in the Town of York on Saturday the
tenth day of June 1775 for the Trial of Peter and Paul two Negro Slaves belonging to John
Chisman on suspicion of stealing a calf the property of William Smith.
Present David Jameson William Nelson Starkey Robinson and Hugh Nelson Gent Justices.
The said Peter and Paul were set to the Bar an Information was exhibited against them and being
thereof arraigned Pleaded Not Guilty Whereupon sundry witness were sworn and examined and
the sd Peter and Paul heard in their defence On Consideration whereof It is the opinion of the
Court that the said Peter and Paul are not Guilty of the felony aforesaid as they in pleading have
alledged and nothing further appearing against them It is Ordered that they acquitted and
discharged out of Custody
These Proceedings were signed David Jameson
Source: York County Order Book 4 (1774-1784) 88.

Oyer and Terminer Cases—1776
At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Courthouse of York County in the Town of York
the 19th day of August 1776 for the trial of James a Negro Slave belonging to John Mayo for
Felony and Burglary.
Present
David Jameson, Starkey Robinson, William Digges Junr, Augustine Moore and William
Reynolds Gent Justices.
The said James being set to the bar Edmund Randolph Esqr attorney General for the
Commonwealth of Virginia comes into the Court of the said County before the Justices of the
said Court and gives them to understand and be informed that he the said James a Negro Man
Slave belonging to John Mayo of the County of Cumberland on Tuesday the thirteenth day of
this Instant August between the Hours of ten and twelve in the night of the same day with force
and arms at the Parish of Bruton in the said County of York the Dwelling House of one Serafino
Formicola in the said Parish and first mentioned County scituate feloniously and burglariously
did break and enter and one [g]uinea of the value of twenty six shillings and three golden rings of
the Value of twenty shillings each of the Goods and Chattels of the said Serafino Formicola in
the said Dwelling House then and there being found feloniously and burglariously did steal take
and carry away against the Peace and Dignity of the said Commonwealth And the said James
being thereof arraigned he said he was not thereof Guilty and for trial put himself upon the
Judgment of the Court Whereupon divers witnesses were sworn and Examined and the said

529
James was heard in his defence On Consideration whereof It is the opinion of the whole court
that the said James is guilty in manner and form as in the Information above against him is
alledged and it being demanded of the said James if he had any thing to say why the Court
should not proceed to pronounce Sentence of death against him upon the conviction aforesaid He
said he had nothing besides what he had before said Therefore It is Considered by the Court that
he be hanged by the Neck until he be dead and It is Ordered that Execution be done by the Sherif
of this County on Friday the 20th day of September next and the Goal of the County being
insufficient the said James is remanded to the keeper of the Public Goal in Williamsburgh there
to be safely kept until the time of his Execution aforesaid. The said James is valued by the Court
at fifty five pounds Current money.
The minutes of these Proceedings were signed David Jameson.
Source: York County Order Book 4 (1774-1784) 125.

At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Courthouse of York County in the Town of York on
Monday the 21st day of October 1776
Present
David Jameson
Starkey Robinson
William Graves

William Digges Junr
Augustine Moore &
William Reynolds Gent Justices

James a Negro Slave belonging to John Mayo convicted of Felony and Burglary before Justices
of Oyer and Terminer in a Court held in this County the 19th day of August last past for which
Sentence of death was pronounce against him and Execution thereof Ordered by the said Court
to be done on the 20th day of September then next following was set to the bar and It appearing
to the Court that the said James before the day appained as aforesaid for the Execution of the said
Sentence had escaped out of the Public Goal It was demanded of him whether he is the same
Person who was Convicted as aforesaid and if he had any thing to say why the Sentence formerly
pronounced against him should not be executed He said he is the same Person and that he had
nothing to say for himself in bar of the Execution of the said Sentence Whereupon It is Ordered
by the Court that the Sherif of this County cause the said James to be hanged by the Neck until
he be dead on the second Friday after the next County Court which shall be held for this County
and he is remanded to the Public Goal there to be safely kept until the time of his Execution
aforesaid.
The minutes of these Proceedings were signed David Jameson.
Source: York County Order Book 4 (1774-1784) 125.

530
Oyer and Terminer Cases—1777
At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at the Court House of York County in the Town of York
on Monday the 17th day of February 1777
Present
Thomas Nelson Junr Starkey Robinson, William Digges Junr John Dixon William Reynolds &
Robert Prentis Gent: Justices
On the motion of Mr attorney General It is Ordered that the Sherif of this County cause James a
Negro Slave belonging to John Mayo to be carried to the usual Place of Execution near the City
of Williamsburgh on Friday the 21st day of this Instant February there to be hanged by the Neck
until he be dead in pursuance of a Judgment passed on him by the Justices of Oyer and Terminer
in this County the 19th day of August 1776 for felony and burglary by him committed and of
which he stands convicted.
The minutes of these proceedings were signed Thos Nelson Junr
Source: York County Order Book 4 (1774-1784) 136.

The Brush-Everard House
This examination focuses on the slaves who lived and worked in Thomas Everard‘s
Williamsburg household; the enslaved laborers who tended the fields on his plantations in James
City and Brunswick counties; the slaves owned by James and Frances (Everard) Horrocks; and
the fate of Everard‘s enslaved men, women, and children after his death in 1781.
Thomas Everard‘s Williamsburg Slaves
Thomas Everard was an orphan at Christ Church Hospital, a charity school in London,
when he became an apprentice of Matthew Kemp of Virginia at about the age of fifteen. Kemp
was a burgess for Middlesex County and a clerk in the Secretary‘s Office and later for the House
of Burgesses. Kemp trained his apprentice in legal procedures and the keeping of legal records.
Everard finished his indenture to Kemp and served as clerk of the Elizabeth City County Court
from June 16, 1742 to September 19, 1745. He received an appointment as deputy clerk of the
York County Court on September 16, 1745 and as clerk of the York County Court in November
of the same year. Entries in the Ann Coke Pattison Account Book in August 1745 indicate that
Everard stayed at Pattison's tavern before he relocated to Williamsburg. Everard also paid the
tavern keeper for the diet of a slave boy on August 17 and August 22 of that year.
Unfortunately, the name of this slave boy does not appear in the account book.7

7

Ann Coke Pattison Account Book, p. 65. Virginia Historical Society.

531
Thomas Everard and Diana Robinson, daughter of Anthony and Diana (Tabb) Robinson
of Charles Parish, probably met during the time that he lived in Elizabeth City County. They
were married by 1746. Diana Robinson could have received slaves, including her personal maid,
from her father as part of her dowry. It is possible that Anthony Robinson‘s slave Scipio was
one of the enslaved laborers who became Everard‘s property. Scipio was adjudged to be eleven
years old in June 1740, a few months after he arrived in the colony on a ship from Africa. He
was an adult when he was baptized in Bruton Parish on July 1, 1751. Perhaps Phillis (an adult
baptized on May 7, 1749) and Beck (an adult baptized on May 6, 1751) were also a part of Diana
Robinson Everard's dowry.
Everard, his wife, and their domestic slaves lived in a dwelling house on Lots 263 and
264 on Nicholson Street that the clerk purchased from John Wall on October 17, 1745. They
may have lived on this property until August 28, 1756 when Everard sold Lots 263 and 264 to
Anthony Hay. It is likely that Everard purchased Lots 165 and 166 on Palace Green sometime in
1756. However, there is no documentary evidence that places the clerk and his family in the
house that bears his name until September 1, 1779, when John and Sarah Tazewell conveyed
three lots that adjoined Everard‘s Palace Green property to Henry Tazewell.
Everard might have moved his family and household slaves to Anthony Robinson‘s
house in Charles Parish during the smallpox epidemic of 1747 and 1748. On August 13, 1747,
the York County Court decided to hold their next meeting at the house of William Corridon, a
tavern keeper who lived next to the Charles Parish glebe land. The York County Court met at
Corridon's in September and November of 1747 and January of the following year. The justices
returned to Yorktown for the February 1747/8 session. The fact that Everard's name did not
appear on Doctor de Sequeyra's list of Williamsburg households suggests that he and his family
were still in Charles Parish in February 1747/8.
The number of slaves owned by the clerk increased during the late 1740s and the early
1750s. Four enslaved individuals belonging to Everard received their baptisms between
September 3, 1749 and December 3, 1752: Venus on September 3, 1749; a second slave named
Venus on March 4, 1750/1; Charles on June 1, 1752; and Richard on December 3, 1752. The
clerk bought a wench named Myrtilla at the sale of Doctor Kenneth McKenzie's personal
property on April 30, 1755. Myrtilla was valued at £40 in the 1755 inventory of McKenzie's
estate.
The Everard family gained possession of three Robinson slaves after the death of Diana
Robinson in early 1762. The widow Robinson left a slave named Nero to her son-in-law. Her
granddaughter, Frances Everard, inherited a slave called Beck. This slave girl was valued at £20
when Diana Robinson's estate was settled on August 30, 1764. The York County Clerk paid
£70.8 for Cupid at the sale of Robinson's estate. Cupid was likely purchased to work on
Everard‘s plantation in James City County.
Everard enrolled two of his slave children in the Bray School in September 1762. Mary
was seven years old and Harry was two years younger when they were students of Mrs. Wager.
Mary and Harry were not the only slave children in the Everard household. Beck's son Nero was
baptized on June 5, 1763. Elizabeth, daughter of Kate, received her baptism on the same day.

532
Alan, son of Myrtilla, was baptized on June 3, 1764. Two more children were baptized in 1765:
Peter, the son of Kate, on March 3 and Venus' son William on the first day of December.
Myrtilla's second son, Tom, received his baptism on October 5, 1766 as did Daniel, Kate's third
child, on June 7, 1767.
Everard became the owner of three more slaves, an infant and two adults, in 1768. Kate's
son, Watt, received his baptism on the third day of July in that year. Everard purchased two
slaves from the estate of Governor Francis Fauquier between March and September 1768:
Bristol—an adult who arrived in Virginia from the west coast of Africa by early 1767—and a
man called Old John. Everard paid three-quarters of their appraised values—£ 41 for Bristol and
£30 for Old John—because they chose him as their new master according to the terms of
Fauquier's will. Everard probably was a frequent visitor to the Palace during the governor's
lifetime. He witnessed the governor's will and received an appointment to appraise Fauquier's
estate. Perhaps Everard bought Bristol and Old John because of their skills as waiting men and
the prestige that they would bring to his household. He hired Bristol to Governor Botetourt on
several occasions between January 1769 and May 1770. Sarah was a woman whom Everard
hired out to the governor from August 1769 to August 1770 for £8. Old John might have been
one of the Everard slaves who worked at the Governor's Palace in January 1769. It is possible
that Everard decided to sell an enslaved man in June 1769 because he was pleased with the work
that Bristol and Old John performed in his household. On June 9, 1769, Jefferson made the
following notation in his memorandum book: ―Tell G. Jones Everard will sell servt. He cannot
shave or dress, and games a little which is cause of selling. He will take 80 £. 20 years old.
Sensible enough.‖8
Determination of how many slaves were in the Everard household in the early 1770s and
exactly what kind of work they performed is difficlt because that many of his slaves have just
one reference in the York County Court records or in the Bruton Parish Birth and Baptism
Register. He would have had a household staff that reflected his prominence as clerk of the York
County Court, Bruton Parish vestryman, clerk of the House of Burgesses' Committee for Courts
and Justice, registrar of the Court of Vice-Admiralty, judge of the Court of Admiralty, trustee for
the founding of the Public Hospital, and mayor of Williamsburg (1766 and 1771). Everard
remodeled his house in the early 1770s. Mark R. Wenger notes that
His renovation enlarged and transformed the interior of the house—new wainscoting,
new wallpaper, and new paint amplified its already genteel character and imparted to the
whole a decidedly up-to-date look. The endeavor was almost certainly linked to
Everard's growing stature in public affairs in the late 1760s....Looking back on his
humble origins, Thomas Everard must have taken some pride in his remarkable ascent.
In 1772 he purchased caps for a pair of postilions. Evidently he was now traveling by
coach, a manner of conveyance reserved for leading members of the gentry. Like a coach
with liveried postilions, Everard's newly adorned house aptly expressed his social
attainments.9
8

James A. Bear, Jr., and Lucia C. Stanton, eds., Jefferson‘s Memorandum Books. Accounts, with Legal Records
and Miscellany, 1767-1826, 2 vols., (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 1:19.
9

Mark R. Wenger, "Investigations at the Brush-Everard House," The Colonial Williamsburg Interpreter, March 1994, p.

533

In February 1773, Everard purchased ―4 Strong Great Coats for Negros 2 for men about the
House and 2 for Lads Postilions‖ from John Norton and Sons.10 His footmen wore livery when
they opened the front door to his house.
It is likely that Everard‘s female slaves played an important part in raising his two
daughters, Frances and Martha, after the death of their mother. There is no definitive evidence
that an adult white woman was a part of the Everard household during the years between Diana
Everard‘s death and the marriage of her daughters. The female slaves on the property—Beck,
Kate, Myrtilla, and Venus—may have helped one of Diana Everard's sisters care for Everard's
daughters and teach them housewifery skills. Perhaps Frances Robinson Digges and Martha
Robinson Jones looked out for their nieces and namesakes. John and Martha Robinson named
their son Everard in May 1769, a sign of a close relationship with the Everard family. Maybe the
Robinsons helped care for their nieces. It is also possible that Frances and Martha Everard spent
time at the homes of their aunts and uncles. It is likely that one of their father's slaves would
have accompanied them on a trip to Yorkhampton Parish, Charles Parish, or Warwick County.
The marriage of Frances Everard to Reverend James Horrocks in 1765 had an impact on
the slaves in the Everard household. Thomas Everard, as was the custom, probably gave his
daughter her personal maid and several additional slaves as part of her dowry. Frances Everard
Horrocks owned Beck, a slave girl whom she inherited from her grandmother, Diana Tabb
Robinson, in 1762. The Everard slaves became a part of a household that included the minister‘s
waiting man, two women, and three children.11 The President‘s house at the College of William
and Mary was a short distance from Everard‘s house on Palace Green so the slaves who moved
with Fanny at the time of her marriage were not far from their families and friends.

Thomas Everard and the Horrocks Slaves
The lives of the Horrocks slaves were disrupted in June 1771 when James and Frances
Horrocks decided to go to England and then to Oporto, Portugal, hoping to regain their health. It
is possible that their slaves moved to the Everard house when their master and mistress left
Williamsburg. The Reverend Horrocks died in Oporto on March 20, 1772 and Frances Horrocks
returned to England for several months after his death. In July 1772, Everard wrote John Norton
that he could not "sufficiently express my concern and surprise, to hear Mr. Horrocks died
8.
10

Frances Norton Mason, ed., John Norton & Sons Merchants of London and Virginia: Being the Papers from the
Counting House for the Years 1750 to 1795, (Richmond: Dietz Press, 1937), pp. 300-301.
11

John Adam, the son of Aggy, was baptized on September 6, 1767 and Molly's daughter Sally on October 9, 1768.
Horrocks sent a slave named Charlotte to the Bray School in February 1769. The minister‘s waiting man ran
errands to the Governor's Palace in April and November 1769. He also hired his waiting man to Governor Botetourt
on two occasions in December 1769. Horrocks had an unknown number of slaves who tended the fields on the
glebe lands (the property that each parish owned for the minister to plant ) in Bruton Parish. In May 1768 the grand
jury presented the minister for not keeping an overseer on his plantation.

534
without making a will, surely he never could intend his Wife should have only what the Law
would not suffer him to deprive her of; I cannot entertain such a thought, her conduct deserved
much better treatment, and therefore imagine he did not know how the Law would dispose of his
Estate." He continued that
A Person dying without Will, leaving no Children, his Widow is entitled to one half of
the Personal Estate for ever and to one third of his Slaves for her life only, the rest of the
Estate goes to the Heir at Law; so that in this case, Mr. Horrocks's Brother who is his
Heir, will after payment of the Debts be entitled to one half the Personal Estate and to
two thirds of the Slaves and at the Death of Mrs. Horrocks to the other third of the Slaves
this distribution of the Estate I look upon to be extremely unjust and which I am well
satisfied Mr. Horrocks could not intend.12
Based on Everard‘s explanation of the dispersal of Horrocks‘s estate, the minister‘s brother was
entitled to six bond laborers and Frances Horrocks had a lifetime right to three slaves.
It is possible that the widow Horrocks was back in Williamsburg by September 1772
when her father wrote another letter to Norton about her estate. Everard asked the merchant to
talk to Horrocks's brother about "his right to the Slaves which lately belonging to Mr. Horrocks."
He added "Whatever success you may have in this Matter I shall be glad to be advised of as soon
as possible that I may satisfie the poor Negroes what is to become of them as they are very
unwilling to part with their Mistress."13 It is clear that Everard realized that the Horrocks slaves
did not want to become the property of a man in England whom they did not know. In
November of the same year the clerk wrote that
I shall be glad as soon as possible to hear the Success of the proposal I desired you to
make to Mr. Horrocks's brother for the right to his part of the Negros if he accepts it you
will be pleased to pay him £ 100 in part, inclosed you have a Bill drawn by William
Randolph on Farrell & Jones of Bristol intended for that purpose and as soon as I can be
furnished with the Accounts of what is due from the Estate I will make out a general
Account of the whole and remit for Mr. Thomas Horrocks the balance that will be due to
him.14
On October 2, 1773, Everard informed Norton that he had sent an account of the settlement of
Reverend Horrocks's estate to his brother. This account would enable him, with Norton's
assistance, "to Settle with Mr. Thos. Horrocks for his part of the Estate, and to pay him his part
in Signing a Bill of Sale for the Slaves; this I could wish, you would pay some Attention to, and
have done without loss of time."15

12

Mason, ed., John Norton & Sons Merchants of London and Virginia, pp. 260-261.

13

Ibid., pp. 273-274.

14

Ibid., pp. 282-283.

15

Ibid., pp. 353-355.

535
Thomas Horrocks granted his right to six slaves who had been owned by his brother to
Frances Horrocks on December 9, 1773. The widow Horrocks became the owner of three men
called Sam, Mingo, and Dick; two women known by the names of Lender and Polly; and Beck, a
girl. These six slaves represented two-thirds of the slaves held by Horrocks at the time of his
death. Unfortunately, the deed did not note whether these slaves had been in his Williamsburg
household or on the glebe land in Bruton Parish. In addition, the deed did not indicate which
slaves Horrocks owned before his marriage and which slaves he gained possession of at the time
of his marriage in 1765. Frances Everard Horrocks died soon after she became the owner of
Sam, Mingo, Dick, Lender, Polly, and Beck. It is possible that her sister Patsy gained possession
of some or all of the Horrocks slaves. If so, these enslaved individuals experienced another
transition in their lives when Patsy Everard married Doctor Isaac Hall of Petersburg in c. 1774.
Hall studied medicine in Scotland, graduated from Edinburgh University, and returned to
Virginia in late 1772.
Thomas Everard‘s Rural Slaves
The 1768 and 1769 Williamsburg-James City County Tax Lists indicate that Everard also
had enslaved laborers on 600 acres in James City County. He paid the assessment on nine tithes
in both years. Scipio, Charles, and Richard might have been three of the enslaved individuals
who worked in the fields on Everard's plantation. A man named William Watts was the clerk's
overseer.16 Perhaps the slave boy named Davy, who ran away in late July 1769, left the clerk‘s
James City County plantation. Everard offered a handsome reward for his return, but did not
mention if Davy was an urban or a rural slave. It is possible that the ―VERY good Negro
CARPENTER‖ whom Everard was willing to sell or to hire in December 1773 worked on his
plantation.17 An October 1774 advertisement noted that Everard's plantation was near the mouth
of Archer's Hope Creek and that he had an overseer on the premises. The presence of an
overseer suggests that Everard also had slaves on his rural land in 1774. This is the last
reference to his property in James City County.
Everard managed slaves on his plantation in Brunswick County in addition to the
enslaved men, women, and children who lived on his Williamsburg property and on his land in
James City County. On July 20, 1771, he wrote to John Norton in London that he was sending
him five hogsheads of tobacco "made at my own Plantation upon fresh Lands in Brunswick."18
In September 1772, Everard informed Norton that he had sent four hogsheads of tobacco from
his land in Brunswick which "if the Inspectors are proper judges they say it is very good my
Overseer by some Accident was prevented from bringing to the Inspection the rest of his Crop or
I should have sent you double the quantity."19 It is possible that his Brunswick slaves wore
16

In December 1768 Watts informed readers of the Virginia Gazette that he "Found in the quarter of Mr. Everard
that I took over, in November 1767, a brown drab cloth GREAT COAT." Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds.,
December 29, 1768.
17

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., December 23, 1773.

18

Mason, ed., John Norton & Sons, p. 170.

19

Ibid., pp. 273-274.

536
clothes made out of the "100 yards of blue Plains for Negro" that he had ordered from Norton on
March 10, 1771 "for next years Cloathing."20
The following August Everard told Norton that "I have given your son Notes for six
hogsheads, made to my Brunswick Plantation, he has put it on board Capt. Power it grew on
fresh high Land and is said to be very good; let what you think the Value be Insured on it."21 He
decided to sell some, if not all, of his land in Brunswick in 1778. In October of that year he
announced: "TO BE SOLD Eleven hundred and thirty six ACRES of LAND in Brunswick, with
the SLAVES thereon, being ten in number. For terms enquire of Mr. William Withers in
Dinwiddie, or the subscriber in Williamsburg."22 Everard apparently sold this property, as he did
not place an additional announcement of his intentions to sell the plantation and the ten enslaved
laborers who tended tobacco fields.

The Death of Thomas Everard
Thomas Everard died between January 31, 1781 and February 19, 1781. Neither his will,
an inventory, nor the settlement of his estate survives. It is likely that Patsy Hall gained
possession of several slaves after the death of her father. Isaac Hall became the owner of his
father-in-law‘s Williamsburg property. The doctor sold Lots 165, 166, and 172 to Doctor James
Carter in 1788. It is possible that some of the slaves belonging to Everard's estate were also sold
at this time.
If any Everard slaves moved to Petersburg with the Halls they might have been reunited
with enslaved individuals who had been part of the Horrocks household. The Petersburg
Personal Property Tax Lists are extant from 1788 onward. However, these lists do not contain
slave names. Isaac Hall‘s name appeared on the tax lists as a slave owner from 1788 to 1805:
1788—nine slaves over sixteen and three slaves under sixteen
1789—eleven slaves over sixteen
1795—eight slaves over sixteen
1796—eight slaves over sixteen
1797 to 1799—six slaves over sixteen
1800—six slaves over sixteen
1801—five slaves over sixteen
1802—eight slaves over sixteen and one slave over twelve and under sixteen
1803—eight slaves over sixteen and two slaves over twelve and under sixteen
1804—nine slaves over sixteen and one slave over twelve and under sixteen
20

John Norton and Sons Papers, 1750-1902, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library Microfilm M-1485.2, [Folder
37]. See Appendix I, typescript of invoices accompanying letters from Thomas Everard of Williamsburg to John Norton
& Sons of London from the Brush-Everard House History, for additional items that Everard bought for his slaves from
Norton.
21

Mason, ed., John Norton & Sons, pp. 344-346.

22

Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., October 16, 1778.

537
1805—five males over sixteen, four females over sixteen, and one female over
twelve and under sixteen.23
A few documents provide information about the slaves owned by the doctor. In September
1802, Hall emancipated "Milly a Negro woman Slave, late my property, and I do hereby
relinquis and renounce all my right and title to the future labour and and [sic] services of the said
Negro woman Milly & do declare that she shall enjoy her freedom in as full and complete a
manner as other free black people."24 The doctor included the names of several slaves in his
November 24, 1805 will:
Whereas I have already given to my son Everard Hall five Negroes, Jack Sylvia,
two women named Nancy & Billy [sic], and as I wish to be altogether fair & equal in the
distribution of my small fortune between my two Children, I do hereby give or bequeath
to my daughter Dian Robinson Hall the following slaves Sukey Patty Venus Armistead
and either Molly or Betty as she may chuse All the rest and residue of my estate, real & personal, of whatever nature or kind I
give to my beloved wife Martha Hall, to her and to her heirs forever I feel the most
perfect Confidence that she will by gift or by Will dispose of it equally and impartially
between our Children or their issue -25
Hall's will was probated on February 3, 1806 and his inventory was recorded one month later.26
His personal estate included the following slaves:
Negro Johnny
" Daniel
" Bob
" Sipio
" Sam (Blacksmith)
" old Sam
" Thomas
" Dick
1 boy Armistead
1 Woman Polly
" Lydia & Child
" Molly
" Betty
" Patty
" Sucky
" Venus
23

[£]

180..0..0
195
150
60
210
36
120
105
60
90
90
36
45
60
45
75

Petersburg Personal Property Tax Lists 1788 to 1805.

24

Petersburg Hustings Court Deeds (3) 158, dated September 10, 1802 and recorded April 2, 1804.

25

Petersburg Hustings Court Wills (2) f. 4, dated November 24, 1805 and recorded February 3, 1806.

26

Petersburg Hustings Court Wills (2) f. 7-8, recorded March 3, 1806.

538

It is possible that old Sam was the same slave whom Frances Everard Horrocks acquired soon
before her death in December 1773. Other names—Dick, Molly, Polly, Scipio, Thomas, and
Venus—are names that belonged to Everard and Horrocks slaves. The appearance of these
names suggests that some of the bond laborers owned by Isaac Hall at the time of his death were
the descendants of enslaved men and women who lived at Lots 165 and 166, on Everard's James
City and Brunswick county plantations, with Reverend Horrocks, or on the Bruton Parish glebe.
Martha Hall left Petersburg after her husband‘s death and settled in Isle of Wight County.
Her obituary appeared in the July 28, 1813 issue of the Norfolk Gazette and Publick Ledger:
―Departed this life, on Saturday the 24th inst. in the 60th year of her age, Mrs. Martha Hall, Relict
of the late Doctor Isaac Hall, of Petersburg. She has left two children to mourn the loss of the
best of mothers.‖27 The inventory of the widow Hall‘s estate included five slaves: Daniel
(valued at $500), John (valued at $500), Tom (valued at $325), Sylvia (valued at $200), and Sam
(valued at $0.18 ¾ ).28

The First Baptist Church
The following information on the First Baptist Church includes a report of the archaeological
excavations on the site and the First Baptis Church Chronology compiled by Linda Rowe.
Introduction
The First Baptist Church stood on Block 14, Colonial Lot M (presently the northwest
corner of Nassau and Francis Streets), from 1855 to 1957. While this brick structure dates to the
mid-nineteenth century, the congregation appears to have met much earlier--as early as 1776 by
some accounts, but at least by 1781 according to John Asplund's register of Baptist
congregations in North America. The location of the eighteenth-century meeting is unclear. As
the group was quite large (about 500 members), an open-air meeting place is a distinct
possibility, and there are reports that the congregation gathered at Raccoon Chase (near Lake
Matoaka) on Jamestown Road, and Greenspring Plantation prior to the mid-nineteenth century.
Perhaps more interestingly, Lot M may have served as the site of the Baptist meeting long before
the construction of the 1855 structure. According to a Williamsbrug Land Tax record, there was
a "Baptist Meeting House" on Nassau Street at least as early as 1818, although oral tradition
identifies this structure as a carriage house rather than a formal church. Among the primary
objectives of an archaeological investigation of Lot M would be to locate this earlier structure,
and to explore its potential as a meeting place for the congregation of the eighteenth and early
nineteenth-century First Baptist Church.

27

Norfolk Gazette and Publick Ledger, ed. William Davis, July 28, 1813.

28

Isle of Wight County Will Book 13 (1809-1815) 342-343, recorded September 18, 1813.

539
History of Lot M
Little is known about the history or use of Lot M until the end of the eighteenth century.
Its location within James City County leaves few documentary avenues to explore, and the
available maps provide only the most cursory details. Both the Unknown Draftsman (1782) and
the Bucktrout Maps (1800) identify the lot as belonging to Charles Taliaferro, a chairmaker and
established businessman by 1761. Taliaferro owned a chairmaking and wheelwright shop and
later a store (by 1782) on Block 13, across the street from Lot M, but fronting on Duke of
Gloucester Street. The Frenchman's map (1781) indicates that he left Lot M undeveloped,
concentrating his house and business on the lots across the street. Jesse Cole bought Taliaferro's
Block 13 property after the latter's death in 1803, and is likely to have acquired Lot M in the
same transaction.
The use of Lot M by members of the First Baptist Church is believed to have originated
during Jesse Cole's ownership. Cole apparently donated a portion of the parcel for the
congregation's use, and by 1818, a "Baptist Meeting House" was identified as the southern
boundary of the Bryan Lot. The only recorded description of this structure, Eliza Baker's oral
history taken by Dr. Goodwin in 1933, suggests that is was a converted brick "carriage house,"
or "barn" that was in very poor condition by the time it was replaced by the 1855 structure.
Excavation following the 1955 razing of that building revealed sections of earlier brickwork
below the 1855 church.
Mid to late nineteenth-century use of the property is dominated by construction of a
formal brick church in 1855. Measuring 60' east/west by 30' north/south, the church was later
expanded through the addition of a small vestibule. A 1887 deed documents the church's $100
purchase of twenty feet of land for that purpose. Use of the southern portion of the lot--the field
that is presently indicated as the site of the First Baptist Church--during this period is unclear.
Sanborn maps indicate that there were three small dwellings at the corner of Nassau and Francis
Streets during the early twentieth century, but what these structures replace, if anything, is not
known.

Previous Archaeology
Previous archaeology on Lot M has focused on the northeastern portion, where the midnineteenth century church stood. In 1957, through the use of extensive cross-trenching, the
foundation of the recently demolished 1855 church was located and beneath this foundation,
sections of an earlier structure measuring 16.1' north/south by 20.1 east/west. Damage to the
earlier structure was extensive, and in addition to the many cuts caused by later church
construction, the west wall had been entirely robbed of brick. A concentration of brick and
mortar near the southwestern corner of this building were interpreted in 1957 as the remains of
entrance steps, with brick bat paving extending east toward Nassau Street.
A third foundation was located directly west of the earlier building. Measuring 6.5'
east/west by 12.5' north/south, this structure was identified as a privy, although the fact that no
underlying pit was mentioned either in field notes or in the Monthly Report would seem to

540
question this interpretation. All three of these structures--the 1855 church, the earlier brickwork
sealed beneath it, and the smaller outbuilding--presently lie under the paved driveway opening
onto Nassau Street.
Other archaeological features recorded on the northern half of Lot M include a fenceline
along the eastern boundary of the property, and a brick drain. The former may date to the period
of the earlier structure as the holes seem to stop at the edge of the fragmented brickwork.
Unfortunately it appears that the 1957 excavation may have missed the postholes in which the
posts themselves were seated, as only the round holes were recorded. The possibility that these
may have been nineteenth or twentieth century posts installed with a posthole digger was
considered in an earlier briefing [Samford 1983] and apparently rejected. The east-west running
brick box drain overlay the remains of the earlier structure and was probably associated with the
1855 church.

Archaeological Potential
There is no concrete evidence for any eighteenth century structure on Lot M, and the
congregation, based on its reported size, may not have met in a building. The earliest reference
to any structure on this site is 1818 (making this a nineteenth century structure). Jesse Cole
could not have given the land to the congregation before 1804, the documented date of his
purchase of it. There is a strong possibility that any earlier structure used as a church, lies
beneath the paved driveway along with the 1855 church foundation. Archaeological evidence
supports its existence in this location.
Unfortunately, no archaeological excavation has been conducted on the southern portion
of the lot--the site of the present field. It is not known whether the three late nineteenth or early
twentieth century dwellings recorded on the property had cellars, the excavation of which would
certainly have interfered with remaining eighteenth century evidence. If such disturbance is not
an issue, archaeological research on this southern section would provide information about the
site use over time. This would provide necessary information, in light of the paucity of
documentary sources, for the use of the site in the 18th and 19th centuries. Existing
documentary evidence (mainly maps and deeds) point only to the owner of the lot, and very little
can be gleaned about the life of its occupants from these sources.
With regard to the physical potential of the property, 1957 photographs suggest that about
a foot of fill dirt was deposited over the 1855 church site following its destruction. Mechanical
grading included in the 1965 driveway construction process may have been less destructive on
the northern section of Lot M due to this deposited "buffer." How far south this fill extends is
not known at this point, and there is a strong possibility that there are archaeological remains
close to or within the subsoil.
In summary, there are many positive reasons to initiate a search for the alleged carriage
house/"Baptist Meeting House." The project would underscore the Foundation's commitment to
a multi-cultural approach to historical research and interpretation. Present interpretation of
African American's religious experiences in the 18th century is already linked to this site.

541
Archaeological research of Lot M, while providing another perspective and supporting the search
for more information about the African-American experience, would further strengthen the
relationship with the African-American community in present day Williamsburg.
Unfortunately, based on what is presently known, the earlier meeting house is unlikely to
lie in the field to the south, as the marker would indicate, but rather under the 1855 church.
Excavation of the southern portion of Lot M may produce a more detailed history of the use of
this property (depending on the degree of disturbance caused by later construction), especially
during the tenures of Taliaferro and Cole, and it would certainly provide information that would
be useful in any decision making process for the future use of the site. However, archaeological
investigation is unlikely to produce evidence of a late eighteenth or early nineteenth century
meeting house.
Source: Department of Archaeological Research.

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH CHRONOLOGY

1776.

By tradition, date of the founding of the black Baptist church in
Williamsburg. As yet, no documentary evidence supports the claim

1781.

John Asplund‘s register of Baptist congregations in North America
published in 1794 gave this as the date the black Baptist church in
Williamsburg was ―constituted.‖ [An earlier edition (1790) did not list
black congregations.]

1791.

Baptist historian Robert Semple stated that black Baptists in Williamsburg
petitioned the Dover Baptist Association for admittance at the annual
meeting in 1791. Minutes of this meeting at the Baptist Historical Society
in Richmond do not mention the application. [See Robert B. Semple, A
History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia, Richmond:
1810, rev. 1894.]

1791.

Minutes of the (white) Dover Baptist Association meeting at GlebeLanding Meeting House in Middlesex County on 12 October state ―The
Baptist church of black people at Williamsburg, agreeably to their request,
was received into this Association, as they could not have done better in
their circumstances than they have.‖ Gowan Pamphlet and C. Bryan –
delegates from church at Williamsburg.

25 September 1793. Gowan Pamphlet manumitted by David Miller of York County.
1794-1801.

Delegates from church at Williamsburg attended the annual meetings held

542
at a different church each year. Gowan Pamphlet was always one of the
delegates, accompanied by various others, apparently free blacks, from
Williamsburg.
1802.

Williamsburg listed as a member church of the Dover, but no delegates
present at the meeting. This was not unusual – each year there are six or
eight member churches that do not send representatives.

1803-1807.

Pamphlet and other delegates from Williamsburg church attended the
annual meetings (absent 1804 but church listed).

1804.

Jesse Cole purchased Lot M and Lot 352 in Williamsburg.

1805.

Gowan Pamphlet listed as holding ¼ lot (location in town unknown) on
Williamsburg Land Tax List. He was taxed for 14 acres in James City
County as late as 1819.

1807.

Last year Gowan Pamphlet attended the annual Dover meetings.

1808-1817.

Church at Williamsburg sent delegates to annual meetings or listed as
member church if absent (absent 1811, 1815, 1816, 1817).

1818.

Williamsburg congregation not listed at annual meeting of Dover. First
documentary reference to ―Baptist Meeting House‖ on Nassau Street.
Jesse Cole purchased Bryan lot (351–see map). Williamsburg Land Tax
records stated boundaries of Bryan lot purchased by Cole as ―situated on
the Duke of Gloucester Street, bounded on the east by a cross street which
divides this lot [351] from Jesse Cole‘s lots [Taliaferro – Cole – 352], and
on the south by the Baptist Meeting House.‖ [Lot M]

1818.

Two delegates from Williamsburg again in attendance at Dover annual
meetings, both of whom had attended previously for the Williamsburg
church.

1818. Two Williamsburg delegates in attendance at annual meeting; elders from the Dover
Association appointed to visit the Williamsburg church and settle ―difference‖ there [no
explanation].
1821-1830. Church at Williamsburg sent delegates to annual Dover meetings (absent in 1821
but church appears in list of members). Dover minutes show membership of this
congregation to be between 600 and 700 these years.
1828. Zion Baptist [white] of Williamsburg constituted about this date.

543
1830. Zion Baptist applied for membership to the Dover Association. Mutual Assurance
Society policy taken out in May listed southern boundary of Lot 351 as Baptist Meeting
House [African Church].
1831. No delegate from African Church (Williamsburg), though listed in Dover Association
member list. Their meeting house was closed for at least part of the year October 1831October 1832 due to the ―insurrection in Southampton County‖ (Nat Turner‘s—August
1831).
1832. Delegates from African Church attended Dover meeting. Closure of their meeting house
reported. Zion Church accepted into Dover Association (75 members). Zion met in the
Powder Magazine.
1833. Dover annual meeting held in Williamsburg. African (400 members) reported they were
allowed to meet again. Zion—136 members.
1834-1838. African Church delegates attended annual Dover meetings or church listed as
member when delegates absent. Membership these years around 400 (all black, or
―colored‖ to quote the minutes). Zion Baptist also attending—membership about 200,
well over half black.
1839-1842. African Church not listed and no delegates sent. Zion attending (1842—188 black
members, 198 white).
1843. African Church, Williamsburg, ―recently reorganized,‖ accepted into Dover Association.
It lists membership at 45 total (all black). White persons now representing African
Church at Dover meetings. Zion in attendance with 419 members—about half white and
half black.
1844-1860. African Church and Zion Church were both attending annual Dover meetings. By
1850 Williamsburg African had 298 members (all black); Zion 439 members (168 white,
271 black). Some time after 1845 but before 1860 a brick church was built to replace the
carriage house. Eliza Baker, a black woman born in Williamsburg, remembered (in 1933
memoir) attending church first in a carriage house or barn, then in a brick church that
slave owners helped build.
11 May 1856. African Baptist‘s new brick building on Nassau Street dedicated.
5 July 1857. Zion Baptist‘s new building on Market Square dedicated.
c. 1860-1861. Memoirs of Mr. John S. Charles and Mrs. Victoria Lee (c. 1933) described
African Church as looking in ‘33 much as it did in 1860 or ‘61.
1866. All black members and churches withdrew from white Baptist associations (Dover
included) and formed their own associations.

544
1867. The minutes of a 1910 session of the Virginia Baptist State Convention (black) recorded
this date as the date the First Baptist Church in Williamsburg was admitted to this body.
1872-1910. Printed minutes for the Virginia Baptist State Convention began in 1872; First
Baptist represented by J.M. Dawson at 1872 session. Minutes scattered after that and
First Baptist not mentioned in extant minutes. J.M. Dawson again listed as delegate from
First Baptist at the 1910 session.
1885-1887. Articles of agreement between Robert F.Cole and the trustees of First Baptist
Church, dated January 1, 1885, for twenty feet of land running east and west out to
Nassau Street. The church paid $100 for this portion of Lot M (they presumably had title
from Jesse Cole for the remainder from an earlier date but no deeds are extant). The
purchase price was paid off on June 23, 1887.
1910-present. Not specifically investigated but I believe church continuous these years, meeting
on Nassau Street until 1955, then on Scotland Street.

Foodways Programs
The following information about slave cooks is from Pat Gibbs, ―Daily Schedule for an
Eighteenth-Century Cook,‖ Colonial Williamsburg Interpreter, May 1986.
How essential was a good cook to the smooth running of a household? The words of two
Williamsburg residents suggest they considered a good cook second only to a good wife.
Thomas Jones reported ―much disorder with our Servants‖ in his 1728 letter to his wife who was
then visiting in England. Venus, in particular, had become ―so incorigable in her bad Habits‖
that she would not ―send in a dish of Meat fit to Set before any body‖ and Jones had resolved ―to
send her up to some of the Quartrs.‖
At the death of his wife Elizabeth in mid-August 1787, George Wythe found that
―necessary domestic duties occupied so much of his time….He was irritated and vexed by a
thousand little occurances he had never forseen.‖ During this period he became even more
dependent on Lydia Broadnax, the Wythes‘ cook. In recognition of her faithful service, Wythe
freed Lydia on August 20, 1787, two days after his wife‘s death, and testified she was more than
forty-five years old. Although free, Lydia continued as Wythe‘s cook until his death.
We can assume that most black cooks, the vast majority of whom were female slaves, fell
somewhere between incorrigible Venus and faithful Lydia. Generally the cook was the most
skillful female slave and the one on whom the household was most dependent. She ranked at the
top of the domestic hierarchy in well-to-do eighteenth-century Virginia urban households, which
were usually staffed by several other black women who cleaned, gardened, laundered, helped
care for the children, and did other chores their mistresses ordered them to do.
Preparing food over a hot fire was a hazardous occupation, and alertness was an essential
characteristic of a good cook. The register that lists York County free blacks from the late
eighteenth through the first quarter of the nineteenth century describes many women with burn
scars on their faces, arms, hands, breasts, and legs. Sarah Williams was described as ―a dark
mulatto about 17 years of age 5 feet 5 Inches high a large scar on the left arm from a burn or

545
scald & one over the right eye.‖ ―Comfort (alias Comfort James),‖ was described as ―a very
black woman about 34 years of age 5 feet 1 ½ inches high has lost several teeth, verry grey, she
has a large scar on the breast occasioned (as she says) by her being frequently employed over the
fire.‖
Cooks worked long hours beginning before sunrise and extending into early evening, and
the work was physically demanding. Lifting heavy iron pots and huge brass kettles was tiring, as
were carrying wood into the kitchen (30 large pieces a day by conservative estimate), hauling
countless buckets of water (wooden buckets full of water weigh about 20 pounds), and bending
over fires year-round (recent cooking experiments recorded temperatures over 170 degrees
Fahrenheit on the hearth). Although the drudgery continued through the day, there were slack
periods, such as after dinner, when cooks could slow their pace. However, watchful mistresses
made certain their slaves, unless they were sick, were never idle.
The cook‘s work, although often mundane and repetitive, had certain advantages. Cooks
tasted foods being prepared and had first call on leftovers returned to the kitchen from the
mistress‘s table. They often slept in a room adjoining or above the kitchen. Because of their
close relationship with their mistresses, the cooks frequently received hand-me-down clothing
and household effects. They usually accompanied their mistresses to market, which gave them
several opportunities each week to leave the property. The mistresses‘ desire to try out new
recipes occasionally gave cooks a break in their routine. An elderly Monticello slave named
Isaac, interviewed in the 1840s, recalled this scene from his boyhood: ―Mrs. Jefferson would
come out there with a cookery book in her hand & read out of it to Isaac‘s mother how to make
cakes, tarts & so on.‖
A skilled cook knew more than how to prepare a variety of foods using an assortment of
equipment that became more varied as the century progressed. A sense of timing was essential.
All parts of a meal had to be ready to send to the table when they were called for. She also
needed the ability to make-do and master the art of disguise when the gravy burned, the cake fell,
or the carefully garnished platter overturned.
When the master of the household or his dinner guests praised the meal, the mistress took
credit but we can only hope, if she was truly a ―Lady,‖ that she complimented the cook at the
earliest opportunity.
As you read through the schedule, assume that part of the time the cook was assisted by
another slave woman and slave children who—although requiring varying attention depending
on their ages—could stir a pot, watch a fire, turn the spit, or haul wood:
About 5:30 A.M. over an hour before most members of the household rise, the cook
rekindles the fire, draws water, and puts it on to heat for family and general kitchen use. She
feeds any chickens kept in the fattening pen and milks the cow if the family lives on the outskirts
of town and has one.
About 6:30 – 7:30 A.M. she kneads dough for the hot bread eaten by the family for
breakfast and mixes cornbread for the other house slaves and their children. She preheats the
Dutch oven.
During cold weather the family and slaves often breakfast on milk hominy, prepared the
previous evening and cooked slowly through the night.
About 7:30 A.M. she bakes the family‘s bread in the Dutch oven, makes coffee or tea,
sets out milk and butter, and slices ham to be taken into the house for the family‘s breakfast.
About 8:00 A.M. she sends breakfast in to the family who generally have the first meal of
the day in the dining room. The slaves eat in the kitchen.

546
About 8:30 A.M. she cleans up the kitchen, puts away breakfast food, and washes pots
and pans and dishes used by the slaves.
About 9:00 A.M. the mistress of the house comes to the kitchen, gives orders for dinner,
measures out ingredients, recites recipes if the cook is uncertain how to cook something, and
instructs the cook on special orders for the day.
On Wednesdays and Saturdays the mistress of the house and the cook go to the market
for fresh produce and meat.
About 9:30 A.M. – 2 P.M. the cook begins dinner preparations, attends to or supervises
dairying chores, and possibly does some gardening.
During slack periods she may spin or knit, draw more water, and split kindling. Older
slave children on the property assist with some of the chores.
Occasional duties include preserving food, making soap and starch (unless purchased),
roasting coffee beans, making small beer, and helping with the laundering, sewing, and mending.
About 2 P.M. she has dinner prepared and ready to be taken into the dining room. The
slaves eat in the kitchen.
About 2:30 –7:30 P.M. she cleans up the kitchen, prepares dough or pastry, spends time
working in the garden, spins, cards, knits, splits kindling, and completes activities begun in the
morning.
About 7:30 P.M. she prepares supper.
About 8 P.M. she sends supper into the dining room for the family.
About 8:30 P.M. she cleans up the kitchen and mixes yeast dough for the next day‘s
breakfast bread for the family. Later she banks the kitchen fire.
Only when her work is completed, does the cook have free time to spend with her family
and friends. As a much needed member of the household staff, she rarely gets a regular day off
each week. When she does, she often prepares some food ahead of time for others to serve.
Source: Pat Gibbs, ―Daily Schedule for an Eighteenth-Century Cook,‖ Colonial Williamsburg
Interpreter, May 1986.

The Geddy House
James Geddy Senior, a gunsmith, and his sons—David, William, and James Junior—lived in and
operated shops in Williamsburg from about 1737 to 1777. The inventory of the elder Geddy‘s
estate included brasswork for guns, a turner‘s lathe, bullet molds, and gunsmith‘s, cutler‘s, and
founder‘s tools. In 1751, David and William Geddy advertised that they carried on these trades in
their shop on Palace Green. James Geddy Junior worked as a silversmith, goldsmith, and watch
repairer from 1760 to 1777. The following discussion focuses on the younger James Geddy.
James Geddy Junior was one of the twelve members of the Geddy household during the
1747/8 Smallpox Epidemic. Doctor de Sequeyra noted that ten individuals recovered from the
disease and that an ―old Negro Man & Woman‖ died. The woman was probably the ―old Negro
woman named Betty‖ valued at £5 in the November 1744 inventory of James Geddy Senior‘s
estate. It is possible that Jack, a boy worth £30 in 1744 was the only Geddy slave to survive the

547
epidemic.29 The widow Geddy and her children—David, James, William, John, Ann, Mary,
Elizabeth, and Sarah—recovered from the smallpox.
The younger James Geddy purchased Lot 161 on Duke of Gloucester Street and the Palace
Green from his mother in August 1760. The following month he entered into a lease with two
merchants, Hugh Walker of Williamsburg and Hugh Goode of London. Geddy leased them part of
the house on Lot 161 for fifteen years. The first evidence that Geddy owned a slave was in August
1766. The baptism of Christopher, the son of Geddy‘s slave Grace, was recorded in the Bruton
Parish Register. He added to his labor force in 1768 when he purchased Nanny and her daughter
Sukey Hinderkin from the estate of Francis Fauquier for £51..05. Sukey Hinderkin died between
the time Geddy agreed to the purchase and the time that he gained possession of Nanny. Fauquier‘s
executors deducted £10 from the purchase price after the death of the enslaved girl.
An announcement that Geddy placed in the October 4, 1770 issue of the Virginia Gazette
indicates that he decided to sell two of his slaves. He noted that he had ―a likely Negro Wench,
about eighteen years old, with her child, a boy‖ for sale.30 Geddy probably kept Nanny and Grace in
his household and conveyed a third woman. If Grace were the woman in the advertisement, she
would have been fourteen years old when her son Christopher was born in 1766. Nanny, Grace,
and any additional female slaves helped Elizabeth Geddy with domestic work—cooking, cleaning,
and doing laundry.
Geddy failed to turn in a list of his tithes in 1774. The justices of the peace ordered his nine
tithes to be added to the list for Bruton Parish in November of the same year. The silversmith
neglected to report his nine tithes three years later. Geddy, William Waddill (a journeyman
silversmith and engraver), and any apprentices or other journeymen in his shop were part of the
group of nine tithes in both 1774 and 1777. His sons were probably too young to be counted as
tithable workers on either list. Nanny and Grace continued to work in the house under the
supervision of Elizabeth Geddy. There is no evidence that Geddy relied on enslaved men to work in
the foundry.
The silversmith decided to sell his Williamsburg house and shop in 1777. He was a resident
of a 400-acre plantation in Dinwiddie County by December 1778 when he conveyed Lot 161 to a
Williamsburg merchant named Robert Jackson. The move to the Southside might not have broken
all of the ties that Geddy‘s slaves had to other enslaved men, women, and children in
Williamsburg. Members of several Williamsburg families—the Blairs, the Burwells, the
Powells, and the Everards—also took their enslaved men, women, and children with them to
their new homes in Petersburg or to their plantations in Dinwiddie County in the 1770s and the
29

The elder James Geddy also owned an enslaved man named Kircandy. In February 1739/40, the justices of the
peace found Kircandy not guilty of breaking into the house of John Coke, a silversmith, and stealing diverse goods
from him. Four years later, Kircandy admitted that he broke into Sarah Packe‘s storehouse and stole ―1 peice of
Scotch Cambrick of the value of 50 Shillings & 16 Shillings of Spanish coin‘d Silver.‖ He denied taking tea from
the widow Packe. The justices of the oyer and terminer court decided to sentence Kircandy to death. They allowed
£60 to Geddy‘s estate as compensation for the enslaved man. York County Orders and Wills (19) 310-311, dated
August 30, 1744.
30

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., October 4, 1770.

548
1780s. In addition, Geddy‘s daughter Ann moved to Mecklenburg County with her husband
John Brown in 1775 and to Richmond by December 1781.
The 1782 Dinwiddie County Personal Property Tax List provides the first evidence of
Geddy‘s slaveholding after his move from Williamsburg. This list included the names of sixteen
slaves owned by Geddy. Billy, Peter, Cyrus, London, Gregory, Jack, Nanny, Grace, Nan, and Alice
were over sixteen years of age. Will, Dick, Will, Clem, Ned, and an unnamed child were less than
sixteen years old. The following year Billy, Gregory, Primus, Jack, Nan, Nanny, Grace, Alice, Will,
Dick, Kitt, Clem, Ned, and Amy were the eleven adult slaves in Geddy‘s possession. The names of
the six slaves under sixteen were not included on the tax list. Geddy was a resident of Petersburg by
October 1783. It is likely that he moved several bond laborers from his plantation to his new home
in Petersburg. In 1784 he paid a tithe on seven bond laborers in Dinwiddie: Billy, Carpenter
Gregory, Grace, Nan, Nanny, Alice, and Kitt. Geddy had four enslaved children—Lucy, Clem,
Ned, and Amy—on his plantation.31

The Gunsmith
Virginia‘s legislators used access to guns as a way to create a distinction between white and
black residents of the colony as early as 1640. They decided that all persons, except blacks, were
to be provided with guns. However, the law did not prevent a black man—free or enslaved—
from owning a firearm. Perhaps the colony‘s leaders passed this law so that the white men
would be able to defend themselves and families against an attack by the Native Americans.
In the aftermath of Bacon‘s Rebellion the colonial leaders decided that slaves were not to carry
guns. The colonial legislators did not prevent free black men from serving in the militia until
1723 when they decided that free men of color could be punished if they attended a muster.
Thereafter, only free black men who headed a household on the frontier were allowed to possess
a gun, powder, and shot. During the late 1720s and the early 1730s slave unrest caused
Virginians to worry about the possibility that free blacks would assist enslaved persons in a
rebellion. The members of the General Assembly increased the restrictions on free black men by
1738. If these individuals were still a part of a local militia they were to serve only as a
drummer, trumpeter, or pioneer. However, the shot and gun parts excavated from mideighteenth century slave quarters demonstrates that the laws were not always observed.
The legislation that prevented slaves and free black from owning guns did not state that they
could not learn how to make firearms. However, the fear that whites had of armed blacks and by
extension, of slaves having knowledge of gunsmithing and repair, resulted in the fact that there
were only a few African-American gunsmiths in colonial Virginia.

****

31

Dinwiddie County Personal Property Tax Lists, Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia. The first extant
Petersburg Personal Property Tax List is the roll from 1788; this list does not include the names of bond laborers.

549

July 5, 1727—Indenture of a Free Black Man to a Gunsmith in Princess Anne County
The Princess Anne County court ordered that ―David James a free negro be bound to Mr. James
Isdel who is to teach him to read the Bible distinctly also the trade of gunsmith that he carry him
to the Clarks office & take Indentures to that purpose.‖
Sources: Harold B. Gill Jr., The Gunsmith in Colonial Virginia, (Williamsburg, Virginia:
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1974), p. 16; see also James B. Whisker, The Gunsmith‘s
Trade, (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), p. 109.

1755—Slave Blacksmith to Be Hired
Ephraim Gooseley was a blacksmith and a gunsmith in Yorktown. He had three white servants
and one enslaved man at the time of his death in 1751. Four years later his widow, Martha
Gooseley, announced that she would hire a slave man ―who strikes very well to a Blacksmith.‖
This slave worked as a blacksmith and it is possible that he also assisted Gooseley when he made
and repaired firearms.
To be SOLD, by the subscriber, in York Town, on Monday the 21st Instant, being York Court
Day,
A Complete Sett of Black-Smiths and Gun-Smiths Tools, some Bar-Iron and Steel, Lead, Pots,
Crucibles, Brass Pump Chambers, Mounting for Harness, &c. &c. Six Month‘s Credit will be
allowed, the Purchasers giving Bond and Security as usual to
Martha Gooseley.
N. B. To be hired at the same Time, a Negro Fellow who strikes very well to a Blacksmith.
Sources: Virginia Gazette, July 11, 1755.

1780—Inventory of John Rawlinson
John Rawlinson, a free black shoemaker, died in 1780. Unlike the inventories of two other free
black men who lived in York County during the eighteenth century—Matthew Ashby and
Edward Berry of Charles Parish—Rawlinson owned a gun.
―1 Gun £ 150‖
Source: York County Wills and Inventories (23) 49, dated November 27, 1780 and recorded
May 17, 1784.

550
The Harness and Saddlemaker
In 1775, three of Williamsburg‘s harness and saddlemakers—Alexander Craig, Gabriel Maupin,
and John Sheppard—were slave owners. There were close connections among these men—
Maupin married Craig‘s daughter, and Sheppard worked for Craig before opening his own shop.
Alexander Craig
Alexander Craig purchased Lot 25 in the Waller Subdivision from Benjamin Waller on
February 17, 1748/9. He probably established his harness and saddlemaking business on this lot.
An apprentice shoemaker named William Welton assisted Craig in his shop before he ran away
in 1751. Craig bought a portion of Lot 55 on Duke of Gloucester Street in January 1755. He
leased the shop on the property to James Currie, a wigmaker, soon after he acquired it. It is
possible that Craig moved his shop to Lot 55. A 1763 entry in his account book indicates that he
was building a new shop.
Craig and his partners—Christopher Ford (a carpenter) and Nicholas Sim (a tanner)—
established a tannery on Capitol Landing Road in the 1750s. He bought his partners‘ interest in
the operation in 1758. He had ―Tan Vatts…New and Old Bark Houses, Mill House and Fleshing
House…other houses and buildings…used in the Business of Tanning and making Leather‖ on
the property in 1760. Craig probably hired a tanner named William Pearson to operate the
business after Sim moved to Petersburg in 1758.32 Pearson purchased Lots 2 and 3 in the Waller
Subdivision from Craig on November 17, 1760. Pearson gained possession of the land on which
the tannery was located. Craig retained possession of the buildings ―used in the Business of
Tanning and making Leather.‖33
Craig‘s account book contains details about his labor force and the items that he and his
workers produced. The saddler hired three leather workers: James Hern, a harness maker; and
John Sheppard, a harness maker. Craig also turned to James Taylor, a shoemaker, and James
Swain, a leather breeches maker, when he needed extra assistance. Robert Nicholson bought
shoes made in Craig‘s shop for his ―Man‖ from Craig in 1751, the same year that blacksmith
Hugh Orr purchased shoes for his slave girls. His shop manufactured cushions for couches,
chairs, and even billiard tables. Craig also produced leather pipes for a fire engine, razor cases,
pistol belts, cartridge boxes, and scabbards in addition to his specialty—saddles and harnesses.34
The saddle maker sent his five-year old slave boy, Aberdeen, to the Bray School in 1762.
Three of his enslaved women gave birth to children in the 1760s: Nanny‘s son Henry was
Harold B. Gill, “Leather Workers in Colonial Virginia,”
(Colonial Williamsburg Research Report, 1966), pp. 65-66.
32

York County Deeds (6) 294-298, dated and recorded November 17,
1760. Pearson also bought Lots 1, 4, 5, and 6.
33

34

Gill, “Leather Workers in Colonial Virginia,” pp. 68-69.

551
baptized on April 7,1765; Alice‘s son James was baptized on June 5, 1768; and Sarah‘s child
was baptized on January 1, 1769. Craig owned three adult slaves who were baptized: Essex
Seth and William on November 3, 1765 and Judith in June 1766. There is no direct evidence
that any of Craig‘s male slaves assisted him in making harnesses or saddles (see below).
Craig died in January 1776. He bequeathed his slave wench, Judy, to his wife, Mary
Maupin Craig, during her lifetime. The March 1776 inventory of his personal estate included the
following slaves:
Old Will
Aberdeen
Old Judy
Lydia
Alice
Jamie
Patty
Sarah

£15
£75
£15
£25
£60
£25
£15
£50

In addition to Judy (also known as Old Judy), the widow Craig gained possession of her
husband‘s adult female slaves and the slave children. She owned the following slaves in1783,
1784, and 1786:
1783—Lydia, Alice, and Sarah over sixteen
Jemmy and Patty under sixteen
1784—Alice and Sarah over sixteen
Patty and Jemmy under sixteen
1786—Jamie, Alice, and Sarah over sixteen
Patty under sixteen

Gabriel Maupin
Gabriel Maupin, grandson of the tavern keeper Gabriel Maupin, was both the proprietor
of a tavern and a saddler maker. In September 1767 he informed "those Gentlemen who used to
frequent the house of Mrs. Mary Page, deceased, and all others who please to favour me with
their company, that they may depend on the best accomadations, and other entertainment" from
him. He also noted that he planned to continue his saddle and harness making business.35
Maupin moved to the lot where his mother-in-law, Mary Page, had kept her tavern. It is possible
that his slave women Nanny and Rachel helped his wife Easter with the cooking and the cleaning
at the tavern. Nanny was the mother of Amy who was baptized on December 2, 1764. Rachel's
daughter, Judith Bray, received her baptism on November 6, 1768.
35

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., September 24, 1767.

552

Maupin also owned land in James City County. In 1768 he paid the assessment
on nine tithes and 360 acres. The following year the count of his tithes increased to thirteen. He
described his plantation as being near Williamsburg in August of 1770. Perhaps Maupin's rural
slaves produced the food that his urban slaves cooked and served to the customers at his tavern.
It is possible that the enslaved individuals on his James City County plantation included the
"valuable Negro Man" who "was waylaid, and stabbed in three different Places, by a Negro of
Mr. Saunders's, of which Wounds he died in the Night following" in October 1774.36
Gabriel Maupin bought the Market Square Tavern from Thomas Craig and
announced in September of 1771 that he would be ready for business at the next meeting of the
General Court. Maupin noted that he was in the process of "making considerable Additions and
Improvements, for the purpose of KEEPING TAVERN." He also planned to move his shop "to
the above Place, where the SADDLERY and HARNESS MAKING Business will be carried on
in all its Branches. Those who please to employ me may be assured of being furnished with neat
and substantial Work, at short Notice, and on reasonable Terms."37 In addition to the slaves who
worked in his tavern and his shop, Maupin had an indentured servant. John Wilson, a waggoner,
ran away from his master in January 1777. It is possible that he carted food items to the Market
Square Tavern from the tavern keeper's plantation in James City County. There is no evidence
that Maupin operated a tavern after 1777.38 Perhaps Maupin decided to concentrate on his work
as a saddle maker after the death of his father-in-law, Alexander Craig, in January 1776.
Maupin had nineteen slaves in Williamsburg in 1783, seventeen enslaved laborers the
following year, and eleven slaves in 1786:
1783—Marreah, Beck, Matt, Sall, Tillie, Neator, Charles, and Caesar over sixteen
Judy, Mary, Cloe, Billy, Sam, James, Isham, Fanny, Tillie, Nancy, and
Ariana under sixteen
1784—Charles, Aberdeen, Beck, Judy, Mary, Sam, and Mariah over sixteen
Billy, Moll, Sall, Tillie, James, Isham, Fanny, Cloe, Phillis and Nanny
under sixteen
1786—Charles, Tillie, Beck, Sall, and Meriah over sixteen
Billy, James, Cloe, Nancy, Fanny, and Tillie under sixteen
It is possible that Maupin hired several of his slaves out to residents of Williamsburg and the
surrounding rural area each year. The fact that Maupin possessed a slave named Aberdeen in
36

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., October 20, 1774.

37

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., September 26, 1771.

Maupin owned a tavern which he insured with the Mutual
Assurance Society in 1796. James Moir was the occupant of the
tavern.
38

553
1784 suggests that he might have inherited this man from Alexander Craig. Perhaps Aberdeen
had some training in leather working in addition to the knowledge he gained at the Bray School.

John Sheppard
John Sheppard worked as a journeyman harness maker in Alexander Craig‘s shop from
1761 to 1762. Sheppard owned a slave man named Paul by 1767. He hired Paul to Lord
Botetourt for eighty-two days in 1770. This harness maker established his own business in 1772.
Sheppard neglected to list his four tithes—himself and three laborers—in 1772 and 1773.
Sheppard had five slaves in his household in 1783—Hannah and Andrew over sixteen
and Betty, Bristol, Clara, Nan, and Joseph under sixteen. In April 1785 he conveyed a girl
named Clara to his daughter, Nancy; Betty, a girl about fourteen years old, to his daughter,
Elizabeth; and Nan to his son, James.

Market Square
The following information about markets in The Chesapeake is excerpted from ―Provisioning
Early American Towns. The Chesapeake: A Multidisciplinary Case Study,‖ Final Performance
Report, National Endowment for the Humanities Grant RO-22643-93, 1997.
B. MARKETS IN THE CHESAPEAKE
The wealthy planter Robert Carter moved from his plantation to Williamsburg in 1761. Three
years later he was forced to purchase a ―small settlement‖ nearby to provision his family. He
explained that ―every family here have small Farms; which supply them with Articles to be
bought in good Markets.‖ He saw the paradox: ―such a Custom must inevitably bar every attempt
towards improving Markets.‖ Without a good market, town residents had to come up with a
system to provision their own households; without demand of these customers, it was difficult to
support a good market. Carter reluctantly followed the example of his neighbors and bought a
nearby farm.39
We do not know what Carter determined to be a ―good market‖ but no doubt implied good
quality food supplied at good price and with predictable supply. The market in eighteenthcentury Virginia was a civic institution, part of an economic system, and part of an urban cultural
landscape. This section will address the nature of the market, its history in the Chesapeake, and
its larger evolution in producers, consumers, and products.
The Nature of Markets
First, the public market was an important symbol of municipal action. Cities were governed by
councils, councils established rules of the market, clerks of the market collected fees and
monitored activities. (The fees were used to fund civic services from road repair to fire fighting.)
These rules insured that people had access to safe food at an affordable price. Municipal rules of
the marketplace included 1) setting prices that could be charged for certain commodities, 2)
39

Robert Carter to James Buchanan and Co. May 10, 1764. Letterbook of Robert Carter III of
Nominy Hall for the Years 1764-68. Manuscript, Special Collections, Colonial Williamsburg.

554
ensuring quality of food, 3) controlling times and places of operation, 4) renting out stalls at the
market house, and 5) levying fines or other punishments for those that transgressed those laws.
The size, number, order, variety and quality of markets were one way that travelers noted and
ranked the quality of urban life.
The public market house thus was a visible reminder of the ways in which government
intervened for the good of the populace. It needed to be a watchdog because the most important
commodities for sale there were perishables sold in measurable units. That meant that meat and
vegetables could be spoiled; weights and measures could be slighted. Entrepreneurs needed to be
monitored or the customer might be cheated.
Second, public markets were the direct urban symbols of local agricultural productivity and town
growth. They were a means to channel food produced in the hinterlands into urban populations.
Control was necessary to ensure that food moved from producer to consumer without forestalling
(selling food outside of the market) or engrossing (charging exorbitant prices that pushed out the
poor). Markets were thus about directing agricultural surplus at set prices and in set places into
the hands and mouths of consumers—from craftsmen to government officials—who were
involved in other economic activities. In the Chesapeake, the relation between agricultural
productivity and town growth was more complex. A critical mass of people was necessary to
make feeding nearby towns as profitable as growing export commodities like tobacco. Enough
people needed to congregate in one place to make a town market successful. It is this continuing
diversification of economic activity that led to a modern economy.
Thus, markets in colonial America were about an evolving economy that looked both forward
and backward. They looked backward to tight government controls, from the assize of bread
(controlling prices, qualities and sizes) to mercantilism (controlling the colonists' trading partners
and products). They simultaneously looked toward a more free market (laissez-faire) system of
capitalism that moved by the ―invisible hand‖ of supply and demand suggested by Adam Smith
in 1776. This more capitalist economy was based on cash and the cash equivalent of
commodities in a form of bookkeeping, and included prices based on profit and supply and
demand.
Third, public markets were part of an urban cultural landscape. Like courthouses, stores, shops,
and taverns, the market was frequented by a broad cross-section of urban society. It was a place
usually marked by a particular location in town—often near the courthouse—and a space usually
defined by particular uses and peoples. We might think of three groups of people in this space:
producers, consumers, and passers-through and passers-by. Producers can be divided into two
groups, those that were formally attached to the market through the rental of stalls in the market
house and those that vended other forms of produce such as fruits, vegetables, and poultry. The
first group—the butchers—were usually wealthy enough to be able to gain the trust of the town
council and to pay the rent for the stalls. The second group was far more likely to be the peoples
on the margins of society—the enslaved, free blacks, and women (of varying social ranks based
on class and marital status). This reflects the buoyancy of the little known informal economy that
is only now being studied and understood.

The History of Markets in the Chesapeake
Providing a means of supplying food to townspeople was one of the earliest concerns of Virginia
lawmakers, and they followed English custom of ensuring food supply through governmental
control. The ideal market in England centralized the supply of food in one place, controlled
quality, and ensured a just price to the citizens. An important goal was to prevent the action of
middlemen who might buy up local food supply for export or enhanced profit and lead to dearth

555
and high prices. For instance, the Wiltshire market was regulated in March 1564. Early in the
morning, before the market started, grain sellers had to agree to prices with local officials. At 9
a.m. the bell was tolled twenty times and the market was officially open for transactions. For the
first two hours, only small purchases could be made (less than two bushels), and the grain was
meant to be for the use of the buyer. At 11 a.m. the bell was tolled another twenty times. Grain
could then be bought by wholesalers or those who resold it in some form, such as bakers,
brewers, and badgers as granted by license from a Justice of the Peace. Grain buying was
restricted to market day, and no one was supposed to buy who had sufficient quantities of their
own.40
These regulations clearly demonstrate how the ―ideal‖ market was no longer reality by the
sixteenth century. These measures were to prevent middlemen; they undoubtedly existed or there
would be no attempt to disfranchise them. The supply of bread—here in the form of grain to be
processed by householder—was the paramount concern. Of course, laws are often only the
mirrors by which we see the prevalence of infractions. There is no real sense of how well these
regulations were enforced, but probably only time of dearth prompted strict adherence.
As early as 1649, the privilege was granted to Jamestown to hold a weekly market on
Wednesday and Saturday and a market place was bounded. All ―bonds, bills, or other writings
upon any bargains‖ made between eight a.m. and six p.m. in the market place on market days
that were attested under the clerk of the market were considered legal judgements and had
special protection at law. The governor appointed the clerks who were paid an annual fee and
kept records. In only six years, the markets were considered a failure and all laws were repealed.
Nonetheless, the burgesses recognized the value of a good market and optimistically decreed that
anyone could solve the problem by settling on a place where merchants would ―willingly come
for the sale or bring of goods‖ would be ―lookt upon as benefactors to the publique.‖41
This recognition that markets were for public good continued to undergird government action. A
proper town should have a proper market. As Virginia officials mulled the movement of the
capital from Jamestown in May 1699, a group of savvy students at the College of William and
Mary held a celebration attended by the Governor and the Assembly. The speeches pointed out
the many reasons that the capital should be moved to the area of Middle Plantation. One declared
that a market would be of great assistance to the College because with it ―the college itself might
be enabled to keep houses, or the neighbours about this place might be better supplyd with all
things necessary for our good lodging & Diet.‖42 The act moving the capital from Jamestown to
Williamsburg in 1699 included the right of the governor to grant the liberty and privileges to
hold market and fairs. A 1705 act provided for twice-weekly market days in towns.
Government officials continued to stress the importance of establishing markets, but little action
seemed to follow. Williamsburg‘s town layout in 1705 included a place set out in the middle of
town for a market, but no market house was built. The swelling of the population during public
times in the capital made a market seem necessary. Governor Spotswood noted the need in 1710
to the Council and the Council recommended weekly markets at Williamsburg as a ―great benefit
to the said Town, and the Neighouring Inhabitants, and a Conveniency to the people of the
40

Mark Overton, Agricultural Revolution in England: The Transformation of the Agrarian
Economy, 1500-1850 (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 135-136.
41
Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 362, Vol. III, p. 397.
42
―Speeches of Students of the College of William and Mary Delivered May 1, 1699,‖ William
and Mary Quarterly 10, 2nd ser., 1930, p. 329.

556
country who have occasion to resort there.‖43
Again, no action seemed to be taken. A decade later the town was incorporated and the charter
granted specific privileges to town officials to hold a market twice weekly and charge tolls on all
―Cattle, Goods, Wares and Merchandizes and other Commodities as shall be sold in the said
Markets … as shall be by them thought reasonable.‖ These taxes were not to exceed ―six Pence
on every Beast and three Pence on every hogg and the twentieth part of the Value of any such
Commodity sold therein.‖ Town residence was encouraged by cutting the toll in half for the
freemen inhabitants.
With the incorporation of Norfolk in 1736, the institutional framework was now in place in
Virginia‘s two incorporated towns for regular markets to occur. Incentive through taxing power
was given to city government officials to make it happen. As most of the city bylaws, ordinances
and orders have not survived, little is known of the market‘s functioning in Williamsburg.
Numerous ordinances are extant for other towns, particularly after the right to hold markets was
extended to all towns after the Revolution. It is thus possible to piece together more of the story.
The problems experienced in setting up formal institutions and legally dictated behaviors of food
provisioning help explain why Robert Carter may have been so inconvenienced as to buy a
nearby farm in the middle of the eighteenth century. The major need for a market was at public
times; most inhabitants probably managed to somehow provision themselves. Hugh Jones did
not detail how or why but nonetheless found the town ―well stock‘d with rich Stores, of all Sorts
of Goods, and well furnished with the best Provisions and Liquors.‖44 A market house was
finally completed in 1757, exactly 150 years after the colony‘s founding.
Even after that final action in creating a true marketplace, the market may not have functioned
smoothly to ensure good quality foodstuffs. A blistering critique of market quality and prices
was published in the Virginia Gazette in 1768 by ―Timothy Telltruth.‖ He wrote of ―meat for
poverty not fit to eat, and sometimes almost spoiled‖ hanging in the market for hours. Vendors
charged what they liked, ―which is generally exorbitant enough, especially on publick times, or
when little meat is at market.‖ If a whole side of beef was not desired, the butcher charged an
extra penny a pound to cut it. Bakers sold underweight bread with ―unwholesome ingredients.‖
The letter writer complained that ―the bread they bake daily, and sell to the inhabitants, justly
entitles them to the pillary.‖ He compared that to the well-functioning market in Norfolk where
the magistrates ensured quality and prices and the butcher could only charge a farthing to cut
meat into smaller portions.45
―Timothy Telltruth‘s‖ complaint, perhaps exaggerated, is one of the few windows we have on
the market in Williamsburg. We might infer that his complaint had some cause from the praise
that one James City County resident heaped on the market in Baltimore. Jamestown resident
Mary Ambler kept a diary of her visit to Baltimore in 1770 to innoculate her children from
smallpox. She found the Baltimore market held twice weekly to be ―very fine,‖ and was
―surprised to see the nubr of People there & the variety of things for Sale.‖ She marveled that
―they say nothing can be thought of which is not brought in plenty to market.‖ The townspeople
depended on the market for their foodstuff. Whether cause or effect of the quality market, she
was told that there was not ―seven Gardens in the Whole Town.‖ 46
43

Executive Journals of the Council, III, p. 251.
Hugh Jones, The Present State of Virginia, pp. 30-32.
45
Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, July 7, 1768.
46
―Diary of M. Ambler, 1770,‖ Virginia Magazine of History and Biography XLV, no. 2 (April
44

557
The ability of townspeople to rely on consistent supply at markets for provisions was noted in the
same year in Philadelphia. The twice-weekly markets brought country people from surrounding
Pennsylvania and New Jersey where ―every produce of the season which the country affords‖
can be found. On the other days, ―they are sought for in vain.‖ Because of the ready supply, town
residents only bought what was necessary until the next market. In the summer, a market was
held daily to prevent problems with food preservation.47
The problems and issues of establishing a market were also felt in Annapolis. When the town
was laid out in 1693, a square was left open for a market-house. None was built until at least
1717. In 1716 the corporation decided to outlaw the door to door selling of ―flesh or fish, living
or dead, eggs, butter or cheese, (oysters excepted)‖ and build a market house. Until a market
house building could be constructed, sellers and buyers should meet at a flag staff on the state
house hill. Unlike Williamsburg, however, Annapolis built a market-house before mid-century.
This did not turn out to be a convenient location and the market was sold in 1752 and moved to
another location. Destroyed in 1775 in a severe thunderstorm, a new markethouse was built in
1784 by a group of wealthy Annapolis businessmen. This was a substantial structure taking
seven years to complete and cost over £550.

The Evolution of Markets: Producers, Consumers, and Products
Public markets continued to evolve to provide a wide range of foodstuffs to urban places. Public
markets were virtual tourist destinations. Travelers recorded their impressions because they were
public institutions to be evaluated to mark the quality of life and the hierarchy of urban
amenities. All markets provided meat and seasonal products of garden, orchard, streams, skies,
and woods. What differed was the number of days and hours they met, the quality of foods
provided, and what part of the population were suppliers. Three components were necessary for a
well-functioning public market: producers to bring agricultural foodstuffs, consumers to do the
buying, and public monitoring of quality and price for consumer protection. Producers came
from multiple walks of life, both rural and urban. Butchers had to pay stall fees and license fees
but seemed often to be poorer people. Other vendors were farmers and petty entrepreneurs.
Producers: Farmers and Petty Entrepreneurs
We know little about how farmers allocated their resources and organized their time to send
produce to market. Local farmers walked to town. Others had carts with hanging meat, and
smaller suppliers used wheelbarrows. Wealthy planters probably sent slaves with any plantation
surplus. Yet the large needs of supplying meat to towns could not be met locally, and the roads
must have occasionally been filled with livestock. Jacob Engelbrecht of Maryland witnessed a
flock of 400 turkeys passing his door on the way to the Washington market on February 3, 1826.
He estimated they walked eight miles a day.48
By the end of the eighteenth century, truck farming had emerged as a chief means to supply large
urban markets. Richard Parkinson described the farmer‘s wagon in the Baltimore area in the
1790s as something like a ―peddlars pack,‖ carrying butter, eggs, fruits, potatoes, turnips,

1937), pp. 156, 165-66.
47
Adolph B. Benson, ed., Peter Kalm‘s Travels in North America…1770 (New York: Dover
Publications, Inc., 1964), p. 30.
48
William Quinn, ed., The Diary of Jacob Engelbrecht, 1818-1878 (Frederick, Maryland:
Historical Society of Frederick County, 1976), vol. 1, n.p.

558
cucumbers, poultry, multiple kinds of flour, and chopped straw.49 Anne Ritson‘s poetic
description of Norfolk in 1809 helps to at least see how some farmers personally attended market
in the early morning hours:
The market chiefly is supply‘d,
By those who from the country ride,
Who wish their produce soon to sell,
Making their bargains quick and well,
And back to their plantations go,
To see their negroes dig and hoe.50
A number of petty entrepreneurs helped supply the market. These were most often the fringes of
society: slaves, free blacks, impoverished people, and women of varying stations. The crossing
of all ranks of society in the public market should come as no surprise as it was the first step into
petty capitalism. Because they kept few business records, it is difficult to know these petty
suppliers but by their occasional crossings into public record or private account.
The market was an important forum for surplus household production. For example, Norfolk
women of all ranks sold extra vegetables from their gardens and milk from their town cows.
Personal circumstance could also lead more well-to-do women to produce for the market. A
woman near Wilmington, North Carolina had a garden that supplied the town with vegetables,
melons, and other fruits. She also made baked goods—‖minced pies, cheese-cakes, tarts and
little biskets‖—which she sent to town once or twice a day, ―besides her eggs, poultry, and
butter.‖ She would not provide credit and kept her prices low enough (halfpence) to be normal
pocket change.51 Nancy Matthews‘ regular rounds of selling cakes in Petersburg made her easy
target for crime: she left her house in Petersburg to vend her goods and was robbed of all her
clothes.52 Poorer people also used the market as a way to raise the cash to pay for ―necessaries.‖
The wife of the impoverished John Juitt in 1734 ―used to raise things of several sorts which she
disposed of in town and thereby raised a little money.‖53
Slaves were common figures in the market place, running errands, carrying baskets, and selling
commodities—their own produce of their own labor, most often in the form of agricultural
products like poultry and vegetables. West Africans were no strangers to market sales and
market relations; Henry Drewel finds the Yoruba expression ―the world is a marketplace‖ (aye
l‘oya) a constructive metaphor for ―the dynamics surrounding transactions, the pushes and pulls,
the actions and reactions, the negotiations of living life.‖54 But the role of slaves in the
constructed economic market of the New World has only recently been understood. We now
know that from the Caribbean to the lower South, black men and women were the de facto
suppliers of foodstuffs for a broad cross section of the white and black urban population.
Barbara Sarudy, ―The Gardens and Grounds of an Eighteenth-Century Craftsman‖ (master‘s
thesis, University of Maryland, 1988), pp. 71-72.
50
Anne Ritson, A Poetical Picture of America (London, 1809), p. 39.
51
[Janet Shaw], The Journal of a Lady of Quality. Ed. Evangelina Walker Andrews (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1939), pp. 178-179.
52
Petersburg Hustings Court, May 6, 1793, p. 77. My thanks to Mick Nichols for this reference.
53
Anne Arundel County Court Judgments 1734: p. 251.
54
Henry John Drewal, ―Introduction: Yoruba Art and Life as Journeys,‖ in The Yoruba Artist:
New Theoretical Perspectives on African Arts, ed. by Rowland, Abiodun, Henry J. Drewal, and
John Pemberton III (Washington: Smithsonian Press, 1994), p. 195.
49

559
That system is not so well documented or understood in Virginia. Market regulations, by their
very quantity in Virginia towns, imply a strong African American presence. As early as 1764 a
committee was appointed in Norfolk to examine the problem of ―slaves … selling Cakes &c and
small Beer at the market and other public places.‖ Nine years later, another law prohibited
―Indians, mulattoes or negroes Bound or free from selling any kind of dressed meat, Bread, or
bakes, [sic] or retailing any kind of Beer or spiritous Liquors.‖ That the law was repealed in
1783, nonetheless, suggests that slaves and other marginal entrepreneurs were too important in
the supply of food to be prohibited.55 Later eighteenth-century regulations of Virginia towns did
not prohibit slave activity but tried to regulate it, most commonly through the requirement of
written permission by owners to prevent the sale of stolen foods.56 In the antebellum period, such
economic activity by slaves may have become even more prevalent. One visitor to the
Washington markets found that ―Negroes are the chief sellers.‖57
Slaves also frequently sold poultry from their yards and produce from their gardens to their
owners and others. The kitchen at Jefferson‘s Monticello was well supplied by plantation slaves
with chickens, eggs, vegetables and fruits. Jane Francis Walker Page in nearby Albemarle
County purchased multiple foodstuffs from slaves. Of the 28 people listed, a third were listed as
―old.‖ Ninety percent of the sales were of poultry and mostly, though not all, made by women.
That relation between slaves and the exchanging supply of food expanded to Page‘s supplying
consumer goods for foodstuffs with several women. 58
Public markets linked plantation and urban systems of exchange in critical ways. Given
permission, slaves traveled freely to carry produce from their owners or to vend their own
foodstuffs and poultry. A former slave recorded her memories of life in Franklin County in
western Virginia. She described how her former mistress gave her slaves Saturday afternoons
free and any of the slaves who chose could go into the town of Lynchburg to sell and purchase:
―Merry parties on foot followed the farm wagon, which was loaded with tobacco, brooms, nails,
baskets of fruit and vegetables in season, and various articles of domestic manufacture
contributed by the women, such as yarn, woolen cloth, sometimes a piece of rag carpeting or a
patchwork quilt. Small pigs in boxes, with baskets of eggs and chickens, completed the outfit.‖59
Market days were times to freely travel, sell, buy, see and be seen. The prevalence of slaves from
the country is seen in the new duty of the Alexandria constables appointed in 1810 to disperse
55

Norfolk Borough Records, 1 August 1764, 29 June 1773, 30 December 1783, reprinted in
Brent Tartar, ed., The Order Book and Related Papers of the Common Hall of the Borough of
Norfolk, Virginia, 1736-1798 (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1979), pp.142, 175, 217.
56
See, for example, Petersburg Common Council Minutes, 16 July 1785, Richmond Common
Hall, 2 January 1793.
57
Henry Bradshaw Fearon, Sketches of America (New York: Benjamin Blom, Inc., 1969), p.
287.
58
Anne Cary Randolph Slave Crop Accounts, reprinted in Gerard W. Gawalt, ―Jefferson's
Slaves: Crop Accounts at Monticello, 1805-1808,‖ in Journal of the Afro-American Historical
and Genealogical Society, vol. 13, nos. 1 and 2, Spring/Fall 1994. Jane Francis Walker Page
Commonplace Book, Virginia Historical Society. Amy Rider has recently completed a
sophisticated analysis of this book in ―The Castle Hill Commonplace Book and the Plantation
Mistress‘ World, 1802-45‖ (senior history honors thesis, Princeton 1997), p. 61.
59
Orra Langhorne, Southern Sketches from Virginia, 1881-1901. Ed. Charles E. Loynes
(Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1964), p. 117.

560
the slaves from the Sunday market at 9 o‘clock. Most specifically, their task was to ―see the
negroes from Maryland go over the river, to prevent the riotous play of boys of every
description, and of negroes on that day, and if country negroes, to cause them to leave town.‖60
But it was not just the physical movement of slaves in and out of towns that provided such
linkages. The knowledge of market prices was probably the most important commodity that
spread far beyond urban bounds. For instance, Spencer Ball‘s slave Dick of Prince William
County raised corn and watermelons on his truck patch and kept chickens, ducks, turkeys, and
geese. He credited the plantation mistress‘ largesse for she ―always gives me the price of the
Alexander market for my stock.‖61
The Williamsburg market was no different; slaves were common sights, vending produce, fish,
and baked goods. Their presence and economic activity were only remarkable when they
overreached their bounds of economic freedom and ran away. Robert Wormley Carter‘s 44-yearold slave Pheby had run away in September 1781. In January he advertised that she had been
―seen frequently in Williamsburg, about the market, selling cakes, oysters, &c.‖ Henry Broadnax
had a more complicated dilemma. He had purchased a man named Harry from the estate of
Nathaniel Crawley at Indianfield in York County at public auction. The slave had escaped and
his new owner suspected that he was concealed by some persons nearby. He had been told by his
new slave that ―he dealt very freely in Williamsburg in the oyster and fish way, in their seasons.‖
Broadnax was posting a warning to ―all that deal in that way with Negroes‖ to observe his
lengthy description and ―detect the villain if possible.‖62
Both of these slaves used the relative anonymity of the slave presence at market to escape notice.
Slaves commonly ran errands; many are recorded delivering food to the Governor‘s Palace. The
freedom to act as middlemen became even more pronounced in some markets. In Baltimore
where truck farming became an important business by the end of the eighteenth century, black
middle men were the common buyers and sellers in the wee hours of the morning. Richard
Parkinson complained that he could hardly compete within this black system of provisioning,
and thought the black entrepreneurs were able to disengage from the real world of enslavement
until their owners arrived some hours later.63
The location of markets also continued to evolve with the growth of towns. In smaller towns of
the colonial period, markets tended to be placed like their English equivalents: in central places
like the public squares of the courthouse. In larger urban cities of the northeast, markets were
usually found near water transport. For example, the markets of New York spread along the
riverbanks. In 1755, eight markets served an estimated population of 13,000, or about 1600
customers per market. This is similar to Williamsburg‘s ratio of customers to its single market in
1770. Nonetheless, by 1810 eight markets served 96,000 people, or 12,000 for each point of
distribution. These were distributed in a more ―rational‖ system like those described in centralplace systems. Market neighborhoods extended from about a quarter-mile to more than a mile.
60

April 16, 1810. Act published in the Alexandria Daily Gazette, Commercial and Political. My
thanks to Mick Nichols for this material.
61
John Davis, Travels of Four Years and a Half in the United States of America (London, 1803),
p. 388. Cited in Pat Gibbs, ―Hominy, Ashcakes, and other ‗Belly Timber‘: Slave Diet in the
Early Chesapeake to 1825‖ (position paper in progress, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation).
62
Virginia Gazette, or Weekly Advertiser (Richmond) 19 January 1782; Virginia Gazette, Rind,
May 26, 1768.
63
Sarudy, ―The Gardens and Grounds of an Eighteenth-Century Craftsman,‖ pp. 72-75.

561
By the early nineteenth century, these markets were no longer under the government control of
the earlier period, and may express more free market principals of location.64
With the growth of urban markets, the nature of the suppliers themselves had changed. In large
towns of the northeast, more people began to step in as middle men, preparing nightly carts for
an early morning trek or meeting market boats. On the Hudson River, market sloops brought
livestock, butter, eggs and other country produce to market where butchers, grocers, and heads of
household eagerly purchased. One Scotsman in 1821 found hucksters to be ―cheeky insolent
irish‖ carrying baskets with ―eatables,‖ such as citrus fruit and ginger cakes, anxious to ―parcel
out bargains.‖ 65 Slaves were also common suppliers as far north as New York but increased in
frequency down the Atlantic seaboard.
Consumers and the Experience of Marketing
As market exchange evolved from face-to-face business with known tradesmen, local slaves, and
rural neighbors, there may have been a change in how household marketing was carried out. The
economic transformation of the market both witnessed and produced such a change.
Few colonists recorded the day-to-day workings of marketing, so many questions remain. Who
did the marketing? Eighteenth-century published cookbooks were written for women, and
several authors (including Hannah Glasse, the most popular cookbook author in the colonies)
contain explicit instructions for marketing. When Mary Ambler visited Baltimore in 1770, she
found that ―Ladys here all go to markt to supply their pantry.‖66 In the same year in Montreal, a
traveler recorded that ―the daughters of all ranks, without exception, go to market,‖ buy
vegetables and other food and ―carry it home themselves.‖67
Eighteenth-century women of all classes were engaging in behavior appropriate to a female‘s
place as household manager. Nonetheless, the household labor of shopping may have shifted to
men in some towns during the early nineteenth century. Anne Ritson‘s poetical treatment of the
Norfolk market indicates that ladies would never go to market, and men spent their morning
hours buying the needed foodstuffs. The Scotsman visiting the New York markets in the early
1820s found that ―husbands both rich and poor go to market.‖ He described with some
amusement meeting an esteemed merchant with a ―plucked goose and some pidgeons dangling
in one hand and a species of cabbage stocks in the other.‖ He also recounted the shock of a
fashionable young English linen draper who ―commenced housekeeping and to market he must
go.‖ Not the custom in England for men to do the marketing, he thought to ―dangle a basket with
a shoulder of mutton and vegetables home to be indelicate.‖68 Male heads of household with
servants mixed with women in Alexandria and Philadelphia markets in the 1820s.69 These men
64

Nan A. Rothschild, New York City Neighborhoods: The Eighteenth Century (New York:
Academic Press, 1990), pp. 57-66.
65
―Narrrative of the Travels of a Scotsman from Glasgow,‖ 1821-1824 (New York: New York
Historical Society), p. 204.
66
―Diary of M. Ambler, 1770,‖ p. 156.
67
Benson, Peter Kalm‘s Travels in North America…1770, p. 184.
68
―Narrative of the Travels of a Scotsman,‖ p. 43.
69
For Alexandria, see Anne Royall, Sketches of History, Life, and Manners, in the United States.
By a Traveller (New Haven, 1826, reprinted New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1970), p. 102.
For Philadelphia, see ―The Autobiography of S. Dillwyn, Daughter of Dr. Phillip S. Physick and
Wife to Commander Conner, UNS, 1826,‖ Susan Conner Papers, Library, Independence
Seaport Museum, p. 39.

562
may have sent home their early morning purchases with servants and continued on their day‘s
work.
While this deserves much further study, a reorganization of household labor of this magnitude is
significant. Why would women in some towns stop doing household marketing? One
explanation may be that larger economic shifts in the social class of producers (a shift from
farmers to middle men, for example) may have made the markets a less savory place. As early as
1763, a New York lady complained of great rudeness and ill manners in our public markets,
particularly in times of scarcity. She described pushing and shoving and concluded that ―all that
are weak and peaceable like myself, have been excluded from purchasing in the market, by
rudeness and force.‖70 The Scotsman in New York was shocked at the insolent saucy behavior of
the Irish hucksters. Slaves became the major suppliers in many towns in the South. Anne Ritson
pointed out the distinction between women dealing with butchers (―none but of the lowest mein/
are ever with the butchers seen‖) and other suppliers of foodstuffs, more likely to be women
themselves.71 On the other hand, other cultural changes may have led to a reorientation of
affluent women‘s time to leisure shopping, reading, and other pursuits.
Butchers
Butchers were some of the most important players in the marketplace. In most cities, they were
licensed and charged fees to rent stalls in the markethouse. Complaints about the licensed
butchers abound; the market regulations in New York in 1782 complained of butchers
forestalling meat and other ―criminal abuses.‖ They particularly complained that butchers would
―blow‖ meat and stuff and add fat to meat and kidneys to hide poor quality and add weight. The
market butcher in Richmond was put on probation for forestalling meat.
Butchering usually took place at town edges, key distribution points for the delivery of rural
suppliers and where land was inexpensive for grazing. Town regulations were careful to forbid
slaughtering at the market place. Norfolk‘s slaughterhouses all lay at the edge of town. A
plantation on the Western Branch about nine miles from Norfolk was advertised as a prime
location for slaughtering. On the main country road from Suffolk to Norfolk and the road from
Carolina, it was convenient ―for the Carolina drovers to kill beef and pork at, having fine
pasturage.‖72 The town edges were also used in Williamsburg for slaughtering; Benjamin
Hanson‘s butchering operation lay west of town.
Less is known of the day-to-day workings of butchering operations. Moreau de St. Mery
described the slaughterhouses on the edge of Norfolk. The process was efficient. He wrote that
―the beeves are killed with a sledge hammer, their throats cut with a knife, and almost before
they have stopped breathing they are skinned.‖73 As processors, butchers either had to raise large
numbers of animals or arrange for their purchase. Most apparently did the latter. Thomas Wilkins
advertised that he would be willing to buy ―any beef, veal, mutton, lamb, shoat, etc. to dispose of
in Williamsburg.‖74 Daniel Wells of Annapolis was imprisoned for debt to another man for calf,
deer, and sheep in 1755, perhaps animals purchased but not paid for in his business. The
ancillary processing of animals included fat, tallow, and soap. All were found scattered in
―The Lady,‖ New York Gazette, January 10, 1763. Cited in Thomas F. De Voe, The Market
Book (New York, 1862; reprinted Augustus M. Kelley, 1970) p. 139.
71
Ritson, A Poetical Picture of America, p. 71.
72
Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, July 4, 1766.
73
Moreau de St. Mery‘s American Journey , p. 61
74
York County Biographical files; Virginia Gazette January 30, 1752.
70

563
butcher‘s inventories.
Butchers were lower-level craftsmen, and we know most about them through their debts, crimes,
and lack of wealth. Of the eight documented butchers in York County, most seemed to die poor.
Thomas Wilkins may have had some problems in his business; his book of debts was taken over
by William Cole in 1758. Benjamin Hanson was a free black mulatto of extremely humble
family. While the archaeological investigation of his butchery site shows an extensive operation,
his estate was so small at his death that the sheriff was ordered to administer. Joseph Vason
bought 6 2/3 acres from John Blair in 1764, but at his death his estate was similarly so small that
no one would administer. Stephen Brown was marginally much better off: he served in minor
country offices, owned two lots, yet his personal estate totaled only £17 in 1737. Richard Smith
in Yorktown is a particularly illustrative case of the marginality of butchers in society. He owned
lots in Yorktown and purchased livestock. He also received twenty-five lashes in 1739 for
stealing a shoat. He was similarly impoverished; his estate was too small to be administered. Just
prior to his death, he was accused of neglecting his children‘s education and they were bound
out. What caused that disapprobation is not noted, but it suggests a man without a support
network of friends. Only Patrick Matthews of Yorktown seemed to be a successful entrepreneur.
He owned multiple inexpensive lots and a warehouse near Yorktown in 1752. Perhaps his
success in Yorktown could be partially because he functioned outside of the public market
system. There was no regular market at Yorktown. When the Frenchman Rochefocualt-Liancourt
visited Yorktown at the end of the eighteenth century, he noted that ―each person furnishes
himself with meat in the best manner he can; and they are seldom unsupplied with it.‖75
Yorktown was also a bustling port at mid-century and would have needed large supplies of meat
to supply taverns and for export.
Most butchers in Annapolis were similarly from the bottom fringes of society. John Cummings
had to petition for relief at the age of sixty-two because he was too old to work as a butcher and
had no other means of support. William Metcalf was charged with assault. James Topper was
bound to Sarah Graham who paid a debt for him while a freeman.
Butchering skills were valuable commodities sought in both servants and slaves. William
Naylor‘s advertisement as a runaway servant paints a good picture: he was a ―short thick-set
Man, a butcher by Trade, speaks broad English, and is pretty much freckled.‖76 His
advertisement was signed by three men: Alexander Craig, Alexander Finnie, and John
Mitchelson. The linking of their names to the runaway butcher is perhaps revealing. Two of the
men needed the products of animal processing themselves: Craig was a sadler (hides) and Finnie
a tavern keeper (meat). Their linkage in business to owning an indentured servant butcher is
unknown. Some slaves were also skilled butchers. William Pasteur advertised that he would sell
a ―very valuable negro fellow‖ who has been ―regularly brought up to the butchering business.‖ 77
Butchering could also be part of a package of food skills. James Hubbard offered to hire out
―either in Williamsburg or the Country‖ a ―likely cook fellow, who is also a good Butcher.‖
Oystermen
If butchering clustered on the edge of town, the oyster and fish business lay near the waterways.
The sale of oysters and fish was an important part of supplying Williamsburg‘s food. Matthew
Duke de la ―Rochefoucault Liancourt, Travels through the United States of North America.
(London: R. Phillips, 1799), p. 22.
76
Virginia Gazette, May 24, 1751.
77
Virginia Gazette, August 19, 1780.
75

564
Moody Jr. was an active waterman who ―lived at the lowest house of Capital Landing.‖ He kept
―at all Times, fine Queen‘s Creek OYSTERS, fresh from the rocks, which will be dressed
agreeable to the Taste of those who may please to favour him with their custom, and with the
greatest Expedition.‖ He also could offer, tea, coffee, and a ―good BOWL OF PUNCH.‖78
Williamsburg merchant William Pasteur advertised that he planned to begin a business as ―oyster
merchant‖ in York County. Customers could purchase oysters open or in shells at his landing at
King‘s Creek.79 This business of supplying oysters and fish must have involved numerous
watermen. A runaway slave had ―dealt very freely in Williamsburg in the oyster and fish way.‖ 80
Bakers
The necessity of townspeople to supply themselves with bread was as basic—perhaps more so—
than meat. Nonetheless, it was a need that could be met in many different ways. There were
multiple levels of the processing in which they could participate—or opt out. Corn could be
ground at home into meal. Bread of various forms could be baked on the hearth or in a dutch
oven. Large brick ovens could be built at home or a housewife could take her dough to a
professional for baking. Professionals could be local women or more well-to-do-artisans. Biscuit
could be bought to replace other bread forms. Cakes and confectionaries could be sold at the
same place and time or by different providers. All of these choices make the provisioning of
bread in urban households more complicated to study.
Six bakers were identified in York County records. Like butchers, we know little about their
lives and businesses, but can piece together small biographies. William Sherman was born in
Bruton Parish in 1684 and was active in York County, appointed constable in Williamsburg in
1705. Like the many butchers studied, he owned land but was often in debt. A clear spiral to
insolvency can be seen. His servant sued for unpaid wages in 1707, in 1708 he sold off lots. In
the same year, he was sued for £210 sterling, and by September his estate had been evaluated for
debt and valued at £16. Nonetheless, these were not the household furnishings—six cane chairs,
a cane couch, and four leather chairs—of an indigent man,. He fled the county to avoid payment.
Peter Moyer was active in Williamsburg in the middle of the century and achieved rather marked
personal success. He owned five slaves, multiple urban lots, and in 1789, purchased 150 acres of
land near Burwell‘s mill pond. We can see glimpses of his business: Benjamin Weldon supplied
him with large amounts of wood.
The most well-documented Williamsburg baker is Cornelius DeForest and it is in his life that the
business of baking begins to emerge in terms of raw materials, equipment and product. He is first
noted as ―baker near the capitol‖ in Williamsburg in 1776. In the same year, Humphrey Harwood
delivered a large load of bricks and built an oven. While we know little of his earlier life, he was
probably a practicing baker elsewhere in Virginia before removing to Williamsburg. Landon
Carter sold him a large quantity of wheat in 1758. Carter remarked in his diary that he took
special care with what he sold him; he cleaned the wheat, removing twenty bushels of lesser
quality. (Carter thought DeForest got a bargain at his price and he ground it for free.)81 Finally,
DeForest was paid £75 by General Nelson for supplying bread for the militia in 1777. He died
one of the wealthier men in town in 1782; he owned ten lots, five slaves and his estate was
78

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, April 21, 1774.
Virginia Gazette, November 6, 1779.
80
Virginia Gazette, Rind, May 26, 1768.
81
Jack P. Greene, ed., Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, 2 vols
(Richmond: Virginia Historical Society, 1987), p. 230.
79

565
valued at £490.
Nicholas Scovemont was another baker in Williamsburg. Born around 1750, he was able to
purchase a lot by May 1773 and added another between 1782 and 1787. His slave Bagley (or
Bailey) ran away in 1777. He evidently was not returned, as Scovement was only taxed for a
young slave in 1783. While the records do not record his total business across time, records of
flour purchase in 1777 from Burwell‘s mill allow a tiny window on his business. He purchased
flour regularly from Burwell‘s mill in January, February, and March of 1777 and again in
August, September, November and December. Cash payments were made quarterly in March for
his winter and spring purchases and again in September, October, and December (in full). He
also picked up a little business outside baking when possible, advertising in 1779 the recent
importation from Hispaniola of rum and sugar. Interested customers could also have a ―few cards
of neat stone sleeve buttons‖ at his shop.82
Like the other food trades, baking could be a profession of marginal people with good credit
relations and networks. Nonetheless, the growth of commercial mills in the area and the
increasing export of biscuit meant that the need for bakers increased and perhaps their wages and
profits. Robert Carter built a bakehouse in conjunction with his wheat export business. He wrote
to Philadelphia in 1762 that a neighbor wished to hire ―a single Man well qualified in ye Bakers
Art‖ and that one who chose to accept the offer ―may expect Civil Treatment and receive Wages
punctually.‖83 By 1771, Robert Bolling of Petersburg was also in the market for a baker. His
wish to buy a skilled slave baker was rebuffed when the Norfolk slave ―made the matter up to his
master (who is old and infirm and easily prevailed upon)‖ not to sell him.84 Carter was
disappointed in his schemes in 1771 when he complained that ―the price of Bisket & flower for
some time past, have not yielded any profits to the Makers thereof, and I have done very little in
that way.‖ As a result, he had little used the slave of Colonel Lewis (of Gloucester County) in his
bakehouse.85 Greater profits came to bakers who could increase capitalization and production
during the Revolution in supplying the troops. This explains the high average assessed wealth of
£300 to £500 for bakers after the Revolution in Annapolis. Frederick Grammar had come to the
city in 1777, only two years after emigrating from Germany and spending time in Philadelphia.
He provisioned troops and amassed a considerable fortune.86
In large urban places, specialized baking emerged for different markets. Bakers could provide
baking for households. A bakehouse was advertised in Philadelphia in 1746/7 with two ovens
that had ―continual employ, by loaf bread, bisket baking, and for dinner baking.‖87 Joseph
Calvert in Charleston made a wide range of ―Household bread‖ and cakes. He also heated his
oven daily ―for the convenience of such Families as shall send Meat, Pies, Puddings, to be bak‘d
for dinner.‖88 An engraving by Charles Wilson Peale entitled ―The Accident in Lombard-Street
82

Virginia Gazette, Dixon, 11 December 1779.
Robert Carter to Mr. Amos Strettell, Philadelphia, August 16, 1762.
84
Thomas Newton, Jr to Colonel Robert Bolling, December 20, 1771. Bolling Papers, Virginia
Historical Society. Mss2N4882a!.
85
Robert Carter to Col. Warner Lewis, October 16, 1773. Robert Carter Letter Book, Volume II
[1774-1775], pp. 54-55. Letterbook. Special Collections, CWF.
86
Edward C. Papenfuse, In Pursuit of Profit: The Annapolis Merchants in the Era of the
American Revolution, 1763-1805 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press), p. 144.
87
Pennsylvania Gazette, February 3, 1746/47.
88
South-Carolina Gazette, Charleston, 9 September 1745.
83

566
Philadelphia 1787‖ depicts a woman who has just dropped a pie on the street on her way home
from the bakehouse. Bakers could also supply dough for baking as recommended in Hannah
Glasse‘s cookbook. After her discussion of preparing and cooking dumpling dough in the recipe,
she adds a hint. ―As good a way as any to save Trouble, is to send to the Baker‘s for half a
quartern of Dough (which will make a great many) and then you have only the trouble of boiling
it.‖89
At the other end of specialization were the bakers who solely made biscuit or supplied ships.
Early nineteenth-century Norfolk was home to thirty-eight bakers; three men were designated
specifically as ―biscuit baker,‖ one as ―ship bread baker.‖90 As the market for bread continued to
specialize, some bakers were careful to note that they carried on all its various forms. Some
combined businesses. Hutton and Colston in Baltimore advertised that they carry on the ―baking
business in all its branches.‖ They provided ship and pilot bread, but also planned to send a
―bread carriage‖ to the city to supply private families. ―Any family, who will send their
directions, as customers, shall be supplied regularly.‖
Women were also involved in the provisioning of bread. Robert Lyon, the single wigmaker in
Williamsburg in 1749, had arrangements with several women in town to supply him with bread,
paid on a monthly or sometimes bi-monthly basis. His particular provider varied between several
women over the course of the year. One was the wife of a butcher, another of a tavern keeper.
Other women sold cakes on the streets, both slave and free. Thomas Jefferson bought ―cakes
from a woman‖ on several occasions. Confectioners like Mrs. Stagg in Williamsburg sold fancy
baked goods and cookies. One pastry-cook in Charleston not only provided a number of
elaborate baked goods on demand, but also ―collard and potted beef, and many other articles too
tedious to enumerate.‖91
MILLS
The closest town mill was probably Ludwell‘s Mill. At least one town resident, St. George
Tucker, had an arrangement with the mill to annually supply ―Indian Corn, Indian Meal, and
Hominy‖ for family use and settle up at the end of the time. A ticket system based on playing
cards was devised as an accounting system so that illiterate people—probably slaves—could
carry out the transactions.
Source: ―Provisioning Early American Towns. The Chesapeake: A Multidisciplinary Case
Study,‖ (Final Performance Report, National Endowment for the Humanities Grant RO-2264393, 1997), pp. 83-118.

89

Hannah Glasse, The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy (1747 edition) (London: Prospect
Books, 1983).
90
My thanks to Mary Ferrari for this Norfolk information.
91
The South Carolina Gazette and Country Journal, Charles Town, S.C., 21 Feb 1769.

567
The Mary Stith House
Mary Stith was the daughter of William Stith, the President of the College of William and Mary
from 1752 to 1755. Stith and her slaves lived on Lot 17 on the south side of Duke of Gloucester
Street.
It is possible that Mary Stith was in possession of Lot 17 as early as 1765. In April of
that year, Nancy, the daughter of her slave Jenny, was baptized at Bruton Parish. Jenny had two
more children whose baptisms were recorded by the clerk of Bruton Parish: Sally in 1766 and
William in 1768. Stith had one tithe, Jenny, on the 1769 Williamsburg-James City County Tax
List.
Stith appeared on the 1786 Williamsburg Personal Property Tax List as the owner of six
slaves: Ben (over sixteen), Beverley (under sixteen), Bob (under sixteen), Jenny (over sixteen),
Nancy (over sixteen), and Sally (over sixteen). Stith emancipated all of her enslaved men,
women, and children. The first extant deed of manumission was in 1791. In March of that year
she freed William White and Benjamin White, his brother.92 Stith noted that William and
Benjamin were mulattoes. Benjamin White was able to purchase his son and namesake from his
owner, John Blair. One of Blair‘s female slaves was the mother of the younger Benjamin White.
The elder Benjamin White manumitted his two-year old son on December 31, 1793.
In 1793 Mary Stith freed Sally Gillett and her two children, Jane Gillett and Peter Gillett.
The fact that Stith referred to Sally as Sally Gillett indicates that Stith acknowledged her former
slave‘s relationship with a man by the name of Gillett. A free mulatto man named Peter Gillett
was the father of Sally's children. The Williamsburg Personal Property Tax Lists suggest that
several of the individuals whom Stith freed continued to live in her household after their
emancipations:
1792—four blacks under [sic] sixteen
1793—three blacks over twelve
1794—four blacks over sixteen
1795 to 1797—one black over twelve and three blacks over sixteen
1798—four blacks over sixteen
1799—two blacks over sixteen
1800—one free male and two blacks over sixteen
1801—one black over twelve and two blacks over sixteen
1802 to 1807—one black over sixteen
1809 to 1811—one black over sixteen
1812 to 1814—no listing for Mary Stith
1815—one slave over sixteen
Benjamin White owned a lot in Williamsburg by the time that the 1798 Williamsburg Land Tax
List was taken.93 The Bucktrout Map of Williamsburg indicates that White held Lot 274 on
92

It is likely that Benjamin's mother was also Jenny and that his baptism was not recorded.

93

Williamsburg Land Tax List 1798.

568
Nicholson Street near the Capitol. White‘s lot adjoined the urban land in the possession of
Wentworth Burwell.
Stith died between December 15, 1813, when she wrote her will, and March 25, 1815,
when her executor, Robert Anderson, presented her last testament in court.
All the coloured people in my family being born my slaves, but now liberated, I think it
my duty not to leave them destitute nor to leave them unrecompensed for past services
rendered to me. As in the cause of humanity I can do but little for so many, and that little
my conscience requires me to do, therefore I subject the whole of my estate to the
payment of my just debts, and to the provision which I herein make for them. I give and
bequeath my dwelling house and lot to Jenny the mother of the family, together with all
the furniture as it now stands in the room below stairs, and one third part of all the other
goods and chattles and wearing apparel as they stand in my dwelling house at my
decease, the whole there of to her and to her heirs and assigns forever. Moreover I give
and bequeath to the said Jenny, out of the interest accruing upon the debts due to me, the
sum of twenty pounds per year, until my executor shall pay to her the sum of one hundred
pounds. I recommend to the said Jenny to take her two grand daughters Jenny Gillet and
Patty Gillett under her protection in consideration of which I bequeath to her five pounds
more per year for each of them during her lifetime. I give and bequeath to the said Jenny
Gillett and Patty Gillett jointly, my house in the yard called the tin shop, together with the
other two-thirds of my wearing apparel before mentioned to be divided between them as
they shall agree with themselves, to them and their heirs and assigns forever. To the said
Patty Gillett I give and bequeath my bed and bedding, together with my chairs, press and
dressing table. I give to the said Jenny Gillett twenty five pounds, and to the said Patty
twenty five pounds to be paid them by my executor when he can conveniently do so. I
give to Peter Gillett the sum of ten pounds to help him in his trade. I give and bequeath
to Nelly Bolling and her two sisters Eve and Sally, my house on the main street called
Woods shop, with the use of the yard to be held by them in fee simple and by their heirs
and assigns forever. I give to the said Nelly Bolling Fifty pounds—to the said Eve and
Sally twenty five pounds each, and I give to the three the sum of five pounds per year
until they shall receive from my executor the aforesaid sum, which he will pay them
when it is convenient for him so to do. I give to Benjamin White Thirty pounds, and to
Beverley Rowsay Forty pounds. I give to Rachel White Twenty pounds, and to her sister
Fanny White Twenty pounds . . . I give to William White the sum of Ten pounds.94
Mary Stith, like Francis Fauquier, felt an obligation to provide for the enslaved men, women, and
children who had worked in her household. She believed it was her responsibility to provide for
the financial support of the individuals whose labor had made her life more comfortable.
Stith‘s will also provides information about the family relationships of the free persons of
color who had been her slaves. Jenny was the head of the family and the remaining persons

94

Will of Mary Stith dated December 15, 1813 and recorded March 25, 1815 in the Robert Anderson Papers,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

569
mentioned in this document were related to her in some way. Three women—Nelly Bolling, Eve
Mitchell, and Sally Skinner—were probably the children of Nancy, Jenny's eldest daughter.
There is no evidence that Nancy lived long enough to receive her freedom from Stith. Jenny and
Patty Gillett were the daughters of Jenny's daughter, Sally Gillett. She also had a son named
Peter. It is likely that Sally Gillett was dead by 1813 because Stith did not mention this woman
in her will. William White and Benjamin White had a different father than Nancy and Sally
did.95 There is not enough information in Stith's will to determine if Rachel and Fanny White
were William White or Benjamin White's daughters.
Jenny‘s name appeared on the 1820 Williamsburg Land Tax List as the owner of the lot
that had been Mary Stith‘s. Jenny, also known as Jenny Rowsay and Jane Lawrence, held the
parcel until 1825 when Beverley Rowsay gained possession of the property. It is possible that
Rowsay was Jenny‘s youngest son (born between 1771 and 1781). He made his home on this lot
until his death in late 1841 or early 1842. In 1837 he shared the house with ―Nelly Boling
seamstress, [and] child Mary.‖ Patsy Gillett, also known as Patsy Rowsay, gained the title to the
lot ―Devised via Mary Styth‖ in 1820. She lived in the dwelling on the lot until April 1842 when
a fire destroyed the building. Gillett sold the lot to Robert Anderson by the spring of 1844.96
The two Benjamin Whites also remained in Williamsburg. The elder White served as a
delegate to the Dover Baptist Association Meeting in 1809, 1813, 1818, and 1819. He also was
the executor of Gowan Pamphlet‘s estate after his death between 1807 and 1810. The first
Benjamin White died some time after 1831. The younger White followed in his father‘s
footsteps and attended meetings of the Dover Baptist Association as a delegate in 1828 and 1833.
The 1837 List of Free Negroes and Mulattoes in the City of Williamsburg noted that White was a
shoemaker who lived with Zizzi, a free woman of color. White‘s name was on the 1843
Williamsburg Personal Property Tax List when he was fifty-two years old.97

The Milliner Shop
There were five milliners in Williamsburg during the 1770s—Margaret Hunter, Jane Hunter
Charlton, Katherine Rathell, Margaret Brodie, and Elizabeth Carlos.
Margaret Hunter entered into the millinery business with her sister Jane soon after her
arrival in Williamsburg in 1767. In May 1771 she announced that she had a shop located next
door to Robert Anderson‘s tavern. The next month Hunter informed readers of the Virginia
Gazette that she moved her business to the corner store in Doctor Carter‘s Brick House. This
milliner did own slaves by 1783, but there is not clear that they worked in their owner‘s shop. In
1783 Hunter‘s slaves included Agga and Jenny who were over sixteen years old and Milly, Sall,
95

There is no evidence that Fanny or Sally used the surname White.

96

Williamsburg Land Tax Lists 1820-1845; List of Free Negroes and Mulattoes in the City of Williamsburg 1837.

97

Ibid.; see also Williamsburg Personal Property Tax Lists and Minutes from Meetings of the Dover Baptist
Association.

570
and Will Chavers (also known as Billy Chavers) who were less than sixteen years of age. It is
possible that Jenny was the mother of an infant born in 1784 and that both the mother and the
child died soon after the birth since they did not appear on the 1786 tax list. Agga, Milly, Sall,
and Will Chavers were a part of Hunter‘s household in 1784 and 1786.
Hunter announced the sale of an enslaved woman and her daughter in March 1787. She
noted that the woman was ―a good washer, ironer and clear starcher, an excellent pastry cook,
and is capable of all kinds of household business.‖98 Hunter died on September 28, 1787.
Edward Charlton, the administrator of his sister-in-law‘s estate, decided to sell her estate on
November 12th of that year. The property included ―two very likely Negro Women, both
exceeding good house servants, one is also an excellent washer, ironer, and clear starcher, and a
good pastry cook; one of the women has four fine children who will be sold with their mother,
the other has two very likely girls, they will be sold with their mother, or separately.‖99 These
women probably did not work in Hunter‘s shop since neither she nor Edward Charlton
mentioned sewing skills in their advertisements. In addition, Hunter never advertised that
laundry was a branch of the millinery trade that was available for the public. Perhaps Hunter
hired out her enslaved women or relied on them to do household chores for her.
There were four other milliners in Williamsburg during the 1770s and each owned at
least one slave. Margaret Brodie purchased a slave girl who had been owned by William Digges
of York County in March 1774. The York County grand jury presented Elizabeth Carlos for not
listing her slave woman as a tithe on November 15, 1773. Katherine Rathell received a similar
presentment on November 21, 1774. When Jane Hunter Charlton wrote her will on April 1,
1801 she noted that she had already emancipated two mulatto children—Aggy and Charlotte.
Charlton stated that she wanted her two enslaved women—Nanny and Sally—to have their
freedom after her death. However, there is no evidence that these milliners received assistance
from their enslaved laborers in their business.

The Governor’s Palace
The following discussion focuses on the slaves owned and hired by three of Virginia‘s colonial
governors—Francis Fauquier, Lord Botetourt, and Lord Dunmore. One of the duties of the
governor (as the representative of the Crown) was to maintain the institution of slavery in the
colony. The King and British merchants (after 1732) profited from the duties collected on slaves
imported into Virginia and the rest of the colonies.
There were both advantages and disadvantages for the enslaved men, women, and children who
lived and worked at the Palace. The governor‘s domestic slaves had opportunities to see
enslaved laborers who accompanied their masters on visits to the governor or who ran errands to
the Palace. They also had chances to earn tips and to use this cash to buy personal items or food.
However, the Palace slaves lived with the possibility that the governor would sell them if he
returned to England. Marshman‘s Account Book and the Palace Kitchen Account Book indicate
98

Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, 8 March 1787.

99

Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, 11 October 1787.

571
that Botetourt‘s slaves worked under the close direction of white supervisors. The enslaved
laborers at the Palace had to perform their duties well because they were part of the display that
the governor used to indicate his position in Virginia.
Francis Fauquier, 1758-1768
The details in Francis Fauquier‘s 1767 will indicate that he believed all men—white and
black, free and enslaved—were men. He noted that his slaves were ―a part of my Estate in its
nature disagreeable to me, but which my situation made necessary for me.‖ Fauquier continued
to say that the disposal of his bond laborers ―has constantly given me uneasiness whenever the
thought has occurred to me.‖ He felt a moral obligation to provide for his enslaved men, women,
and children at his death ―by using my utmost Endeavours that they experience as little Misery
during their Lives as their very unhappy and pitiable condition will allow.‖ Fauquier decided to
allow his slaves to choose their next masters within six months of his death. The governor
stipulated that anyone selected as a new owner by one of his slaves could purchase the individual
(or individuals in the case of a woman with a child or children since he wanted mothers and
children to be kept together) for twenty-five percent less than his or her appraised value. He
instructed his executors to read and explain his will to all members of his household—his wife,
children, white servants, and slaves.100
Fauquier‘s legacy to his enslaved men and women was an attempt to secure their family
and friendship ties. The governor‘s slaves used their legacy to try to preserve the family and
neighborhood connections that they had created as members of ―the Governor‘s Family.‖101
However, the governor could not control the fate of his slaves beyond their first choice of a new
master—some of these owners moved Fauquier‘s slaves to other areas of Virginia and others
sold the slaves whom they purchased from the governor. The story of this group of enslaved
men, women, and children illustrates the difficulties that slaves faced as they worked to establish
and maintain family relationships in Williamsburg and throughout the colonial Chesapeake.
Even when Fauquier‘s slaves had the chance to assert their wishes and to protect family and
friendship ties, this opportunity remained within the realities of their life in eighteenth-century
Virginia.
****

100

York County Wills and Inventories (21) 396-404, dated March 26, 1767 and recorded March 21, 1768.

For discussion of Fauquier‘s slaves and his will see also Thad W. Tate, The Negro in
Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg, (Williamsburg, Virginia: The Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation, 1965), pp. 30, 31, 35, 36, 74, 115; and Michael L. Nicholls, ―Aspects of the African
American Experience in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg and Norfolk,‖ (unpublished report,
1990), pp. 16-18, 87.
101

This phrase was used in reference to the slaves owned by Governor William Gooch. See Virginia Gazette,
February 14, 1750/1.

572
When Francis Fauquier wrote his will on March 26, 1767 he expressed his dislike of the
institution of slavery in a way that set him apart from most of his Virginia contemporaries.102 His
experiences in England influenced the way he thought about people. Fauquier lived in London
and was exposed to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He became one of the thirty directors of the
South Sea Company in February 1748 and served until February 1757. In 1751, Fauquier was
elected a governor of the Foundling Hospital in London. The following year he received a
nomination for membership in the Royal Society of London. The proposal described him as ―A
Gentleman of great merit, well versed in Philosophical & Mathematical inquiries, and a great
promoter of usefull Learning, & the Advancement of Natural Knowledge.‖ He became a
member of the Society in February 1753. A short time before his depature for Virginia, Fauquier
was named a corresponding member of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts,
Manufactures, and Commerce (commonly called the Society of Arts and now known as the
Royal Society of Arts). Corresponding members ―were men distinguished in various ways or
men who had rendered services to the society and were usually foreigners or residents abroad.‖103
Fauquier balanced his view of his slaves as people with the realities of life in eighteenthcentury Virginia. He decided not to free his seventeen enslaved men, women, and children in
spite of his feelings. Fauquier could have petitioned the Council to emancipate any or all of his
slaves for meritorious service. There was a precedent for this action: Governor William Gooch
decided to manumit a slave named Captain Jack when he left Virginia in 1749.104 However,
Gooch secured Captain Jack‘s manumission as a living governor. In addition, it would have
been difficult for Fauquier to prove that all of his slaves (especially the children) deserved
freedom based on meritorious service, the requirement for manumission since 1723. Fauquier
also decided against choosing a new master for each of his enslaved men, women, and children
or asking his executors to sell these individuals after his death.
Instead, Fauquier was one of a small number of men and women in eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century Virginia to allow his slaves to select their next masters. The governor‘s
legacy was a conscious statement of his belief that his bond laborers could choose a new owner.
Fauquier’s bequest indicates his acknowledgment that his enslaved men and women,
like white men and women, had the ability to think critically and make decisions that
would affect their lives for the better. Fauquier demonstrated his belief that members of

102

See the following wills: John Prentis of Williamsburg in York County Wills and Inventories (22) 310-311, dated
August 19, 1773, codicil dated January 2, 1774, and recorded November 20, 1775; Martha C. Ginter of Yorktown in
York County Wills and Inventories (23) 776, dated May 20, 1809 and recorded October 15, 1810; Ebenezer Cowan
of Norfolk in Norfolk City Will Book (1) f. 203, dated October 25, 1799 and recorded October 29, 1799; Alexander
McNabb of Petersburg in Petersburg Hustings Court Will Book (1) 91-92, dated July 18, 1787 and recorded March
5, 1788; Thomas Hope of Petersburg in ibid., p. 196, dated March 14, 1791 and recorded April 1, 1793; and
Elizabeth Peachey of Petersburg in ibid., p. 293, dated July 20, 1795 and recorded February 4, 1800.
103

George Reese, ed., The Official Papers of Francis Fauquier, Lieutenant Governor of Virginia 1758-1768, 3 vols.,
(Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia for the Virginia Historical Society, 1983),
1:xxxvi.
104

H. R. McIlwaine et al., eds., Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, 6 vols., (Richmond:
Virginia State Library, 1927-1966), V:298.

573
all races deserved to be treated fairly in an October 5, 1760 letter to Jeffery Amherst. The
governor noted
I most sincerely wish it had been the policy of these Colonies to treat Indians with that
Justice and Humanity you show to them. This and this alone, (if any thing can do it)
must make them our Friends. White, Red, or Black; polished or unpolished Men are
Men.105
Fauquier‘s legacy also indicates that he knew that his bond laborers had information about the
qualities and personality of potential masters from direct contact with these individuals and from
conversations with other people. Enslaved men and women saw and perhaps waited on men who
visited the governor at the Palace. In addition, his slaves had knowledge about the
characteristics of prospective owners from family and friends, enslaved and free, who lived in
Williamsburg and on nearby plantations.
Although Fauquier did not give his slaves their freedom, he allowed them the autonomy
to make an important decision. There were three possible choices for these men and women.
First, they could run away. However, only a small number of enslaved individuals in Virginia
chose freedom in the eighteenth century. Extant documents indicate that about one percent of
the colony‘s slaves decided to run away between the 1720s and 1790. One-third of the runaways
left their masters in order to see family and friends and to return to places where they once lived.
Philip D. Morgan and Michael L. Nicholls attribute the low rate of recorded absenteeism in
Virginia to the large proportion of creole slaves in the colony.106 Second, these enslaved
individuals could select a new master who lived in another part of Virginia. It would have been
more difficult for a slave who lived on a quarter in the Piedmont to sustain ties to family and
friends than it would have been for his or her counterpart who lived in or near the colonial
capital. Neither of these options would have made it easy for Fauquier‘s enslaved men, women,
and children to have maintained the bonds to their ―family‖ at the Governor‘s Palace.107

105

Reese, ed., The Official Papers of Francis Fauquier, 1:xlviii, 418.

See the section on the Courthouse in this resource book for information about Fauquier and the pardons he granted
to eight of the eighteen York County slaves sentenced to death during his administration.
106

Philip D. Morgan and Michael L. Nicholls, ―Runaway Slaves in Virginia,‖ paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Organization of American Historians, Washington, D.C., 1990.
It is likely that two slaves who had once belonged to Governor Gooch chose to return to Williamsburg. In February
1750/1 Warner Lewis of Gloucester County noted that his woman named Kitty was ―supposed to be about
Williamsburg.‖ Seventeen years later Peter Wagener informed readers of the Virginia Gazette that Jack Yarmouth
had run away. Wagener observed that ―As he formerly belonged to the late Governor Gooch, ‗tis likely he may be
harboured by some of the Negroes in Williamsburg.‖ See Virginia Gazette, February 14, 1750/1 and ibid., Rind,
ed., June 16, 1768.
107

Philip D. Morgan and Michael L. Nicholls, ―Slaves in Piedmont Virginia, 1720-1790,‖ William and Mary
Quarterly, 3rd ser., XLVI (1989):211-251.

574
Details in the inventory of Fauquier‘s personal property indicate that his bond laborers
selected the third option available to them: they chose to stay in Williamsburg with family and
friends. The men who appraised Fauquier‘s estate recorded the names of the nine individuals
who became the new masters of the deceased governor‘s slaves. The choices that Fauquier‘s
seventeen bond laborers made reveal the strength of the family and friendship ties that joined
those who lived at the Governor‘s Palace to one another and to other individuals in
Williamsburg.
****
Fauquier‘s inventory reveals that three slaves—Young John and a woman named Sall and
her son Harry—were unable to find anyone willing to purchase them.108 The appraisers of the
governor‘s estate valued Young John at £60. Sall and Harry were worth £70. The discounted
price for the three slaves was £97.10, £6.10 less than the £104 that George Gilmer of
Williamsburg paid for the three slaves. Perhaps Gilmer purchased these individuals because he
wanted a domestic worker, someone who could serve as a waiting man, and a boy who could run
errands for him in Williamsburg. If Young John was the slave named Jack whom Fauquier sent
to the Virginia Gazette office in March 1764, Gilmer might have known about it.109 In the
Gilmer household, Sall, Harry, and Young John joined two adult females and three children who
ranged in age from three to thirteen years. Doctor Gilmer lived on the James City County side of
Williamsburg until he moved to Albemarle County by October 1771. He may have taken Sall,
Harry, and Young John with him when he left Williamsburg. Gilmer had twenty-nine slaves on
his plantation in Albemarle County in 1782. Unfortunately, the Albemarle County Personal
Property Tax Lists do not include the names of slaves in the 1780s.110 Gilmer lived in Albemarle
County until the time of his death in 1795. The doctor owned slaves when he died, but he did
not include their names in the bequests in his will.111
The remaining five men, five women, and four children in Fauquier‘s Virginia household
became the property of the masters they chose. Bristol and Old John selected Thomas Everard
as their new owner. Everard, the clerk of the York County Court, lived on Palace Green. He
might have had as many as twenty-one slaves—seven women, three men, and eleven children—
in Williamsburg when he bought Bristol and Old John. Bristol and Old John probably had seen
Everard often, because he was a frequent visitor to the Palace. Everard witnessed Fauquier‘s
will and received an appointment to appraise his estate. The proximity of Everard‘s house to the
Palace may have been especially important to Bristol. He was described as a ―new negro‖ when
the vestry clerk for Bruton Parish recorded his baptism in the parish register in early 1767.
108

York County Wills and Inventories (22) 83-89, recorded July 20, 1772.

109

Joseph Royle, ed., Virginia Gazette Journals, 1764-1766, Alderman Library, University of Virginia.

110

Albemarle County Personal Property Tax Lists, Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

111

Albemarle County Will Book 3 (1785-1798) 265-266, dated March 7, 1795 and recorded December 1795. See
Albemarle County Will Book 4 (1798-1809) 219-229, dated July 5, 1806 and recorded July 1806 for the account of
the estate of George Gilmer and ibid., pp. 340-344, dated August 6, 1801 and recorded March 19, 1806 for the
division of the real property of George Gilmer.

575
Bristol‘s first friendship ties after he arrived in Virginia from West Africa would have been with
those individuals he met while at the Palace. These people included Fauquier‘s other slaves and
white indentured servants, bond laborers who ran errands to the Palace for their masters,
enslaved men and women hired out to Fauquier by their masters, and free blacks. It is possible
that Old John was one of Fauquier‘s slaves in 1760 when the governor ordered two enslaved men
and a boy to keep the Reverend John Camm from entering the Governor‘s Palace.112 If so, Old
John had been a part of Fauquier‘s household for at least eight years. His selection of Everard as
his new master would have enabled him to maintain ties to blacks, free and enslaved, who
traveled to and from the Palace.
Perhaps Everard bought Bristol and Old John because of their skills as waiting men and
the distinction they would add to his household . Everard was an orphan at Christ Church
Hospital in London when he became an apprentice to Matthew Kemp of Virginia, in 1735.
Everard became an important local official and it is likely that he had acquired a household staff
that reflected his prominence as clerk of the York County Court, Bruton Parish vestryman, clerk
of the House of Burgesses‘ Committee for Courts and Justice, registrar of the Court of ViceAdmiralty, judge of the Court of Admiralty, trustee for the founding of the Public Hospital, and
mayor of Williamsburg in 1766 and in 1771. Everard hired Bristol to Governor Botetourt on
several occasions between January 1769 and May 1770. He may have done the same with Old
John in January 1769. Everard died in 1781 and, unfortunately, no probate documents
concerning his estate survive. Everard‘s slaves were sold or became the property of his
daughter, Martha, and her husband, Isaac Hall. Isaac and Martha Hall lived in Petersburg in the
1780s.113
Fauquier‘s Sukey chose the Reverend James Horrocks, the President of William and
Mary and Thomas Everard‘s son-in-law, as the new master for herself and her two daughters,
Mary and Sall. Perhaps Sukey turned to the Reverend Horrocks because of his position in the
colony and as a way to maintain ties to Bristol and Old John. The price that Horrocks paid—
£105—for the three slaves reflects Sukey‘s skill as a cook and the fact that she was of childbearing age. Sukey and her two daughters joined seven other slaves—four women and three
children—in the Horrocks household. However, by November of 1768, Horrocks decided to sell
Sukey, also known as Sukey Hamilton, and one of her daughters. An advertisement in the
Virginia Gazette announced that ―SUKEY HAMILTON, cook to the late Governor, with her
youngest daughter, 7 years old, will be sold before Mr. Hay‘s door on Thursday the 15th of
December next. Credit will be allowed for six months, bond and proper security being given.‖114
112

William Stevens Perry, ed., Historical Collections Relating to the American Colonial Church, 2 vols., (Hartford,
1870; reprint, New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1969), 1:463-464. The dispute between Fauquier and Camm dated to
1758 when the governor signed a bill that allowed Virginians to pay their taxes at the rate of two pence per pound of
tobacco, well below the market value. Fauquier‘s instructions prevented him from approving the bill. Camm
represented the clergy who saw their salaries reduced as a result of the lower tax payments. The minister traveled to
England where he persuaded the King to disallow the bill. The Crown also warned Fauquier that he would face a
recall if he disobeyed his instructions a second time. See Warren M. Billings, John E. Selby, and Thad W. Tate,
Colonial Virginia—A History, (White Plains, New York: KTO Press, 1986), pp. 257-259.
113

114

See the section on the Brush-Everard House.
Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., November 24, 1768.

576
Sall‘s baptism on July 4, 1762, suggests that she was the daughter sold with her mother. Mary
might have died by the time Horrocks decided to sell her mother and sister, or perhaps she was
old enough to be separated from her mother. Why would Horrocks agree to purchase these
slaves and then decide to sell two of them a few months later? Perhaps the minister found that
he did not need a cook, or he may have calculated that he could make a tidy profit by selling a
skilled slave woman and her child whom he had purchased at a discount. In any case, Horrocks‘
decision severed ties Sukey believed she had secured when she chose him as her master.
Lancaster asked Christopher Ayscough to purchase him. The two men had worked
together as gardeners at the Governor‘s Palace. Ayscough and his wife were two of Fauquier‘s
white servants. Perhaps Lancaster and Ayscough developed a friendship based on the type of
work they performed at the Governor‘s Palace. Ann Ayscough received £250 for her ―Fidelity &
Attention‖ and her economy in managing the kitchen at the Palace from Fauquier.115 Ayscough
probably used part of his wife‘s legacy to purchase Lancaster, a slave woman named Lucy, and
five other slaves. He also bought a house and lot on the James City County side of
Williamsburg. In October 1768 he announced that he had opened a tavern that faced the south
side of the Capitol.116 Lancaster probably tended the garden on Ayscough‘s lot. It is possible
that he served food and drink in addition to looking after the horses that belonged to his master‘s
customers. Ayscough decided to leave the tavern keeping business in 1770. In September of
that year he informed readers of the Virginia Gazette of his decision and of the sale he planned to
have at his house on the 27th of that month. Ayscough noted that he would sell ―nine Negroes,
one an exceeding good cook wench, and a fellow who is a fine gardener.‖117 Perhaps the tavern
keeper had purchased Sukey from the Reverend Horrocks in an attempt to attract more customers
to his establishment. There is no information about the person who purchased Lancaster at
Ayscough‘s sale.
Nanny selected the silversmith James Geddy as the new master for herself and her
daughter, Sukey Hinderkin. Geddy lived on Lots 161 and 162 on the corner of Duke of
Gloucester Street and the Palace Green. Sukey Hinderkin died between the time that Geddy
agreed to purchase the two slaves and the time that he became Nanny‘s master. Fauquier‘s
executors deducted £10 off the price of £51.05 that Geddy was to pay for the mother and
daughter. Geddy owned several slaves in 1768, including a young slave woman. Two years
later he announced that he had ―a likely Negro Wench, about eighteen years old, with her child, a
boy‖ for sale.118 Perhaps the silversmith did not need this woman after he added Nanny to his
household. Geddy took Nanny and his other slaves with him when he moved his family to

115

York County Wills and Inventories (21) 396-404, dated March 26, 1767 and recorded March 21, 1768. Sukey,
the governor‘s cook, did not choose Ann Ayscough as her next owner, an indication that they did not have a close
relationship.
116

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., October 6, 1768.

117

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., September 20, 1770.

118

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., October 4, 1770.

577
Dinwiddie County in 1777. Nanny‘s name appeared on the 1782, 1783, and 1784 Dinwiddie
County Personal Property Tax Lists. The move to the Southside may not have broken all of
Nanny‘s ties to other Williamsburg slaves. Members of several Williamsburg families—the
Blairs, the Burwells, the Powells, and the Everards—also took their enslaved men, women, and
children with them to their new homes in Petersburg or to their plantations in Dinwiddie County
in the 1770s and the 1780s. Geddy‘s daughter, Ann, and her husband, John Brown, made their
home in Richmond. Nanny‘s name did not appear on the 1785 Dinwiddie County Personal
Property Tax List. It is possible that she died, had been sold to a new owner, or lived in Geddy‘s
house in Petersburg by the time that the commissioner recorded the 1785 Personal Property Tax
List.119
Fauquier‘s Titus selected Robert Carter Nicholas, the Treasurer of the Colony of
Virginia, as his new master. Perhaps the role that Nicholas played as a trustee for the charity
school established in Williamsburg by the Associates of the Reverend Thomas Bray for black
children, slave and free, influenced Titus‘s decision.120 Nicholas portrayed himself as a kind
master in a January 1767 announcement for two runaway slaves. He informed readers of the
Virginia Gazette that ―As I have been always tender of my slaves, and particularly attentive to
the good usage of them, I hope wherever these fellows may be apprehended that they will
receive such moderate correction as will deter them from running away for the future.‖121 Titus
joined a household of twelve tithable slaves in 1768. He was one of nineteen tithes in Nicholas‘s
house in the James City County portion of Williamsburg.122 It is possible that Nicholas moved
Titus to his property in Hanover County when he left Williamsburg in 1777. Nicholas died at his
plantation known as ―The Retreat‖ in Hanover County on September 8, 1780. His widow, Ann,
and their underage children moved to Albemarle County where they remained until the end of
the Revolution. Titus might have been one of 120 slaves belonging to the estate of Robert Carter
Nicholas in Albemarle County in 1782. The widow Nicholas had returned to Williamsburg by
late 1783.123 There is no evidence that Ann Nicholas brought Titus with her, so perhaps Nicholas
gave Titus to his daughter, Sally, when she married John Hatley Norton in 1772.124 A clue to
Titus‘s whereabouts turned up in a letter John Hatley Norton received from Charles Payne, the
overseer of his Fauquier County plantation, on September 22, 1789. Payne enclosed ―A List of
the people that will want clothing this fall‖ with his letter. This list included a slave named
―Tetus,‖ possibly a variation of ―Titus.‖ The position of Tetus in Payne‘s list suggests that he
119

Dinwiddie County Personal Property Tax Lists, Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

120

John C. VanHorne, ed., Religious Philanthropy and Colonial Slavery: The American Correspondence of the
Associates of Dr. Bray, 1717-1777, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985).
121

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., January 15, 1767.

122

Williamsburg-James City County Tax Book 1768-1769.

123

Victor Dennis Golladay, ―The Nicholas Family of Virginia, 1722-1820,‖ (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,
University of Virginia, 1973); Albemarle County Personal Property Tax Lists.
124

Nicholas did not mention Titus by name in his will. See the will of Robert Carter Nicholas in the Carter-Smith
Papers, Mss 1729, Alderman Library, University of Virginia.

578
may have been the husband of Jane and that they had two children, Let and ―Tetus Child.‖125
Norton paid the annual assessment on five slaves over the age of sixteen in 1789. This merchant
died in Winchester by July 3, 1797. Norton did not include the names of his house servants
whom he left to his second wife, Catherine, during her lifetime.126
Three slaves—Mary and her daughter Jemima and Tom—turned to John Dixon as their
next master. Evidence in the York County Court records suggests that they moved to the
household of the printer John Dixon. Perhaps Tom and Mary were married and the printer
agreed to buy them because he needed a slave to do household work and another to work in his
shop. Dixon had his house and business on Lot 48, a short distance from the Capitol on Duke of
Gloucester Street. Dixon may have left Jemima in Williamsburg when he moved to Richmond
in 1780 because he had hired her out to a resident in the city. Jemima appeared on the 1783
Williamsburg Personal Property Tax List as a slave under sixteen years of age who belonged to
John Dixon. Perhaps Jemima joined Mary and Tom in Richmond before the 1784 Williamsburg
Personal Property Tax List was taken.127 These three slaves either died or were sold to a new
master before John Dixon died in Richmond on April 27, 1791. Tom, Mary, and Jemima were
not among the seven slaves who appeared in the May 1792 inventory of the printer‘s estate.128
There is little information about the man whom Doll selected as her master. He was one
Richard Johnson, possibly a resident of nearby New Kent County, or maybe he was a part of the
Johnson family who lived on the James City County side of Williamsburg. Johnson died
sometime before 1773, and the executors of his estate might have sold Doll to Governor
Botetourt. The inventory of Botetourt‘s estate in October 1770 included a slave named Doll.129
It is also possible that Doll became the property of Philip Johnson of Williamsburg after the
death of Richard Johnson. In October 1774, Thomas Skinner offered a reward for the return of
Dolly, a woman hired to him by the trustees of Philip Johnson‘s estate. Skinner, a shoemaker,
noted that he had hired Dolly for almost four years.
If Doll returned to the Palace she would have been reunited with Hannah. It is likely that
Hannah asked one of Fauquier‘s executors to purchase her for the next governor so that she
could remain at the Palace. It is also possible that Hannah had worked at the Palace during the
administrations of William Gooch (1727-1749) and Robert Dinwiddie (1751-1758). A woman
125

Charles Payne to John Hatley Norton in Frances Norton Mason, ed., John Norton & Sons Merchants of London
and Virginia. Being the Papers from their Counting House for the Years 1750 to 1795, (Richmond: Dietz Press,
1939), pp. 488-489.
126

Frederick County Personal Property Tax List, 1789; Frederick County Wills (6) 283-285, dated November 19,
1792, codicils dated January 6, 1794 and October 13, 1795, and recorded February 6, 1798.
127

Williamsburg Personal Property Tax Lists 1783 and 1784.

128

Richmond City Personal Property Tax Lists; Richmond Hustings Court Deeds No. 1 (1782-1792) 616-617, dated
May 10, 1792 and recorded May 15, 1792. The Richmond City Personal Property Tax Lists do not include slave
names.
129

A copy of Governor Botetourt‘s inventory can be found in Graham Hood, The Governor‘s Palace in
Williamsburg: A Cultural Study, (Williamsburg: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1991).

579
named Hannah was baptized on May 6, 1754. The fact that the Bruton Parish vestry clerk noted
that this woman belonged to the Honorable William Gooch suggests that Hannah had been a part
of Gooch‘s household for a long time and that she was still associated with the former governor.
Perhaps Gooch appointed a member of the Council to sell Hannah to his successor when he
returned to England in May 1749, and Dinwiddie may have done the same when he left Virginia
in 1758. If Hannah had been at the Palace since 1749 (and possibly earlier), it is likely that
Fauquier‘s executors bought Hannah for the new governor because of her knowledge of daily
work at the Palace. Hannah was one of the eight slaves who appeared in the inventory of
Botetourt‘s estate. She either worked in the garden at the Palace or helped the butler, William
Marshman, with the day-to-day work at the Palace. After Botetourt‘s death John Randolph
informed the Duke of Beaufort that the deceased governor‘s personal property included ―several
Negroes accustom‘d to work in the Gardens and Park.‖130 Randolph and Botetourt‘s other
executors also noted that ―The Slaves are reckon‘d orderly & valuable, and perhaps may be
convenient to our next Governor. His Lordship brought over with him a good many white
Servants, and, after a short Trial, found it convenient & necessary to purchase & hire Negroes to
assist in the business of his Family, and do the Drudgery without doors.‖131 Perhaps Hannah and
Doll remained at the Governor‘s Palace and became a part of the household of Governor
Dunmore who followed Botetourt.
****
Francis Fauquier‘s legacy to his enslaved men, women, and children provides an
opportunity to examine the interconnected world of whites and their slaves and to learn about the
impact of masters‘ actions upon the lives of their bond laborers. Initially, Fauquier‘s passing did
not loosen the ties his slaves had to each other and to other slaves in Williamsburg. The
governor‘s legacy gave his bond laborers the rare chance to maintain their connections to kin,
neighbors, and friends. His slaves were among a small number of eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury enslaved men and women who could control the destiny of their own families. In
addition to proximity to family, it is likely that Fauquier‘s bond laborers took a potential owner‘s
reputation and treatment of slaves, the type of work to be done, and a previous connection with
an individual into consideration when making their selection of a new master. It is known that
sixteen of Fauquier‘s seventeen slaves became the property of men who lived in Williamsburg.
However, Fauquier could not predict how the actions of the nine subsequent owners
would affect the lives of this group. The Reverend James Horrocks sold Sall and Sukey a few
months after he purchased them. Christopher Ayscough did not need Lancaster after he left the
tavern keeping business. James Geddy took Nanny to Dinwiddie County in 1777. It is possible
that George Gilmer moved Sall, Harry, and Young John to Albemarle County. Titus might have
130

John Randolph to the Duke of Beaufort, October 15, 1770, Personal Collection of His Grace the Duke of
Beaufort, Badminton, Gloucestershire, England; transcript, Special Collections, Rockefeller Library, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation.
131

William Nelson, John Randolph, Robert Carter Nicholas, John Blair Junior, and George Wythe to the Duke of
Beaufort, October 30, 1770, Personal Collection of His Grace the Duke of Beaufort, Badminton, Gloucestershire,
England; transcript, Special Collections, Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

580
ended up at Robert Carter Nicholas‘s plantation in Hanover County in the late 1770s, in
Albemarle County in the early 1780s, and in Fauquier County by the end of the 1780s. Jemima
probably was in Richmond with John Dixon‘s other slaves by 1784. Fauquier‘s legacy did not
protect the majority of his seventeen slaves from the instability and uncertainty that characterized
the lives of slaves in eighteenth-century Virginia. The actions of most of the new owners
disrupted the kin and personal connections that Fauquier and his slaves had tried to preserve.
Ultimately, these men, women, and children—like other bond laborers in eighteenth-century
Virginia—experienced the misery of separation from family and friends that Fauquier had hoped
to spare them.

Lord Botetourt, 1768-1770
Details in the account book kept by William Marshman, the Palace Kitchen Account
Book, the Accounts of Botetourt‘s estate kept by Robert Carter Nicholas, the Botetourt Papers at
Badminton in Gloucestershire, England, and the inventory of Lord Botetourt‘s estate provide a
window on the governor‘s household and its operation during his administration. Between
twenty and thirty individuals—male and female, black and white, enslaved and free—lived and
worked in the sixty-one interconnected areas at the Palace. Botetourt brought twelve white male
servants with him to Virginia:
Silas Blandford
John Cook
John Draper
Thomas Fuller
Thomas Gale
James Kendall
Joseph Kidd
Samuel King
William Knight
William Marshman
James Simpson
Thomas Towse

land steward
under cook
smith
under butler
coachman and carter
carpenter
groom of the chambers
postilion and groom
footman
butler
gardener
cook

These men were accustomed to social differences among members of a household staff. They
were not, however, used to slaves and distinctions based on race instead of social rank or class.
Botetourt counted on William Marshman to manage a diverse staff of permanent and temporary
workers who came from a variety of backgrounds and performed a wide range of jobs at the
Governor‘s Palace. Marshman‘s task of managing the white and black laborers might have been
easier if he was familiar with a statement that William Robinson of Williamsburg made in 1763.
Robinson observed that ―It is the greatest affront that can be put upon a free man here to give
orders concerning him to the slaves, it is what a white servant would not endure with any
patience.‖132
132

Graham Hood, The Governor‘s Palace in Williamsburg: A Cultural Study, (Williamsburg: Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, 1991), pp. 25, 230, 246.

581

It is possible that Botetourt originally planned to have only white servants in his
household in Virginia even though he knew that members of the gentry depended on slave
laborers. On October 30, 1772 William Nelson told the Duke of Beaufort that ―His Lordship
brought over with him a good many white Servants, and, after a short Trial, found it convenient
and necessary to purchase and hire Negroes to assist in the business of his Family, and do the
Drudgery without Doors.‖133 Botetourt‘s ―short Trial‖ did not last long. He arrived in
Williamsburg on October 26, 1768 and six days later Botetourt paid the estate of Francis
Fauquier £45 for Hannah, one of the deceased governor‘s enslaved women. It is likely that
Fauquier‘s executors purchased Hannah because they needed an experienced slave to work at the
Palace until the next governor arrived. Botetourt must have realized within a few days of his
arrival that she would be essential to the success of his new household.134
Botetourt did not leave any papers in which he discussed his feelings about slavery and
the treatment of enslaved individuals as Fauquier did in his will. It is likely that the governor,
not Marshman, ordered the whippings that several bond laborers (both those owned by Botetourt
and those hired to work at the Palace) endured in 1770. Marshman noted that he paid one
shilling and six pence ―to flogging Matt‖ on January 30 of that year. On May 2, 1770 James
Lebee received two shillings for flogging Sarah.135 It is possible that Sarah was the woman
whom Thomas Everard hired to Botetourt or that she was the governor‘s laundry maid, Sally.
Lebee charged Marshman three shillings and nine pence to administer punishment to Matt and
Doll on June 21, 1770. The fact that Marshman gave Lebee three shillings and nine pence on
August 3, 1770 when he flogged Phillis suggests that he flogged another unnamed slave on the
same day. The punishment of Will on September 1, 1770 added two shillings to Lebee‘s pocket.
Marshman made no mention of how he felt about the punishment or the reasons why bond
laborers received physical punishment. Perhaps the concentration of the floggings between late
January and early September 1770 was connected to the arrival of Rosanna Wilson as head cook
at the Palace. Mrs. Wilson, a native Virginian, could have persuaded the governor that several of
the enslaved laborers needed to be punished.136
Enslaved individuals owned and hired by Lord Botetourt worked alongside white
Englishmen and free persons of color in the three principal areas of the Palace: the main house;
the kitchen and related areas; and the stables, coach house, garden, and park. Each of the three
spaces had one person who supervised the men, women, and children who performed the work
essential for both the day-to-day operation of the Palace and the special events hosted by
133

Nelson‘s description of the governor‘s twelve white servants as ―a good many‖ indicates that most Virginians did
not own a large number of slaves. In the 1780s five-sixths of Williamsburg households (83.3%) had at least one
slave and eighteen of the 178 households (10.1%) had ten or more slaves. See Michael L. Nicholls, ―Aspects of the
African American Experience in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg and Norfolk,‖ (unpublished report, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, 1990), pp. 3-5, 12-13.
134

Robert Carter Nicholas Accounts of Lord Botetourt Estate; Botetourt Manuscripts at Badminton.

135

It is interesting that James Lebee, a former keeper of the public gaol, administered the punishment instead of
Edward Westmore who kept the public gaol during Botetourt‘s tenure as governor.
136

Hood, The Governor‘s Palace, pp. 243-244.

582
Botetourt. William Marshman, the butler, managed the work in the main house; Thomas Towse
(followed by John Cook, William Sparrow, and Rosanna Wilson) directed the preparation of
food; and Silas Blandford assigned work to Botetourt‘s slaves who did ―the Drudgery without
Doors.‖

Main House
William Marshman functioned as the house steward, butler, valet, housekeeper, and
secretary for Botetourt. His ―principal work area at the Palace was strategically (and
symbolically) located adjacent to the hall and next to the service entrance. Here he could keep
track of visitors entering both front and side doors, the latter being tradesmen and servants. Here
he coordinated the accounts from both sides of the Palace compound, the kitchen to the west and
the stables, garden, and park to the east.‖137 The butler‘s duties also included summoning doctors
for servants; securing a midwife and a nurse for the laundry maid; and giving money to
impoverished men and women. Marshman also paid men for killing hogs in January 1769 and
for filling the icehouse in February of the same year.
Botetourt‘s butler supervised the white servants, slaves, and free persons of color who
worked in the main house. The household servants included Thomas Fuller, the under butler;
Joseph Kidd, the groom of the chambers; and William Knight, the footman. John Draper (a
blacksmith), Joshua Kendall (a carpenter), John Rogers, and possibly Thomas Gale (a coachman)
waited on guests at several functions at the Palace. Enslaved men served as under footmen in the
public areas of the Palace. Robert Nicholson‘s bill for clothes that he made for Caesar, Isham,
Michael, and Will suggests that they were among the footmen and under footmen.138
It is likely that Botetourt stationed both liveried footmen and under footmen in the hall at
the Palace. Fauquier had two men and a boy stationed in the hall when he and Reverend Camm
argued in 1760. Fauquier‘s command to Edward Westmore to summon ―all‖ of his slaves
suggests that he had more than three individuals who stood near the doorway to the Palace.
Graham Hood notes that since Westmore
was on call outside the room in which the governor and Camm met implies that the
visitor also had to pass by him in order to be admitted to the lieutenant governor‘s
presence. If Fauquier observed this ritual, we may be sure that the aristocratic Botetourt
did as well, and with greater ceremony. He kept at least four footmen, perhaps more,
white as well as black. Evidently they were not only ornamental but also necessary, for
the custom of visitors coming to the Palace without appointments seems to have been
well established.

137

Ibid., pp. 236, 238, 239.

138

Robert Carter Nicholas Accounts of Lord Botetourt‘s Estate.

583
In addition to guarding the entrance to the Palace, footmen carried a wide range of food from the
kitchen and wine from the cellars to the dining room at mealtime.139
Marshman was responsible for hiring slaves and free blacks when extra help was needed
in all three areas at the Palace. Slaves, male and female, who belonged to Peyton Randolph,
John Randolph, Robert Carter Nicholas, Thomas Nelson, the Reverend James Horrocks, Robert
Carter, Thomas Everard, the estate of Carter Burwell, George Wythe, Mrs. Dawson, Mr.
Tazewell, and William Byrd III worked at the Palace during Botetourt‘s administration.
Marshman supervised the men he hired to wait, to cart goods to and from the Palace, and to serve
as postilions. The butler usually employed women to labor in the house and the kitchen area.
The balls that Botetourt gave required additional labor on the night of the event.
Marshman made arrangements for musicians, a barber to dress the hair of slaves, sentinels and
porters to guard the doors at the Palace, slaves to light candles, men to wait on the governor‘s
guests, and women to help with the preparation of food.140 The head cook had the responsibility
for the enslaved cooks, under cook, and pastry maid whose skills in the kitchen made the meals
at the balls more elegant.
Marshman also had contact with the slaves who ran errands to the Palace for their
masters. Ann Smart Martin notes that a number of prominent residents of Williamsburg and the
surrounding rural area
such as the Speaker of the House or the President of the Council curried favor by sending
special foods, usually carried by their slaves. These slaves were tipped well for their
services. The generosity of the Governor meant that the value of the tips in some cases
equaled the value of the foods themselves. This regular movement of cash into the slave
economy ensured that the power of the governor to command attention rested at the top
and bottom of the Williamsburg hierarchy. The provisioning of the colony‘s most
important political leader took on special significance. One group gained or buttressed
political patronage, the other added to pocket change.
This ability to reach in multiple directions for supply of a large variety of
specialty foods to fit the special cuisine of Virginia‘s governor is a large metaphor. The
governor hosted large entertainments, dispensing food and drink to curry favor.
Townspeople reciprocated with small treats of special luxuries, a tasty bird, a few
luscious berries. If food greased the machine of the town, the governor was a master
mechanic.
The tips that slaves received for delivering food and drink to the Governor‘s Palace meant that
they had cash to purchase goods and to participate in the local economy. Marshman also
139

140

Hood, The Governor‘s Palace, pp. 93, 94 (quote), 131.

It is possible that the sentinels and porters were men of color because they wore livery. The pay for sentinels and
porters ranged from five shillings to ten shillings in contrast to the usual sum of one shilling and three pence per day.
In addition, sentinels or porters had the opportunity to earn tips because they came into contact with members of the
gentry who attended the balls at the Palace.

584
purchased earthenware pans and wildfowl from Native Americans, including members of the
Pamunkey tribe and one whom he described as ―belonging to the Colledge.‖141
Botetourt‘s butler noted that he gave tips on two occasions to several slaves who lived at
the Palace. First, he rewarded four unnamed slave men seven shillings and six pence ―for taking
the thief‖ on November 1, 1769. In April of the following year Marshman gave Ben, Michael,
Will, Abraham, and Isham two shillings and six pence each for ―aiding to catch racoon.‖ It is
likely that Marshman called upon slaves to run errands for him in and around Williamsburg. He
tipped bond laborers who belonged to Mr. Belford, Colonel Burwell, Robert Carter, Colonel
Cary, Mr. Foxcroft, Captain Gell, Anthony Hay, Grissell Hay, James Horrocks, Mr. Johnson,
Colonel Lewis, Thomas Nelson, William Nelson, John Norton, Mr. Page, Mrs. Pitt, John
Randolph, Peyton Randolph, Richard Taliaferro, Mr. Tonny, Jane Vobe, Mrs. Walter, Mr.
Winston, George Wythe, and Mr. Younghusband. An Indian owned by the College of William
and Mary received a tip on Christmas Eve, 1768.
Marshman gave Christmas boxes to the slaves who delivered gifts of food and who
worked at the Palace.142 The butler‘s notation ―to the black servants‖ on Christmas Day 1768 is
probably a reference to the box that he gave to Botetourt‘s slaves. Marshman gave a box to Mr.
Graves‘s man and to Purdie and Dixon‘s slave on December 30, 1768. Doctor George Gilmer‘s
man received a Christmas box on January 7, 1769. Between January 14, 1769 and February 7,
1769 Marshman prepared a box valued at £2 for slaves who belonged to Mrs. Dawson, Robert
Carter Nicholas, Thomas Everard, George Wythe, Mr. Tazewell, James Horrocks, John
Randolph, and Peyton Randolph. The butler also gave a Christmas box to the wood man and to
the carter‘s men. Marshman delivered a greater number of Christmas boxes in 1769. The butler
gave a box to William Rind‘s enslaved boy two days before the holiday. Three days after
Christmas he noted that he presented Christmas boxes to Botetourt‘s slaves, Jane Vobe‘s carter,
and Anthony Hay‘s waiting man. Marshman‘s list included ―the Taylor‘s boys,‖ the woodman,
and slaves who belonged to Colonel Burwell, John Carter, Robert Carter, Mrs. Dawson, Thomas
Everard, Mr. Graves, James Horrocks, William Nelson, Mr. Kemp, Robert Carter Nicholas,
Peyton Randolph, and George Wythe. The governor‘s butler delivered his final Christmas box to
John Randolph‘s enslaved men, women, and children on March 25, 1770.
Marshman‘s entries in his account book suggest that he became acclimated to life in a
slave owning society after spending his early years in England where one did not see as many
slaves. The butler‘s early notes include payments and tips to the ―black servants,‖ a ―black
woman,‖ and a ―black man.‖ Within six months of his arrival in Virginia, Marshman used the
141

Ann Smart Martin, ―Consumption Patterns in Individual Households,‖ in ―Provisioning Early American Towns.
The Chesapeake: A Multidisciplinary Case Study,‖ (Final Performance Report, National Endowment for the
Humanities Grant RO-22643-93, 1997), pp. 145-146.
142

In the eighteenth-century, a ―Christmas Box‖ was a gift of money, a tip, given during the forty-day Christmas
season. Traditionally, a master gave a ―Christmas Box‖ to an inferior—a servant, a slave, an apprentice, or a
tradesman. See David DeSimone, ―The Christmas Box Tradition,‖ The Colonial Williamsburg Interpreter, Winter
1997, pp. 1-4; Hood, The Governor‘s Palace, pp. 241-242; and Journal and Letters of Philip Vickers Fithian 17731774: A Plantation Tutor of the Old Dominion, ed. Hunter Dickinson Farish, (Williamsburg: Colonial
Williamsburg Incorporated, 1943), pp. 40, 54.

585
word ―negro‖ to describe African Americans who worked at the Palace.143 The amount of
payments to white men who worked as waiting men and to the masters of enslaved men who
performed the same work also hint at a change in Marshman‘s outlook. In December 1769, the
butler noted that he paid Joseph Kidd (the groom of the chambers), James Kendall (a carpenter),
and John Draper (a blacksmith) five shillings and nine pence for their attendance as waiting men.
James Horrocks‘s man and the man who belonged to John Randolph took the same amount home
to their owners. However, in April of the following year Marshman gave Kidd, Kendall, and
Draper five shillings for one day of waiting. The two enslaved men who waited at the Palace on
the same day gained two shillings and six pence for their masters, Robert Carter and Thomas
Everard. The butler probably realized that he needed to pay Kidd, Kendall, and Draper at a
higher rate than he paid the owners of hired slaves.
Marshman‘s account book indicates that he ran Botetourt‘s household in an efficient
manner by hiring men, women, and children when he needed extra help at the Palace. The butler
quickly learned about the skills of the enslaved men, women, and children who lived in and near
Williamsburg. His detailed accounts provide a window on the many roles filled by slaves and
free blacks at the Palace during Botetourt‘s administration. In addition, the document reveals the
opportunities that the governor‘s slaves had to make connections to enslaved persons who ran
errands to the Palace for their owners, slaves who were hired to work at the Palace, and free
blacks who labored in the governor‘s house.

The Kitchen
Botetourt‘s cook, Thomas Towse, died within two months of his arrival in Virginia. John
Cook, the under cook, became the head cook, a position he held until he returned to England in
July 1769. The next head cook was a man named William Sparrow who managed the kitchen
and the related areas between July 1769 and February 1770 when he went back to England. Mrs.
Rosanna Wilson, mother of gardener James Wilson, served as the cook until Botetourt‘s death on
October 15, 1770.144
The head cook was the supervisor of the under cook, the pastry cook, the baker, kitchen
maids, the scullery maid, the laundry maid, and any slaves hired to work in the kitchen area.
This individual oversaw all activities in the supply and storage areas (the larder, the coalhouse,
the charcoal house, the glass and linen cupboards or closets, and the cook‘s cellar), the scullery,
and the servants‘ hall.145
The Kitchen Account Book indicates that William Sparrow and Rosanna Wilson hired
men and women to work in the kitchen area when they needed extra help.

143

Hood, The Governor‘s Palace, p. 243.

144

Ibid., p. 247.

145

Ibid., p. 248.

586
Sparrow paid an ―assistance woman‖ for five days of labor on July 12, 1769; one day of work on
August 8, 1769; and for labor at ―different times‖ on September 9, 1769. The head cook
employed a ―chair woman‖ who worked for him during a ten-day period in October of 1769.
Sparrow‘s ―chair woman‖ was probably a charwoman, a laborer who was hired by the day to do
odd household jobs. It is likely that the ―assistance woman‖ did the same type of work. She and
the charwoman might have been free women of color. Sparrow tipped Edward Westmore‘s
slave, Wentworth, in January 1770; and a slave who belonged to a Mr. Williams also received a
tip from the head cook in the same month.
The fact that Sparrow gave three men one shilling and three pence each ―for cleaning the
yard‖ on Sunday, September 17, 1769 suggests that he paid slaves who worked in the Palace
Gardens or Park during the week to labor for him on their day off. The two sentinels whom
Sparrow paid to stand by the kitchen door during the ball on December 26, 1769 might have
been enslaved men who usually labored in the governor‘s gardens, stable, or park.
A free black woman named Lydia Cooper received wages for work she performed at the
Palace Kitchen on two occasions in 1769. First, she gained £1.17.6 on October 2, 1769. This
amount indicates that she labored for almost two months. William Sparrow hired Lydia Cooper
by the middle of October and paid her £1.5 for a month and a half of work on November 27,
1769. Lydia Cooper was at the Palace when Sparrow hired Rosanna Wilson to work in the
kitchen for two days.
Lydia Cooper hired her enslaved man, Mann, to Rosanna Wilson (when she was head
cook at the Palace) three times in the spring and summer of 1770. Lydia Cooper received £1.5
for Mann‘s wages for a month of labor on May 12, 1770. Mann probably worked elsewhere in
Williamsburg for six weeks before he returned to the Palace Kitchen. He earned the sum of £2
for his mistress for two months of work that ended on July 6, 1770. Nine days later Mann was
back at the Palace. Mrs. Wilson paid Lydia Cooper £1 for a month of Mann‘s labor on August
15, 1770. Mann probably returned to the Williamsburg house that his mistress rented from
Thomas Hornsby at the end of each day.146
Rosanna Wilson hired Grissell Hay‘s man, Dick, for a day in March 1770.
Unfortunately, the head cook did not include the names of the ―negro woman‖ whom she paid
for three days of labor or the ―negro man‖ who worked in the kitchen area for two days in April
of 1770. Mrs. Wilson hired a free black woman named Betty three times in 1770. Betty earned
twelve shillings and six pence for a month‘s work on May 25, 1770. Mrs. Wilson needed Betty‘s
labor the next four days and paid her five shillings. Betty returned to the Palace Kitchen in early
June and worked six days for seven shillings and six pence.
John Cook and William Sparrow also supervised the work of the slaves whom Marshman
hired to help prepare food for large dinners and balls at the Palace. John Randolph‘s cook joined
the kitchen staff for balls on November 22, 1768; December 26, 1768, and May 27, 1769. She
146

Lydia Cooper owned Mann and Doctor on November 15, 1773 when she received a presentment from the grand
jury for not listing her men as tithes. Perhaps she hired Mann to work in the Palace Kitchen during Dunmore‘s
administration.

587
also was at the Palace on April 10, 1769, possibly for a dinner after the opening of a general
court session. The under cook from the Attorney General‘s household, who worked the ball on
December 26, 1768, might have been the girl who was at the Palace Kitchen for the ball on
November 22, 1768. Randolph‘s under cook worked during the ball in celebration of the
Queen‘s birthday on May 19, 1769, as did his pastry maid. William Byrd‘s cook assisted in food
preparation for the ball that honored the Queen and again on July 18, 1769. Sparrow turned to
Rosanna Wilson and Anthony Hay‘s cook at the Raleigh instead of hiring Randolph‘s cook,
under cook, and pastry maid for the ball that celebrated the King‘s birthday on October 25, 1769.
He paid Rosanna Wilson £1.1.6 for two days of work and Hay for one day of his cook‘s labor.
The head cook paid Mrs. Wilson the sum of £2.13.9 on January 10, 1770, so it is possible that
she was in the Palace Kitchen during the ball on December 26, 1769.
Rosanna Wilson‘s experience in the Palace Kitchen qualified her to replace Sparrow as
the head cook when he decided to return to England in February 1770. Entries in the Kitchen
Account Book indicate that she did not hire a cook from John Randolph, William Byrd, or
Anthony Hay between February and October of 1770. Instead, she had the free black woman
named Betty, Lydia Cooper‘s Mann, a ―negro man,‖ or a ―negro woman‖ assist her in the
kitchen area for the ball held on May 21, 1770 and on other occasions when she needed extra
help.
John Cook, William Sparrow, and Rosanna Wilson paid for the various foods that they
purchased from whites and free men of color for use in Botetourt‘s household. The cooks also
tipped slaves for gifts of food and drink that they carried to the Palace on behalf of their owners.
Enslaved individuals who belonged to Jacquelin Ambler, William Byrd III, Robert and Frances
Carter, Christiana Campbell, Thomas Everard, George Gilmer, Anthony Hay, Grissel Hay,
James Horrocks, Joseph Kidd, Matthew Moody, William and Thomas Nelson, Robert Carter
Nicholas, Robert Nicholson, John Randolph, Peyton Randolph, Richard Taliaferro, Edward
Westmore, and George Wythe delivered food and drink that the cooks used in the dishes that
enslaved men served to Botetourt and his guests.

The Palace Stables, Coach House, Garden, Park, and Lands
Silas Blandford managed the people who worked in the third service area at the Palace—
the stables, the coach house, the garden, the park, and lands. Like Marshman and the cooks,
Blandford supervised the labor of white servants, black slaves, and free persons of color. The
permanent staff included Thomas Gale, a coachman and carter; James Simpson and James
Wilson, the gardeners; a blacksmith named John Draper; Joshua Kendall, the carpenter; and a
groom by the name of Samuel King. Draper, Kendall, and possibly Gale also worked as waiters
when Marshman needed extra help in the Palace.147
Marshman‘s accounts indicate that James Simpson supervised the slaves whom the butler
hired to work in the Palace Gardens, Park, and Lands. In March and April of 1769 Marshman
noted that he paid at least four of the gardener‘s men—Bacchus, Will, Jack, and Tom—for work
147

Hood, The Governor‘s Palace, pp. 250, 253.

588
that they performed in the Palace. Marshman did not include the name of the slave who labored
for him on two occasions. The butler needed additional assistance to get the Palace ready for
spring or for the ball that Botetourt gave on May 19, 1769 to celebrate Queen Charlotte‘s
birthday.
In addition to Bacchus, Will, Jack, and Tom, James Simpson (and later, James Wilson)
oversaw the slaves who worked at the Palace for a few days, a few months, or a year. John
Randolph‘s gardener worked at the Palace for two days in April of 1769. Mrs. Wray‘s July 1769
bill of £5.1.8 for men in the garden suggests that two of her enslaved men tended plants in
Botetourt‘s garden for several months. It is likely that Abraham (hired from William Presson),
Ben, Billy (hired from Sarah Crawley), Lewis (hired from Mary Tabb), and Nat (hired from
Grissel Hay) labored under the direction of Simpson and Wilson. Billy and Nat probably
returned to their owners‘ homes at the end of the day, since the widow Crawley lived near
Williamsburg and Grissel Hay made her home in a dwelling on Market Square. William Presson
and Mary Tabb were residents of Charles Parish and it is likely that Abraham and Lewis slept in
the stables, the coach house, or an outbuilding. The contents of a ―Small Room Adjoyning to
Poultry House‖—―1 Old Mattrass‖ and ―2 Old Blankets‖—suggests that the slave who watched
over the livestock and poultry used this space for sleeping.148 This enslaved laborer, like others
who did not come into daily contact with whites who visited the Palace, probably wore clothing
similar to that worn by slaves who tended crops on plantations.149 These slaves also had fewer
opportunities to earn tips than did the enslaved men and women who worked in the Palace.
James, a slave belonging to the estate of Carter Burwell, worked in the Palace Gardens
during Botetourt‘s administration. William Nelson, Burwell‘s executor, also hired James to
Governors Fauquier and Dunmore. James was a skilled gardener who had the privilege of
tending some land on his own time. On October 12, 1769, Marshman paid him for fifty-eight
pounds of hops at one shilling per pound. He received forty-four shillings from Botetourt‘s
butler for forty-four pounds of hops on September 7, 1770.
Blandford also managed the enslaved men he hired to work in the coach house and to
drive Botetourt‘s carriage. John Randolph hired his coachman and postilion to the governor in
November 1768. Robert Carter‘s postilion accompanied Botetourt‘s carriage in May of the
following year. William Nelson received seven shillings and six pence when his coachman and
postilion carried lemons from Yorktown to the Palace in May 1770. The Attorney General‘s
postilion rode one of the horses that pulled the governor‘s carriage twice in September of 1770.

The Impact of the Death of Lord Botetourt on his Slaves
148

149

Ibid., p. 30.

The first store room at the Palace contained material at the time of Botetourt‘s inventory. A tailor might have
used the ―2 p[iece]s Oznabrigs‖ and the ―37 yds Oznabrigs – 76 & ¼ do [ditto]‖ to make shirts or summer suits for
the slaves who worked in the Palace Stables, Coach House, Garden, and Park. The material might have been used
for slave bedding. The ―8 ¼ yds brown Holland – 5 ½ yds printed Cotton – 1 Woman‘s Cotton Gown‖ in the store
room might have been for Sally, the laundry maid. The ―26 pr plain Negroes Shoes‖ were for the bond laborers who
worked outside. Hood, The Governor‘s Palace, p. 290.

589

After the death of Lord Botetourt on October 15, 1770, William Nelson, John Randolph,
Robert Carter Nicholas, John Blair Junior, and George Wythe wrote the Duke of Beaufort about
the deceased governor‘s estate. Nelson and the others noted that the ―Slaves are reckon‘d
orderly & valuable, and perhaps may be Convenient to our next Governor.‖150 On May 3, 1771,
the President and Masters of the College of William and Mary resolved ―unanimously that a
Negro Woman belonging to his late Excellency‘s Estate be purchas‘d for the Use of the College;
if to be had at a moderate price.‖151 However, Robert Carter Nicholas‘s account of the sale of the
estate of Lord Botetourt in 1771 indicates that the President and Masters did not purchase one of
Botetourt‘s enslaved women:
The Estate of Lord Botetourt for Cash recd. Of Sundries for Goods purchas‘d by them at
the Sale of his Lordships Estate
1771
August 3
By Cash of Mr. Nathl Burwell
1..10..By Ditto of the Revd. Mr. Fountaine
-..7..By Ditto of Mr. William Digges
-..6..3
By Ditto of Mr. William Griffin
-..10..By Ditto of Mr. William Keen
-..9..By Ditto of Mr. George Mitchell
-..6..By Ditto of Mr. Blair jr
6..13..6
Octr. 22
By Ditto of Joseph Kidd
29..4..5 ½
29
By Ditto of Mr. James Mercer
11..9..6
Novr. 1
By Ditto of Thomas Bolling
2..3..2
By Ditto of Benja. Harrison
57..18..By Ditto of Meriwether Smith
2..18..By Ditto of Thos. M. Randolph
9..12..6
4
By Ditto of Doctr. Griffin
46..2..6
5
By Ditto of Colo. Bassett
17..15..6
By Ditto of William Fitzhugh
10..12..6
By Ditto of Cuthbert Hubbard
13..13..By Ditto of Colo Byrd
31..-..By Ditto of Jno. Byrd
21..-..By Ditto of Doctr. Pope
6..6..7
By Ditto of the Honble. Jno. Page esqr
4..2..6
By Ditto of Wilson Cary esqr
12..10..By Ditto of Richard Adams
43..10..2
By Ditto of Mann Page jr
131..16..6
By Ditto of Colo. Corbin for sundries sold
the Country
306..6..By Ditto of John Lewis
48..1..3
150

Nelson, Randolph, Nicholas, Blair, and Wythe to the Duke of Beaufort, October 30, 1770.

―Journals of the Meetings of the President & Masters of William & Mary College [17291784],‖ p. 203 quoted in ―William and Mary College Historical Notes,‖ p. 202.
151

590

11

By Ditto of Mr. Secretary
By Ditto of Ralph Wormeley jr. esqr
By Ditto of Peterfd. Trent
By Ditto of Robt. C. Nicholas
By Ditto of Mr. President Nelson

101..8..2..12..6
142..10..95..12..3
800..9..9
£1958..15..7 ½

It is possible that Joseph Kidd, Benjamin Harrison, Doctor Corbin Griffin, Colonel William
Byrd, Richard Adams, Mann Page Junior, Colonel Corbin, John Lewis, Thomas ―Secretary‖
Nelson, Peterfield Trent, Robert Carter Nicholas, and William ―President‖ Nelson purchased an
enslaved man, woman, or child who had been owned by Lord Botetourt.152 William Nelson, one
of the executors of Botetourt‘s estate, might have purchased the eight slaves for the next
governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore. Unfortunately, most of the extant documents concerning
Dunmore‘s slaves do not include the names of these men, women, and children.

Lord Dunmore, 1771-1775
It is likely that the executors of Botetourt‘s estate purchased several slaves owned by the
deceased governor so that they could do the necessary work about the Palace until Dunmore
arrived in September 1771. Virginia‘s new governor added to the number of enslaved laborers
once he took up residence in Williamsburg because of the large size of his family—Lord and
Lady Dunmore had nine children—and the fact that he purchased a York County plantation
known as Porto Bello and land in Berkeley County. The governor claimed that he left behind
fifty-seven slaves and four indentured servants when he boarded the Fowey. Unfortunately,
Dunmore left few details about when he acquired his laborers and the work they performed at the
Governor‘s Palace.
Dunmore‘s Loyalist Claim indicates that he purchased 597 acres of land ―called Porto
Bello & the Old ffarm in the County of York‖ between May 20, 1772 and November 19, 1773.
He produced the following documents to support his claim:
Indenture dated 20. May 1772 whereby Robt. Carter Esqr in Considn of 727.10
Curry Conveys to Lord Dunmore 250 Acres of Land in the Parish of Bruton & County of
York.
Indenture dated 19th. Novr 1773 whereby Rachael Drummond Widow conveys to
Lord Dunmore 319 Acres of Land called Porto Bello [in the] parish of Bruton & County
of York Cons[]n 650 Curry.
Indenture dated 29th. Novr 1773 whereby Dr. James Carter & Hester his Wife in
Consn. Of 100 Curry convey to Lord Dunmore 10 Acres of Land in the County of York.
He says all the Consideration Money was actually & bona fide paid.
Most of this was cultivated when he bought it. There was a good House upon it
for which he paid over & above the purchase of the land £ 205.12 Sterlg & says the other

152

Robert Carter Nicholas Accounts of Lord Botetourt‘s Estate.

591
Buildings which he erected on the ffarm & which he but charged together 960 Sterlg cost
him three times as much.
He was at great Expence in clearing the Lands & grubbing up the Roots of Trees.
He had from 100 to 150 Negroes constantly at work upon the ffarm
He says that he inclosed near 80 Acres of Meadow which used to be overflowed
& which is not set down in him Memorial which cost him near 300 Sterlg;
Lord Dunmore says he has not the least doubt but he should have found many
purchasers for this Estate at 2500 in the year 1775. He thinks it is greatly undervalued in
the Schedules.153
The governor probably purchased enslaved laborers in 1772 to clear the land and to plant the
fields at the Old Farm and Porto Bello. It is possible that Dunmore purchased several slaves
from Rachel Drummond when he purchased Porto Bello. The widow Drummond noted that she
had ―several likely young Negroes, which I would willingly sell‖ in Rind‘s November 4, 1773
issue of the Virginia Gazette.154 His statement that he ―had from 100 to 150 Negroes constantly
at work upon the ffarm‖ suggests that he also hired enslaved laborers to work on his plantations.
An order that Dunmore placed with John Norton and Sons on June 12, 1773 provides
information about the clothes that the enslaved workers at Porto Bello and the Old Farm wore.
The governor asked Norton to send ―100 pair Strong large Shoes for Negroes,‖ ―100 do. [pair]
Strong Coarse Stockings for do. [Negroes],‖ and ―50 Coarse hats for do. [Negroes].‖ Dunmore‘s
order suggests that he supplied each of the slaves who tended fields on his York County
plantations with two pairs of shoes, two pairs of stockings, and one hat. A tailor probably used
the ―12 pieces Oznabrigs‖ to make shirts. He made winter clothes for the slaves who tended the
governor‘s plantations from the ―150 Yds. blue plains.‖ Blue plains was a coarser, nappier
material than that used for livery. A male slave had a jacket and a pair of breeches made of this
material. An enslaved woman wore a jacket and a petticoat made from blue plains.
Dunmore‘s order also contains some details about the number of slaves who worked as
footmen at the Palace and the livery they wore. The governor‘s list of desired items included the
following material:
30 Yds. Blue Cloath for foot-Men
30 Do. Brown do. for do.
6 Pieces of Brown Jeans for do.
1 Piece of Green Shag for do.
1 Do. Blue do. for do.
The governor probably ordered enough broad cloth for a tailor to make nine suits of each color
for his footmen. The tailor might have used the brown jeans, green shag, and blue shag to make
sturdy breeches for the enslaved men who stood by the doors at the Palace. Dunmore‘s order for
153

Loyalist Claims, Series I—Evidence, Virginia, 1783-1786 in Public Records Office A.O.
12/54, pp. 118-134, dated July 9, 1784.
154

Virginia Gazette, Rind, ed., November 4, 1773.

592
six postilion whips and an equal number of caps indicates that he had six enslaved laborers who
could accompany his coach.155
Dunmore‘s Loyalist Claim includes the number of slaves and indentured servants that he
had when he fled Williamsburg:
Lord Dunmore says he left behind when he went on board the Fowey 57 Negroes which
he has lost.
46 of them charged at £ 2461.12 & 2 charged at £ 72 are charged at their prime Cost.
The other 9 charged at 32 each being the [illeg] the Virginia Committee set upon Negroes
he having lost the Bills of Sale for these.
Charges 288 for 12 indented Servants lost being 24 each wch[?] & nearly what the
Purchase of their Indentures cost him.
James Minzies, the man who served as Dunmore‘s Secretary in Williamsburg, agreed with the
number of bond laborers and indentured servants that the governor claimed to have in his
possession. According to Dunmore‘s Loyalist Claim, Minzies
is shown a List of 46 Negroes produced by Lord Dunmore with prices charged against
them amounting to £ 2491.12 Sterling. He says he made out this List & it consists with
his Knowledge what Lord Dunmore paid the Sums set against them for these Negroes as
they were either bought or paid for by himself on Lord Dunmore‘s Account.
He also knew the 9 Slaves charged at 32 each & says he thinks them charged under their
Value.
The Negro Woman & child he knows to have been purchased of Mr Wormley & he
understood Lord Dunmore paid for them in England as also appears by Mr Wormley‘s
Receipt for 108 produced.
Says that indented Servants commonly sold from 20 to 30 a piece if they had 4 years to
serve. the charge of 24 a head is moderate.156
155

Mason, ed., John Norton & Sons: Merchants of London and Virginia, pp. 328-331. A tailor needed 10 yards of
material to make a suit of livery for a man and 2 ¾ yards to make a suit of livery for a boy. Each suit of livery
usually had two colors. My thanks to Linda Baumgarten and Kim Ivey for their help in interpreting Dunmore‘s
order.

Minzies also noted that ―The Goods imported from England consisted of Cloathing for the
Family & Negroes & other Articles very few of them were used. The charge is made from the
Invoice which amounted to upwards of £600 Sterling, but the round Sum only was set down.‖
156

―Schedule of Losses sustained by the Earl of Dunmore His Majestys late Governor of the Colony
of Virginia‖ included the value of his property:
No. 1 579 Acres of Land in high Cultivation with valuable Orchards, known by the Names of
Porto Bello & the Old ffarm in the County of York @ 48/ pr Acre } 1389.12
46 Negro Slaves at the price Lord Dumore gave for them } 2491.12
9 do. the prices not known at present @ 32 288
A Negro woman & child purchased from Ralph Wormeley Esqr } 72

593

Neither Dunmore nor Minzies provided many details about the work that the bond laborers
performed at the Palace, the ages of the enslaved individuals, or the number of males and
females. It is clear that Dunmore viewed the slaves he left in Virginia as his property.
Dunmore‘s opinion that slaves were property can also be seen in the proclamation he
issued in November 1775. The governor carefully worded his proclamation to offer freedom
only to those slaves who belonged to his political opponents and who were able-bodied. Under
the terms of the proclamation, Dunmore‘s own slaves could not join his ―Ethiopian Regiment.‖
An entry in Purdie‘s January 12, 1776 issue of the Virginia Gazette noted that Dunmore‘s slaves
at his Berkeley County plantation did not know about the proclamation:
NOTWITHSTANDING lord Dunmore‘s late proclamation for emancipating such slaves
as should repair to his standard, we are informed, by a correspondent, that two of his own
negroes, with an overseer, passed through Fredericksburg, one day last week, on their
way to his Berkeley plantation; so that it should seem his lordship has not been so very
generous to his own bondmen as he wished to be to those who were the property of
others, but whom neither he, nor even his august master, have the smallest right to
intermeddle with.157
However, it is known that at least five of Dunmore‘s slaves ran away in 1775. It is possible that
Robin took advantage of the turmoil caused by the Gunpowder Incident in April 1775 to run in
August of the same year. William Mitchell described him as ―a likely negro man named
ROBIN, 5 feet 7 inches high, slender made, has on an osnabrug shirt, blue breeches, and a blue
jacket, and says he ran away from the palace at Williamsburg.‖158 The account of Robin‘s
clothing indicates that he worked in the fields at one of Dunmore‘s plantations.
In December 1775 John Pendleton ―Ordered that Colonel [Patrick] Henry be at Liberty to
give direction to the Keeper of the public Gaol for the discharge of James a Mulatto slave
belonging to Lord Dunmore.‖159 It is not known if James ran to join Dunmore or not. Entries
in the Black Loyalist Directory indicate that three of the governor’s slaves were
evacuated with the British from New York in 1783. Sarah stated that she left the Palace
in 1776. Roger Scott claimed that Dunmore freed him before he left Williamsburg and
Catherine Scott did not note when she left the governor.160
12 Indented Servants, mostly tradesmen who had about 4 years to serve @ 24 each } 288‖
Loyalist Claims, Series I—Evidence, Virginia, 1783-1786 in Public Records Office A.O. 12/54, pp. 118-134, dated
July 9, 1784.
157

Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., January 12, 1776.

158

Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., August 25, 1775.

159

Robert L. Scribner et al., eds., Revolutionary Virginia: The Road to Independence. A Documentary Record, 7
vols., (Charlottesville: Published for the Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission by the University Press
of Virginia, 1973-1983), 5:144.
160

Graham Russell Hodges, ed., The Black Loyalist Directory:

African Americans

594

Purdie‘s July 14, 1775 issue of the Virginia Gazette noted that ―All his Lordship‘s
domesticks have now left the palace, and are gone, bag and baggage, to his farm at Porto Bello,
about six miles from town.‖161 The rest of Dunmore‘s slaves were at the Palace in early January
1776 when the colony‘s leaders moved to secure the property that he left at the Governor‘s
Palace. They decided ―that no person be allowed to make reprisal on the property of lord
Dunmore, in this colony, for their property seized by him, or the navy, without the order of this
Convention.‖162 On February 22, 1776, Benjamin Powell, Richard Morris and Lieutenant
Goodrich Crump received an appointment to ―examine the several Effects in the Palace,
contained in the Inventory formerly ret‘d, and report to this comm‘ee whether any or what part
are missing.‖163 Powell and James Southall viewed and appraised ―such articles of furniture at
the palace as the General [Lee] may want (which will be considered purchased by him) and make
report to the comm‘ee‖ on April 2nd of that year.164
The claims that John Ferguson, the public gardener, submitted to the Committee of
Safety indicate that slaves (both Dunmore‘s and those whom Ferguson hired) continued to work
at the Palace in the first half of 1776. On February 16, 1776, the Convention ordered the
Commissary of Provisions to deliver rations to Ferguson for himself and ―the slaves employed in
the Publick service.‖ The gardener also received £7.15.8 to cover his expences. On April 9,
1776, the members of the convention gave Ferguson a warrant ―for £18.16.5 services and negro
hire in the Palace Gardens.‖ Two months later Ferguson presented his account of £16.8.4 ―for
negro hire and attendance, &c., in the Palace Garden as public Gardener.‖165
On June 15, 1776, the Virginia Convention appointed Edmund Randolph, Thomas
Everard, Robert Prentis, James Cocke, and John Blair commissioners ―to rent out the Lands and
to sell at Public Auction the slaves and personal Estate of Lord Dunmore at or in the
neighbourhood of the City of Williamsburg.‖ The commissioners announced the sale of
Dunmore‘s property on June 21, 1776:
THE commissioners appointed by Convention to lease the lands of lord Dunmore within
the county of York, and to sell his slaves and personal estate within this city, and the
neighbourhood thereof, will, at the palace, on Tuesday the 25th instant, proceed to expose
the said slaves and personal estate to sale, by way of auction; the purchasers to be
allowed a year‘s credit, on giving bond and approved security. They also give notice,

in Exile After the American Revolution, (New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., in Association with the
New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1996), pp. 134, 162, 173.
161

Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., July 14, 1775 (supplement).

162

Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., 5 January 1776.

163

Calendar of State Papers, 8:95.

164

Calendar of State Papers, 8:150.

165

Calendar of State Papers, 8:85, 159, 193.

595
that they will attend at Porto Bello on Monday the first of next month, at 10 o‘clock in
the morning, to execute the other part of their commission.166
Unfortunately, a list of the people who purchased Dunmore‘s slaves does not survive. Six weeks
after the sale of the former governor‘s real and personal estate the commissioners announced that
ALL persons who have bought goods at the sale of lord Dunmore‘s estate, and have not
already given bond, in those instances where credit was allowed, or paid the money,
where prompt payment was requirable, are desired to comply with the terms of the sale,
without farther delay. The commissioners will attend for that purpose at the house of the
Attorney-General on Saturday the 24th of this month. Such of the purchasers as live too
remote to comply with this request are earnestly desired to save the commissioners all
farther trouble, by sending their bonds as soon as possible.167
On December 22, 1777, Randolph and Blair informed readers of the Virginia Gazette that
As the Lease formerly made by the Subscribers, of the Earl of Dunmore‘s Lands in York
County, will expire at Christmas, they hereby give Notice, that they will again lease the
same for a Year, to the highest Bidder, on Wednesday the last of this Month, before the
Raleigh Door.168
Perhaps Randolph and Blair found someone to purchase Dunmore‘s plantations or to enter into a
long-term lease because they placed no further announcement about this property in the Virginia
Gazette.

The Powell House
This examination focuses on the slaves who lived and worked in Benjamin Powell‘s
Williamsburg household; the enslaved men who assisted their master in building projects in
Williamsburg; the slaves whom Powell gave to his daughters, Ann and Hannah, as their dower
slaves; and the fate of Powell‘s enslaved men, women, and children after his death in 1790.
Benjamin Powell left his native Warwick County and moved to Williamsburg in the early
1750s. He bought Lot 30 in the Waller Subdivision from Benjamin Waller on November 19, 1753.
The deed noted that he had to build on the property within three years, a requirement that posed no
problem for Powell, who was a carpenter. The 1753 purchase was the first of several deeds that
Powell entered into during the 1750s and the 1760s. Powell did not buy the lots that bear his name
today until May 1, 1763, when he purchased Lots 19 and 43 in the Waller Subdivision from Waller.
The deed stipulated that he must build on each of the lots within three years. The structures had to
166

Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., June 21, 1776; see also Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., June 22, 1776.

167

Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., August 16, 1776; Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., August 17, 1776.

168

Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., December 26, 1776.

596
be in line with the other lots on the street at the extreme west bounds of the lot. It is possible that
Powell bought lots, built on the parcels, and sold the urban property as a way to establish his
reputation in Williamsburg as a skilled carpenter who helped develop a new section of the city.
Powell relied on the labor of white apprentices in the 1750s. Daniel Hoye entered into an
indenture with Powell in Warwick County in 1752. Hoye moved to Williamsburg with his master
and practiced as a wheelwright in the colonial capital after he finished his term of service. On
December 5, 1755, an orphan named William Hyde apprenticed himself to Powell for six years to
learn the trade of carpenter. Soon thereafter, on the first day of 1756, Powell apprenticed Frederick
Bryan, the orphan of William Bryan, for eight years. However, Bryan‘s guardian removed him
from Powell‘s household and indentured him to a carpenter named Matthew Hatton in 1759.
Thomas Mountfort‘s orphan, Wade Mountfort, became an apprentice to Powell in May 1764.
Mountfort agreed to serve for five years and seven months in order to learn the skills of a carpenter
and a joiner.
The first evidence that Powell relied on the labor of enslaved men appeared in September
1762 when he paid for three slaves he had hired the previous year from John Moss, the orphan of
Edward Moss of Charles Parish. He paid £8.12.6 for Charles, £7.2.6 for George, and £ 4..6..0 for
Sam. Powell hired George and Sam the following year for £16.1.0 and he gave John Moss the
sum of £7.10.0 to cover Sam‘s labor in September 1764. Powell also paid Carter Burwell's
estate for the hire of an enslaved woman and three male slaves during the 1760s. Judith, who
was described as a domestic at Carter‘s Grove in the 1740s, worked in the Powell house from
1766 to 1769. Harry labored for Powell in 1765, 1766, and 1767. Manuel and Joe left Carter‘s
Grove and worked for the carpenter in 1766 and 1767.169
A close examination of five documents provides some clues about the size of Powell‘s
labor force between 1765 and 1770 as well as the work that he had slaves perform. First, in 1765,
1768, and 1770, the carpenter failed to turn in a list of his tithes in the part of Bruton Parish that lay
in York County. Thomas Everard, the York County clerk, noted that Powell‘s thirteen tithes needed
to be added to the list in September 1765. Three years later he had eleven tithes that did not appear
on the 1768 list. In September of 1770, Powell neglected to list eighteen tithes that labored in
Bruton Parish. It is probable that all of Powell‘s tithes were in Williamsburg because he did not
own rural land in Bruton Parish until 1774. The urban tithes included Powell, the women who
labored in his house, and the men—white apprentices and slaves—who assisted Powell in the
various building projects he secured. Wade Mountfort was one of the tithes in 1765 and 1768. The
three different numbers of tithes—thirteen in 1765, eleven in 1768, and eighteen in 1770—probably
reflect fluctuations in Powell‘s building and repair business.170 It is likely that Powell hired Harry,
Manuel, Joe, and other enslaved men when he needed additional labor.

169

170

Burwell Ledger 2 (1764-1776) f. 1.

Powell‘s public projects included repairing the Public Gaol (1765), building the steeple at Bruton Parish Church
(1769), repairing the Capitol (1769), enlarging the living quarters at the Palace (1771), agreeing to build the Public
Hospital (1772), repairing the Powder Magazine (1772), building a dwelling house at the Public Vineyard (1772),
working on the soldiers‘ barracks (1776), and building a hospital at the Public Vineyard (1778).

597
With the exception of Judith, the domestic slaves managed by Annabelle Powell were
enslaved women who were part of the Powell household. Nanny was a Powell slave by October
19, 1757, when she gave birth to her son, Charles. Jacob, the second son born to Nanny, was
baptized on July 3, 176[3]. Charles received his baptism on September 1, 1765, almost eight years
after his birth. Kate was the mother of two children baptized in the 1760s: Hannah on August 5,
1764 and John in early 1767. Sarah and Benjamin, the children of Rose, also had their baptisms
recorded in 1767. Benjamin was described as a little boy in the Bruton Parish Register at the time
of his baptism. It is possible that Kate, Nanny, and Rose were three of the tithes to be added to the
list for Bruton Parish in 1765, 1768, and 1770.
The 1768 and 1769 Williamsburg-James City Tax Lists indicate that Powell had tithes in
two locations in James City County. The 1768 Williamsburg-James City Tax List noted that he
paid an assessment of five pounds of tobacco for each of six tithes and an assessment of forty-six
pounds of tobacco on a second group of eight tithes. Powell also had 460 acres of land in James
City County in 1768. The following year Powell‘s seventeen tithes were divided into groups of six
and eleven. He paid an assessment of seven pounds of tobacco and forty-seven pounds of tobacco,
respectively, for these laborers. The carpenter added 552 acres to the 460 acres that he already
owned for a plantation of 1,012 acres.171 A comparison of the assessment rates suggests that Powell
had six tithes on the James City County side of Williamsburg and another group of tithes on his
plantation. Perhaps Powell had enslaved men cut timbers and frame structures on a lot in the James
City County portion of Williamsburg. On March 23, 1772, he received a payment of £36.14 ―for
the Balance of his Account, for Building a Dwelling House at the public Vineyard, and furnishing
Materials for the same.‖172 It is possible that the materials furnished by Powell included timbers cut
by enslaved sawyers.
Two of Powell‘s enslaved men committed crimes. In October 1769, Allaka appeared before
an oyer and terminer court to answer the charge of felony and burglary. The justices found him
guilty of stealing rum from William Moody‘s smokehouse in Yorkhampton Parish. Allaka was
burnt in the left hand because the justices found him guilty of the felony but not guilty of the
burglary. Powell‘s man Mingo was the defendant in an oyer and terminer trial on July 21, 1772.
The oyer and terminer justices tried him for stealing a sheep from Governor Dunmore. Mingo was
burnt on his left hand and received twenty-five lashes on his bare back at the public whipping post.
Neither Allaka nor Mingo were charged with committing another crime.
The marriage of Powell‘s younger daughter, Ann, to John Burwell in December 1771
probably caused some disruption in the lives of the Powell bond laborers because her dower
included slaves. A comparison of the list of slaves Burwell inherited from the estate of his father,
Armistead Burwell, and the "Account of Negros given by B Powell & L Burwell to A Burwell &
her Children 26 November 1789‖ provides some clues about the identity of Ann Powell's dower
171

In 1768, the mean number of tithes per household was 6.2 and the median was 3 tithes. Approximately 85% of the
households in the county had a smaller number of tithes than Powell. The average tract was 424 acres in size and the
median was 200 acres. Powell's 460 acres placed him in the top quarter of the landholders. The following year, Powell
held 1,012 acres. Ninety percent of the landholders in James City County had smaller tracts.
172

McIlwaine et al., eds., Journal of the House of Burgesses, 12:266.

598
slaves.173 John Burwell gained possession of men named Robin, Sam, Michael, and Ephraim at his
majority. There is no evidence that the other slaves on the 1789 list—Kit, Lucy, Kate, Lizzy, Will
Pigeon, Billy, and Betty—were owned by the Burwell family before the 1780s. Powell purchased
Kit, Will Pigeon, Billy, and Betty at the sale of John Burwell's estate and lent them to his daughter
during her lifetime. Perhaps he bought these slaves to make sure that Ann Burwell had some of her
dower slaves in her household. Powell's elder daughter Hannah married William Drew in
November 1776. It is likely that he also gave Hannah slaves as part of her dower.
In May 1776, Powell gained additional labor. The Committee of Safety ―On the
representations of Mr. Benjamin Powell, the Comm‘ee agree that six slaves now in the public jail,
the property of certain Tories, may be employed under the direction of Mr. Powell upon the prison
lot for the use of the public, they being confined under a sufficient guard to prevent their escape.‖174
It is likely that these six slaves labored under better conditions than did their contemporaries who
were sent to work in the lead mines in Fincastle County.
Powell decided to leave Williamsburg and to move to his 600-acre plantation in Bruton
Parish in 1780. On January 29 of that year he announced "To be SOLD, or RENTED for three
years. THE HOUSES and TENEMENTS where I at present live, just below the capitol in the city
of Williamsburg. The lots are well enclosed, and the houses in good repair, and every conveniency
for the reception of a large family."175 Powell sold his house and tenements on Lots 19 and 43 to
Zachariah Rowland, a resident of Henrico County, on June 17, 1782.
Powell‘s move to Bruton Parish may have reunited the slaves who worked in his
Williamsburg household and who helped to build and repair structures in the colonial capital with
family members who tended the fields on his James City County plantation. In 1782, the former
resident of Williamsburg paid taxes on nineteen tithes and 600 acres of land. The following year
Powell had fourteen tithes and five slaves under sixteen years old in Bruton Parish. The 1784 York
County Personal Property Tax List included the names of sixteen bond laborers over sixteen years
of age and eight slaves under sixteen years of age. Powell also paid the tithe for Charles Graves
who probably worked as his overseer. In 1785, Powell had sixteen slaves over sixteen years old and
seven slaves who were not tithable. The following year the number of his slaves increased to
nineteen who were tithes and twelve who were under sixteen years old.176 One of the new slaves
was Alice, the daughter of Priscilla, who was baptized on September 11, 1785. Charles Graves was
also on Powell's list of tithes in 1786.

173

Ann Powell Burwell Commonplace Book, Virginia Historical Society, Mss5:589585:1.

174

Palmer, ed., Calendar of Virginia State Papers, 8:173.

175

Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., January 29, 1780.

176

Powell's thirty-one tithes placed him in the top five percent of slaveholders in York County. Only six men, including
Nathaniel Burwell with 117 slaves, held a greater number of enslaved persons. In contrast, one-fifth of the households
did not have any slaves. The mean number of slaves (among slave owners) was eight and the median was five. Powell's
697 acres of land ranked him in the top ten percent of real property holders.

599
The order in which the names of Powell‘s enslaved men and women appeared on the 1784
York County Personal Property Tax List may provide information about husbands and wives.
Instead of listing the slaves in the typical order—males over sixteen, females over sixteen, males
under sixteen, and females under sixteen—Powell‘s 1784 roll recorded the adult names in the
following arrangement:
Dublin, Milly, Charles, Rose, Elgin [Allaka], Milly, Jeffery, Rose, Ben, Priscilla, Jacob,
Peg, Moses, Esther, Frank, and Mingo.
Frank and Mingo were the only men who did not have a woman's name after their name. Charles
and Rose, Allaka and Milly, Jeffery and Rose, and Jacob and Peg appeared on all three tax lists.
Powell paid Priscilla's tithe from 1784 to 1786 and the assessment for Ben in 1784 and 1786.
Moses was just on the 1784 list and Esther was on all three rolls. Perhaps he hired out Ben in 1785
and Moses in 1785 and 1786. Dublin and Milly were the only couple to disappear after 1784.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine which of the younger slaves (other than Alice) might
have been the children of any of the adults on the list.
A comparison of the names of Powell's slaves on the York County Personal Property Tax
Lists between 1784 and 1786 indicates that eighteen of the thirty-six enslaved men, women, and
children appeared on all three lists. It is possible that Powell hired out the slaves who appeared on
just one or two of the lists. Perhaps Alice was just one of several slave children born during 1785,
and Betty, James, and Phil were also infants in 1786.
Name
Aaron
Alice
Allaka
Ben
Betty
Betty
Charles
Charles
Demous
Dublin
Esther
Frank
Giles
Jack
Jacob
James
James
James
Jeffery
Milly
Milly
Mingo

Age
-16
-16
16+
16+
16+
-16
16+
-16
16+
16+
16+
16+
16+
16+
16+
-16
-16
-16
16+
16+
16+
16+

1784
X

1785
X

X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

1786
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

600
Moses
Patty
Peg
Phil
Phil
Phillis
Priscilla
Priss
Rose
Rose
Sally
Sam
Tom
Will

16+
-16
16+
-16
-16
-16
16+
-16
16+
16+
-16
16+
16+
16+

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X

Demous traveled to Williamsburg after the death of William Drew in 1785, indicating that he had
been one of Hannah Drew‘s dower slaves. A look at the changing number of tithes between 1782
and 1789 also suggests that Powell hired out adult slaves.
Year
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1788

Tax List
York County
York County
York County
York County
York County
York County
Williamsburg
1789
York County
Williamsburg
1790
York County
Williamsburg
1
James City
1791
Williamsburg
1792
Williamsburg
1793
Williamsburg

Slaves 16+
19
14
16
16
19
13
8
18
3 slaves 12+
16

Slaves -16
not given
5
8
7
12
4
3177
4

3
2 slaves 12+ (estate)
2 slaves 12+ (estate)
3 slaves 12+ (Hannah Drew)

Hannah Drew lived on a lot that her father rented from William Bland by the time of the 1788
Williamsburg Personal Property Tax List.
In his will which he wrote on November 17, 1790, Powell took great care to provide for his
second wife, Fanny, and both of his widowed daughters and their children. First, he lent to Ann
Burwell

177

In 1789 and 1790, the York County Personal Property Tax List included slaves who were between twelve and
sixteen years old.

601
all the Slaves and personal Estate which I purchased at the sale of her late Husband John
Burwell deceased (except a Negro Girl named Pegg and a Bay Horse called Stephen) which
I have now in my Possession, during her natural life and after the death of my said Daughter
Anne I give and bequeath the said Slaves and personal Estate to be equally Divided among
the Children of the said Anne Burwell or the survivors of them and should any of the
children of the said Anne Burwell die in the lifetime of their said mother leaving a Child or
Children, I direct that such child or children may take what his or their Father or mother
would have been entitled to.
Next, he gave Hannah Drew
the Following Slaves to wit, Betty, Boy Phil, Boy James, Boy called Billy Drew, Hannah
and all her Increase (Except her Child Charles and after the death of my said Daughter
Hannah, I give the said Slaves to my Grandson Benjamin Drew, but should my said
Grandson Benjamin die before he attains the age of twenty one years, I give the said Slaves
to be equally divided among the other children of my said Daughter Hannah if any there be
but if not then and in that case I desire the said slaves may be equally divided among the
Children of my Daughter Anne Burwell.
He wanted his "Land, Slaves, and Stocks in the Counties of York and James City be kept together
and managed as heretofore under the directions of my Executors." He decided that "the profits
arising yearly be equally divided between my Wife Fanny my Daughter Hannah and my Daughter
Anne which said Lands and Plantations, I direct may be so kept until my said Grand son Benjamin
attains the age of twenty one years as well as the slaves and personal estate, and then I give and
bequeath the said Lands and Plantations unto my said Grandson Benjamin Drew and his Heirs
forever." The slaves on Powell's "York Plantation" were to be kept together until Drew's twentyfirst birthday. Then they were to be divided in "the following manner that is to say, one half of the
said Slaves I give to my Grandson Armistead Burwell and the other half to be equally divided
among the other children of my said Daughter Anne Burwell." However, if Drew died before he
reached his majority, the land, slaves, and personal estate in York and James City counties were to
be divided between Hannah Drew and Ann Burwell and their heirs after the death of Fanny Powell.
In addition, Powell gave his executors the power to "dispose of at their descretion any of the Slaves
belonging to and remaining on my said York Plantation for misbehavior or other good cause and lay
out the money arising from the sale of such Slave or Slaves in the purchase of the Slaves for the
House of the said Plantation."178

178

York County Wills and Inventories (22) 222-225, dated November 17, 1790, codicil dated November 19, 1790,
and recorded January 17, 1791.

602
Printing Office
This section includes details about the slaves owned by William Parks, William Hunter Senior,
William and Clementina Rind, Joseph Royle, Alexander Purdie, John Dixon, and William Hunter
Junior. Only John Pinkney was not a slaveowner.
Each of the printers included notices concerning slave sales and advertisements for runaway slaves
in their newspaper. The October 1748 statute entitled An Act concerning Servants, and Slaves
directed the Keeper of the Public Gaol to place a description of each runaway slave held in the
Public Gaol in the Virginia Gazette for three months. The legislation required the announcement
to include details about the runaway slave‘s appearance and clothes.
William Parks
It is known that William Parks had two slaves in his Williamsburg household, three slaves
on a plantation called Thomas‘s near Williamsburg, and fifteen enslaved laborers in Hanover
County at the time of his death on June 18, 1750. The printer left all of his property, real and
personal, to his daughter, Eleanor Shelton, and nothing to his wife. John Shelton of Hanover
County served as the executor of his father-in-law‘s estate.
Details in the settlement of Parks‘s estate suggest that the enslaved individuals in Hanover
County and a Williamsburg slave played a role in his printing operation. Parks owned a paper mill
and fifteen enslaved persons—nine men, four women, and two children—in Hanover. The female
slaves might have worked in the paper mill.179 One of the Hanover slaves died before his executor
sold the remaining fourteen laborers. Shelton also sold ―seven White Servants Men & Women.‖
Unfortunately, Shelton did not note where all of these men and women labored. The entry ―To the
white Servants Expences from Wmsburg to Hanover Court‖ suggests that several indentured
servants were part of Parks‘s labor force in Williamsburg and that Shelton sold the remainder of
their indentures at a sale in Hanover.
Shelton included the sale of the printer‘s Williamsburg slaves in his account. William
Hunter Senior paid the sum of £69.10 for a man named Caesar. The high purchase price indicates
that Caesar was a skilled slave and that Hunter (who followed in Parks‘s footsteps as public printer)
needed him to continue to work in the printing office. Shelton sold Bridget and her child to a
resident of the Williamsburg area for £53.10. The clerk of the Bruton Parish vestry noted Bridget‘s
baptism on May 6, 1751. The fact that the clerk described Bridget as a slave who belonged to
William Parks suggests that she had been a part of the Parks household for a number of years and
that Parks‘s widow Eleanor bought this woman and her child at the sale of her husband‘s estate.180
It is possible that Caesar and Bridget were a part of the Parks household as early as 1742 when
179

Michael L. Nicholls notes that ―In Europe, papermaking was conducted in a highly gender segregated manner
with men and women performing very specific tasks.‖ See Michael L. Nicholls, ―Aspects of the African American
Experience in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg and Norfolk,‖ (unpublished report, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation, 1990), p. 45.
180

York County Wills and Inventories (20) 255, recorded 18 May 1752; ibid., pp. 323-326, dated 17 June 1754 and
recorded 25 April 1754.

603
the printer paid the annual assessment on four tithes. Parks had five tithable persons over the age
of sixteen in 1745. Thirteen of the fourteen members of the Parks household survived the 1747/8
Smallpox Epidemic; his store keeper did not. William Hunter Senior was Parks‘s assistant by
May 11, 1749 when an entry in the Journal of the House of Burgesses mentioned Hunter and
Parks‘s ―Servants.‖

William Hunter Senior
William Hunter Senior purchased the printing office from the estate of William Parks.
Hunter also hired and then bought the enslaved man named Caesar. On July 23, 1751, Hunter paid
John Shelton, the executor of Parks, the sum of £10 for the hire of Caesar for one year. Hunter‘s
decision to hire and to purchase Caesar for £69.10 is an indication that this slave played an
important role in the printing office. It is possible that Matt, another slave owned by Hunter, also
worked in the printing office. Unfortunately, there is no evidence about the duties that Caesar and
Matt performed. It is possible that they operated the presses. They might have received payments
from Hunter‘s customers for books, supplies, or the advertisements that they placed in the Virginia
Gazette. Perhaps Hunter, one of the original trustees of the Bray School, taught Caesar and Matt
how to read and write.
Hunter‘s extant account book for 1750-1752 indicates that residents of Williamsburg and all
parts of Virginia placed advertisements for runaway slaves and for the sales of enslaved men,
women, and children. Perhaps Caesar and Matt had the opportunity to learn the names of the
masters who placed advertisements for runaways and the identity of the persons who intended to
sell one or more slaves. These two slaves might also had the chance to pass on the information they
learned about runaways and sales to the enslaved persons who ran errands to the printing office for
their masters.
The elder Hunter operated his business until his death on August 14, 1761. He left half of
his business to his brother-in-law, Joseph Royle, and the other half of his business in a trust for his
son, William. The inventory of the printer‘s estate included four slaves. The appraisers did not
value James, a blind man, or a wench named Diana who probably cooked and cleaned for the
printer. Caesar was valued at £75 and the appraisers noted that Matt was worth £80.181 The high
values assigned to Caesar and Matt indicate that they played an important role in the day-to-day
operation of the printing office.

Joseph Royle
Joseph Royle operated the printing office for his nephew, William Hunter Junior, between
1761 and his death in 1766. Royle‘s ledger book survives for the years 1764 to 1766. The entries
in this book indicate that Williamsburg masters and mistresses sent their slaves on errands to the
printing office. In addition, colonial leaders in the city for meetings of the House of Burgesses and
the Council also had enslaved men and boys purchase items from Royle. Men and women also paid
181

York County Wills and Inventories (21) 79-82, dated 24 August 1761 and recorded [16 November 1761].

604
Royle for announcements of slave sales. Matt and Aberdeen, another Royle slave who worked in
the printing office, might have been in a position to learn and to pass on information about slaves
that they heard as they performed their duties.
The inventory of Royle‘s estate included ―One half the Stock in Partnership with William
Hunter, Infant at the Printing Office in Williamsburgh including Account of Books, Stationary,
Printing, Materials, & two Negro Men named Matt, and Aberdeen.‖ The appraisers of Royle‘s
estate valued at £1265.12.10.182 The fact that the appraisers included Matt and Aberdeen with the
items related to the Printing Office indicates that they assisted Royle with his work. Unfortunately
they did not provide details about the duties that Matt and Aberdeen had in Royle‘s business.

William and Clementina Rind
William Rind printed the first issue of his Virginia Gazette on May 9, 1766. His slave man
Dick was one of the ten tithes to be added to the printer‘s list of tithables in August 1768. It is
possible that the other eight laborers in Rind‘s printing office and bindery were white apprentices.
Rind died on August 19, 1773 and Dick was the only slave included in the September 1773
inventory of his estate. The appraisers noted that Dick was worth £30. Clementina Rind paid £22
for Dick at the sale of her deceased husband‘s estate. It is possible that Dick assisted the widow
Rind in the production of the Virginia Gazette. The justices of the peace ordered Clementina
Rind's five tithes to be added to the list for Bruton Parish in the fall of 1774. It is likely that her
tithes included Dick and four white journey men or apprentices. The widow Rind continued her
husband's business until the time of her death on September 25, 1774.

Alexander Purdie
Alexander Purdie entered into a partnership with John Dixon in 1766. Purdie and Dixon
operated their printing office until December 1774. After the end of their partnership, Purdie
continued to operate a printing office until his death in April 1779. Purdie owned slaves who
worked the presses in his shop and enslaved persons who assisted his wives—Mary and Peachy—
with the domestic work and raising his children.
Purdie and Dixon relied on the labor of white apprentices, white indentured servants, and
black slaves. In July 1766 they announced that they wanted ―an apprentice to the Printing
Business.‖183 Purdie hired Cyrus from the estate of Mrs. Webb. In November 1768 he offered a
reward for the return of Cyrus. It is possible that Cyrus, who was about thirty years old, worked in
the printing office or ran errands in Williamsburg.184 A young male slave by the name of Jordan

182

York County Wills and Inventories (21) 271-276, dated 26 May 1766 and recorded 16 June 1766.

183

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., 25 July 1766.

184

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., 24 November 1768.

605
operated the presses.185 An advertisement that the printers placed in their paper on January 24, 1771
indicates that there was a hierarchy among the workers in their shop:
RUN AWAY from the Printing Office, last Saturday Night, JAMES CAREY, a Lad about
seventeen years of Age, whom (out of compassion, and through his Importunity) we paid
thirteen Pounds for, to release him from being sent to Maryland and sold as a servant.
Although he might have been held as a Servant here, we rather chose to get him bound as an
Apprentice, to put him on a Footing with the other Lads in our Office. He has been well
used, and genteely clothed, which any One will easily discover from the Goodness and
Quality of the Clothes he has taken with him. He has ten Shirts, four of them quite new; a
new Suit of Clothers, of a dark coloured German Serge, with yellow gilt Buttons; a new fine
Hat, several Pair of wool Worsted and other Stockings, new Shoes, and wears a black Silk
Cravat. He has, besides, a good suit of Fustian, a light coloured Cloth Coat and red Flannel
Jacket, and sundry other Wearing Apparel. He is fresh coloured, wears his own Hair,
generally tied behind, which is dark coloured, walks short and quick, is stout made, speaks
thick, and much on the Brogue, he being a native of Ireland. Whoever secures the said
Apprentice, so as we get him again, shall have FORTY SHILLINGS Reward, besides what
the Law allows. He is supposed to be gone to the Southward.186
Purdie‘s slave Jordan and any other enslaved men who worked in the printing office were not on the
same social footing ―with the other Lads‖ as was James Carey. It is possible that Jordan had greater
skills than did Carey or ―the other Lads‖ in Purdie‘s printing office.
It is possible that the experience of child birth created a bond between Mary Purdie and two
of her slave women. Mary Purdie, Alice, and Esther187 experienced childbirth in 1765 and 1767.
Alexander and Mary Purdie‘s daughter Janet was born in 1765. Alice‘s daughter [Bet]ty was
baptized in April of the same year. Betsy, the daughter of Esther, received her baptism on July 7,
1765. The Purdies welcomed a son on March 17, 1767. The baptism of William, the son of Alice,
took place on June 7, 1767. These women also shared the sorrow of the death of a young child.
Janet Purdie died before her second birthday and Esther‘s daughter, Betsy, also died at a young age.
Purdie‘s household experienced several changes in 1772. Mary Purdie was twenty-seven
years old at the time of her death on March 28th of that year. Alice and Esther helped to care for the
printer‘s sons James, Hugh, Alexander, and William after the death of their mother. Perhaps the
fact that he had four young sons influenced Purdie‘s decision to remarry. The printer married
Peachy Davenport, the daughter of Joseph and Margaret Davenport, on December 31, 1772.
Purdie‘s son gained a step-mother and the domestic slaves had a new mistress to supervise their
daily work. If Peachy Davenport owned one or more slaves at the time of her marriage to Purdie,
the arrival of these persons might have caused additional turmoil in this household.
185

An October 10, 1778 letter from Alexander Purdie to George Webb indicated that black men were often employed
as pressmen. See Earl Gregg Swem, A Bibliography of Virginia, Appendix I: Documents Relating to Alexander
Purdie, Public Printer, p. 1064.
186

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., 24 January 1771.

187

Alice‘s name also appeared as Ealice and Ell‘s. Esther was also referred to as Easter.

606

The printer paid the taxes on fifteen tithes on October 1776. Purdie‘s workers included
himself, his apprentices, his slaves, and a woman named Beck whom he hired from the estate of
Edward Nicholson.188 He had at least seven enslaved men and women over the age of sixteen in
1776—Jordan, John, Harry, Jack Booker, Esther, Judy, and Alice. Jack Booker (also known as
Jack) was one of merchant Joseph Scrivener‘s slaves. The appraisers of Scrivener‘s estate valued
Jack at £80. Purdie purchased Jack—one of four valuable slaves—at the September 1772 sale of
the merchant‘s estate. Jack was about twenty-six years old when he ran away from the printer in
early 1776. Purdie noted that Jack was born at Capitol Landing and was a very good carter in a
March 8, 1776 advertisement.189
Purdie died in April 1779. The printer bequeathed four slaves—Jack Booker (also known as
Jack), Betty, and Alice and her child Billy—to his wife Peachy and her heirs. He noted that ―It is
my desire that my wife & children remain in my dwelling house during the term of six months at
the expence of my estate & that the servants or a sufficient number of them be kept there during that
term to attend my sd children but in case my sd exrs. shall think proper to dispose of my sd children
otherwise during that term they are to have power so to do & in that case they may proceed to the
sale of the slaves as is before directed but my sd wife shall have the use of the dwelling outhouses &
lotss during the sd term clear of any rent.‖190 The April 28, 1779 appraisement of Purdie‘s estate
included thirteen slaves: Jordan valued at £825, John valued at £500, Sally valued at £400, Harry
valued at £1000, Jenny valued at £300, Sukey valued at £300, Arthur valued at £200, Esther valued
at £200, Judy valued at £600, Jack Booker valued at £1000, Alice valued at £800, Billy valued at
£500, and Betty valued at £800.191 Peachy Purdie might have lived on Lot 24 until February 1780
when her husband‘s executors sold the property to Thomas Cartwright. The widow Purdie married
William Holt by January 11, 1791 and Elias Wills by 1799.
On May 8, 1779 the executors of Purdie‘s estate announced that his estate would be sold on
May 18, 1779. They also noted that they would lease the adjoining house which Purdie had used as
a composing and press room. The executors informed the public that nine slaves—including a
carpenter, a gardener, and a cook—could be purchased on that day. A second announcement
informed readers of the Virginia Gazette that the sale would be postponed until June 8, 1779.192 A
man named John Harvie bought Jordan. It is unknown who gained possession of the remainder of
Purdie‘s enslaved men, women, and children. In January 1782 John Harvie placed the following
notice in the Virginia Gazette, or, The American Advertiser:

188

Benjamin Weldon was the guardian of Henry Wetherburn Nicholson, the orphan of Edward Nicholson (one of
the heirs of Henry Wetherburn).
189

Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., 8 March 1776.

190

York County Wills and Inventories (22) 419-421, dated 12 April 1779 and recorded 19 April 1779.

191

York County Wills and Inventories (22) 437-442, dated 28 April 1779 and recorded 21 June 1779.

192

Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., 8 May 1779; ibid., 29 May 1779.

607
Five Guineas Reward, To any person who will secure, so that I get him again, a young
Negro Man named Jordan, raised in the city of Williamsburg, and who worked at the Press
for some time in Mr. Purdie‘s Printing-Office in that city, and, after the decease of Mr.
Purdie, was purchased of his estate by the Subscriber. This fellow went off with Tarlton‘s
Light-horse from Charlottesville, and after the capture of the British army at York, obtained
a pass from Mr. Nicholson to come up to Albemarle, since which time I have not heard of
him, but suspect he is still skulking about the neighbourhood of Williamsburg. If he is
delivered in Richmond, Mr. Lewis, of the Land Office, will pay the above reward; or I will
do the same, upon receiving him at the gaol of any county in the State wherein he may be
secured.193
There is no additional information about Jordan.

John Pinkney
On September 29, 1774 John Pinkney announced that he would continue to print the
Virginia Gazette for the benefit of the estate of William and Clementina Rind. There is no evidence
that Pinkney owned or hired a slave to assist him in his printing business before he received an
appointment as the printer for North Carolina in May 1777.
John Dixon
John Dixon served as the executor of Joseph Royle‘s estate in 1766. He also entered into a
partnership with Alexander Purdie in that year. It is possible that Tom, a slave whom Dixon agreed
to purchase from the estate of Francis Fauquier in 1768, worked in the printing office. Dixon also
bought Fauquier‘s Mary and her daughter Jemima. Perhaps Tom and Mary were married and the
printer decided to buy them because he needed a slave to do household work and another to work
in the printing office. Dixon married Rosanna Royle, the widow of Joseph Royle, so it is
possible that he gained possession of a slave or slaves at the time of his marriage.
Purdie and Dixon operated their printing office until December 1774. After the end of their
partnership, Dixon went into business with William Hunter Junior. Dixon might have left Jemima
in Williamsburg when he moved to Richmond in 1780 because he had hired her to a resident in
the city. Jemima appeared on the 1783 Williamsburg Personal Property Tax List as a slave
under sixteen years of age who belonged to John Dixon. Dixon had three other slaves on the
1783 Williamsburg Personal Property Tax List—Peg over sixteen and Dinah (over sixteen) and
her son, Samuel Sims. Perhaps Jemima, Peg, Dinah, and Samuel Sims joined Mary and Tom in
Richmond before the 1784 Williamsburg Personal Property Tax List was taken.194 John Dixon
died in Richmond on April 27, 1791. Tom, Mary, Jemima, and Peg were not among the seven

193

Virginia Gazette, or, The American Advertiser, 26 January 1782.

194

Williamsburg Personal Property Tax Lists, 1783 and 1784.

608
slaves who appeared in the May 1792 inventory of the printer‘s estate. A slave named Dinah
(valued at £30) and a slave named Sam (also valued at £30) appeared in Dixon‘s inventory.195

William Hunter Junior
John Dixon and William Hunter Junior printed their first issue of the Virginia Gazette on
January 1, 1775. Matt and Aberdeen, the enslaved men whom the younger Hunter inherited from
his uncle, Joseph Royle, in 1766, would have worked in the Dixon and Hunter office if they were
still alive. Perhaps George, a seventeen-year old slave, assisted the printers or ran errands for them
before he ran away in late 1777.196
Hunter was a Loyalist who left Williamsburg during the Revolution. Additional details
about the enslaved men, women, and children whom he owned appear in a 1782 deed. In July of
that year the printer conveyed eight slaves to his father-in-law, Joseph Davenport, in trust for the
benefit of his children, William and Joseph. The deed conveyed Peter (commonly called Peter
Bracy), Peter (commonly called Peter Russell), Toby, Grace, Nelly, Molly, Tom, and Moses.
Hunter also submitted a Loyalist Claim on September 2, 1784 and June 21, 1787. He stated that he
lost four men valued at £75 each, five women worth £60 each, and six children (between the ages of
two and ten years) valued at £30 each. Hunter failed to note if any of the enslaved persons worked
in his printing business.197

The Public Gaol
The first section of the discussion of slaves at the Public Gaol includes information about the
enslaved laborers owned by Edward Westmore (Keeper of the Public Gaol from 1766 to 1771) and
Peter Pelham (Keeper of the Public Gaol from 1771 to 1780). The second section contains a list of
the slaves held in the Public Gaol between 1769 and 1776.
There was a connection between the Public Gaol and the institution of slavery in Virginia. First, the
duties collected on slaves imported into the colony helped to pay for the construction of the
building. Second, after the passage of a statute entitled An act concerning Servants and Slaves in
1705, a runaway slave who could not or would not give the name of his or her master was to be
taken to the Public Gaol in Williamsburg. The 1726 law—An Act for amending the Act
concerning Servants and Slaves; and for the further preventing the clandestine transportation of
Persons out of this Colony—noted that a runaway slave was to be held in the jail of the county in
which he or she had been captured for two months. If the slave‘s master did not claim the
195

Richmond City Personal Property Tax Lists; Richmond Hustings Court Deeds No. 1 (1782-1792) 616-617, dated
10 May 1792 and recorded 15 May 1792. The Richmond City Personal Property Tax Lists do not include slave
names.
196

It is possible that Hunter sold George before he ran away since the printer described him as ―LATE the Property
of William Hunter of this City.‖ Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., 5 December 1777.
197

Loyalist Claim of William Hunter in Public Records Office AO 12/56, pp. 352-356.

609
runaway, the slave was to be sent to the Public Gaol. The Keeper of the Public Gaol was
allowed to hire out a runaway who wore an iron collar (stamped with the initials ―P. G.‖) around
his or her neck. After Dunmore issued his Proclamation on November 16, 1775, a number of
slaves who were captured while trying to join Dunmore‘s ―Ethiopian Regiment‖ were held as
prisoners in the Public Gaol.
Edward Westmore
Edward Westmore served as Keeper of the Public Gaol from 1766 to 1771.198 Westmore
became the owner of an enslaved man named Wentworth in April 1768. Wentworth probably ran
errands in Williamsburg for Westmore and brought straw and firewood to the Public Gaol. It is
likely that Wentworth also cleaned the cells. He might have taken food to the prisoners, black and
white, in the Public Gaol. There were three slaves in the Public Gaol during Westmore‘s tenure as
Keeper: a fellow born in Virginia who belonged to George Berry of Albemarle County; Bobo, the
slave of John Ellis of Amelia County; and Caesar, the property of William Wharton of Amherst
County.
Wentworth saw that it was difficult to convict a white man of the murder of a black person
in April 1770. David Ferguson, a white man, was a prisoner in the Public Gaol before his murder
trial. The April 19, 1770 issue of Rind‘s Virginia Gazette reported that ―On Monday and
Tuesday last the following criminals took their trials at the capitol, viz. . . . David Ferguson, from
Norfolk, for the murder of a Negro boy, acquitted; but remanded back to prison for farther trial
by a commission from the Board of Admiralty of Great Britain, for the murder of three white
men, part of his crew, upon the High seas.‖199 It is likely that any witnesses to the murder of the
slave boy were also enslaved persons and unable to testify in court against a white man.
Westmore had financial problems during the time that he was Keeper of the Public Gaol.
He described Wentworth as a mulatto man when he used his slave and other personal property to
guarantee the payment of debts in January, May, and September of 1770. Westmore did not meet
the terms of his obligations and he sold Wentworth, livestock, and furniture to Thomas Brammer for
£50 on October 6, 1770.200 Westmore resigned as Keeper of the Public Gaol in 1771.
198

His wife was Martha Wyatt, daughter of William and Elizabeth Wyatt. William Wyatt was the Keeper of the Public
Gaol between 1745 and 1749[/50]. After Wyatt died on March 22, 1749[/50], his widow gained possession of his slave
woman, Ciss. It is possible that Westmore inherited Ciss after the death of Elizabeth Wyatt in late 1770 or early 1771.
Ciss probably helped William Wyatt's wife with the cooking and the cleaning at his tavern in 1745. She appeared in
the York County Court on August 15, 1748 to provide testimony in an oyer and terminer trial. Juba, a slave
belonging to James Shields, was found not guilty of breaking into the house of Thomas Penman and stealing
clothing. Ciss was described as a wench in November 1748 when the grand jury presented Wyatt for not listing
himself and his slave as tithes. Elizabeth Wyatt mortgaged her to John Prentis and Company on April 14, 1769 to
secure a debt of £29..16..7 plus interest on a bond dated August 30, 1762. The widow Wyatt managed to pay the
debt and retained possession of Ciss. The York County grand jury presented Elizabeth Wyatt for not listing Ciss as
a tithe in September 1770.
199

200

Virginia Gazette, Rind, ed., April 19, 1770

Thomas Brammer sold Wentworth to Doctor William Pasteur in January 1771. See the biography of Wentworth,
also known as Wentworth Burwell, in the Biography section of this resource book.

610

Peter Pelham
Peter Pelham became the Keeper of the Public Gaol in July 1771. He served in this position
until 1780. Pelham had one slave, a man named Ben, by 1768. Ben ran away in the summer of
1774. The Keeper of the Public Gaol placed the following announcement in the August 4, 1774
issue of Purdie and Dixon‘s Virginia Gazette:
RUN away from the Subscriber, a Negro man named BEN, middle sized, well set, very
black, has lost his right Eye, stoops a little when he walks, appears to be about 50 years old,
and speaks such broken English that it is scarce possible to understand what he says; had on,
when he went away, an Osnabrug shirt, and an old Pair of white Russia Drab Breeches
pretty much torn. Whoever apprehends the said Slave, and conveys him to me in
Williamsburg, shall be rewarded for their Troubles, besides being paid what the Law
allows.201
There is no evidence that Pelham regained possession of Ben.
Pelham asked Doctor James Carter and Doctor William Carter to treat the prisoners at the
Public Gaol in 1773 and 1774. The following selections from the accounts that the Carters
submitted to the colony indicate that they attended the medical needs of several slaves:
The Country for the Prisoners Dr. To James & Wm: Carter
1773
Augst 5th
To a Visit 10/. an Emetic Potion 2/6. for Tom
To a Cordial Draught 2/. a Cathartic Bolus 2/6 do
6th
To a Visit 10/. 8 ozs. astringent Mixture 4/. for do
18th To a Visit 10/. a Cathartic Bolus 2/6 for do.
19th To a Visit 10/. a Cordial Anodyne Draught 2/. for Tom
12.Octobr.
13th To Bleeding 2/6. a Paragoric Draught 2/. Tom
14th To a Cathartic Potion 2/6. Tretham a qut. Bitter Tinchure 10/. Tom
21st To Turner's Cerate 1/. Tom a Paragoric Draught 2/. do:
The Country for the Prisoners Dr. To James Carter & Co.
1774
Jan: 20th To a Visit 10/. an Embrocation 2/6. a Collyrium 2/6. Ben
To a Liniment 2/6. McLure 21st To a Visit 10/. Ben
Febry: 13th. To Visit 10/. Riggs A Vomit 2/6. for Ben
March 23d. To a Vomit 2/6. Stepney A Draught repted 2/. Patterson
201

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., August 4, 1774.

202

Brock Collection, Box 40—Virginia Treasury Collection, Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

12.6
4.6
14.12.6

4.6
12.6
3.-

15.12.6
12.6
4.6. 202

611

The advertisements that Pelham placed in the various issues of the Virginia Gazette indicate that
there were five slaves in the Public Gaol in 1773—Jeffrey, Tom from Chesterfield County, Tom
from Cumberland County, Harry, and Stepney. Ben and Charles were prisoners the following year.
The Doctors Carter treated one, and possibly both, of the men named Tom, Stepney, and Ben.
Both the slaves owned by Pelham and the slaves held in the Public Gaol might have come
into contact with enslaved laborers in 1773 and 1774. Samuel Spurr made repairs to the Public
Gaol on several occasions between May 25, 1773 and October 8, 1774. Spurr‘s slaves and those he
hired laid brick and whitewashed 203
A number of slaves who tried to join Dunmore‘s ―Ethiopian Regiment‖ were captured and
sent to the Public Gaol. Pelham maintained these slaves until the colonial (and later, state) leaders
sent them to work in the lead mines. 204 The Keeper of the Public Gaol needed additional money
to feed a greater number of prisoners than usual. On April 1, 1776 the Committee of Safety
decided to give Pelham £168.1.1 to support the prisoners in the Public Gaol.205
Several people questioned Pelham‘s conduct as Keeper of the Public Gaol in 1777. On June
26, 1777, the committee appointed to ―inquire into the conduct of the Keeper of the public jail‖ gave
their report to the House of Delegates:
….It appears to your committee, from the testimony of Capt. John Morton, that having once
an order to take prisoners out of the public jail, he came to the prison, and presenting it, a
son of Mr. Pelham‘s directed a negro to take the keys and fetch the prisoner; that there were
at that time, other prisoners in confinement, and that a son of Mr. Pelham‘s was in the outer
room.
It also appears to your committee, from the information of Mr. Strother (one of the
committee) that on Sunday se‘nnight last, sometime before sunset, he came to the public
jail, in company with with the treasurer, and some other gentlemen, when sending to desire
admittance to see a prisoner there, they were informed by the messenger (a little boy) he
would be glad they would defer seeing him that day, and come some other time; but they
desiring to be admitted, the boy returned, brought the keys, and they were accordingly let in.

203

Ibid.

204

Members of the Committee of Safety and later, the members of the House of Delegates, sent slaves to the lead
mines in Montgomery County in the southwestern part of the state. The mining of lead began in 1759 by a company
organized by John Robinson, Francis Fauquier, William Byrd III, and John Chiswell. The state operated the mines
during the Revolution. In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson noted that the lead mines could employ thirty
men per year and they could produce up to sixty tons of lead per year. The mines became important when the
fighting shifted to the South since the Montgomery County mines were the only major source of lead in the region.
See James A. Mulholland, A History of Metals in Colonial America, pp. 137-139.
205

Palmer, ed., Calendar of Virginia State Papers, 8:146.

612
It likewise appears to your committee, from the testimony of Mr. Benjamin Powell, that
….before as well as since Mr. Pelham became jailer, and never discovered any deficiency in
his management, or a negro employed or entrusted with the keys….
….from the testimony of Mr. Bartlett Williams….and that he does not recollect ever to have
seen a negro entrusted with the keys.
The members of the House of Delegates decided to continue Pelham in his position as Keeper of the
Public Gaol. 206

****
Slaves Held in the Public Gaol, 1769-1776

October 26, 1769
COMMITTED to the publick jail in Williamsburg, a Virginia born Negro fellow, about 28 years
of age, 5 feet 5 or 6 inches high, well made, has a remarkable bald place on his head, which he
says was occasioned by a scald when he was a child; says he belongs to George Berry, on
Meacham river, in Albemarle county, within 3 or 4 miles of the Blue Ridge, and was bought
from Col. Landon Carter, in Richmond county, has been run away since March last, and was
some time since confined in James City prison, in Williamsburg, and made his escape from John
Carter, brother in law to the said George Berry, as he was conveying him to his master. The
owner is desired to send for the said slave, and pay the charges to
EDWARD WESTMORE, K.P.G.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., November 2, 1769.

August 30, 1770
THERE is now in the public prison, in Williamsburg, a Negro fellow named BOBO, who says he
belongs to John Ellis in Amelia, and was formerly the property of one Lindsay Jarvis in
Gloucester county. His master is desired to fetch him away, and pay charges.
WILLIAM KEEN.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Rind, ed., August 30, 1770.

October 22, 1770

206

Harris, ed., Journals of the House of Delegates, 1777-1780, p. 101.

613
COMMITTED to the public prison, a Negro fellow named CESAR, about 5 feet 8 inches high,
by trade a shoe-maker, and is a smart sensible fellow. He was formerly the property of Mr.
Bartholomew Dandridge of New Kent, by whom he was sold to Mr. William Wharton of
Amherst; he made his escape as he was carrying home to his master about a year and a half ago,
after being redeemed from the public gaol. His owner is desired to send for him to
WILLIAM KEEN.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Rind, ed., November 1, 1770.

October 15, 1771
COMMITTED to the publick Jail, from Buckingham Prison, a Negro Man named SHARPER, a
likely well made Fellow, who seems to be about twenty two Years of Age, speaks broken
English, and either cannot or will not tell his Owner‘s Names, or from what Part of the Colony
he came. Whoever has a just Claim to him is desired to take him away and pay Charges.
PETER PELHAM, K.P.G.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., January 2, 1772.

October 15, 1771
COMMITTED to the publick Jail, from Gloucester Prison, a Negro Fellow who appears to be
between forty and fifty Years of Age, about five Feet nine or ten Inches high, a thin Visage, has
lost his left Eye, and is clothed in Negro Cotton. As he cannot speak a Word of English, he is
incapable of telling either his own or Owner‘s Name. Also another Negro named SHARPER, a
likely well made Fellow, who seems to be about twenty two Years of Age, speaks broken
English, and either cannot or will not tell his Owner‘s Name, or from what Part of the Colony he
came. Whoever has a just Claim to them are desired to take them away and pay charges.
PETER PELHAM, K.P.G.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., October 17, 1771.

December 9, 1771
COMMITTED to the publick Jail, from Surry County, a Runaway Negro named BOB, who
appears to be two or three and twenty years of age, about five Feet six Inches high, marked with
three Gashes on each temple, agreeable to the African Custom, has lost one of his fore Teeth
from the upper Jaw, and is of a black complexion. The Owner is desired to prove his Property,
pay charges, and take him away.
PETER PELHAM.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., December 12, 1771.

614

September 24, 1772
COMMITTED to the Publick Jail, from James City prison, a Runaway Woman named MOLLY,
who says she belongs to Charles Budd, of Charles City County. She is five Feet two inches high,
and appears to be about forty Years old, has a prominent Nose, and by her Complexion would
pass for one of the Indian Race. Her Owner is desired to apply for her, prove his Property, and
pay Charges.
PETER PELHAM.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., September 24, 1772.

November 19, 1772
The Utility of Watchmen was very visible last Monday Night, for had not that measure been
lately adopted the Jail of this City would have been burnt to the Ground, and in all Likelihood
some of the adjoining Buildings; a Negro Fellow who was committed there that Day having
found Means to set the Floor on Fire, and, having Accomplices without, escaped through a Hole
made in the Underpinning. The People upon Duty that Night have had each a Reward of five
Pounds, which we hope will encourage them to use the same care and vigilance in future.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., November 19, 1772.

March 11, 1773
COMMITTED to the publick Jail, from Orange County, a Negro Man named JEFFREY, five
Feet six inches high, about twenty two Years old, pretty black, has a pleasant Countenance, is
bow-legged, and such a Stranger to English that he cannot give any Account of either his Owner
or the Place from whence he came. It is needless to describe his Dress, as that has undergone
many Changes in the County from whence he was brought. The Owner is desired to apply for
him, and pay Charges.
PETER PELHAM.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, March 11, 1773.

July 8, 1773
COMMITTED to the publick Jail, from Chesterfield, a Negro Fellow named TOM, who either
knows not or will not tell to whom he belongs. As there is reason to believe he has not the

615
Clothes on in which he made his Elopement, a Description of them is unnecessary. He is about
five Feet eight Inches high, appears to be about twenty five Years of Age, of a pretty dark
Complexion, with a Scar deeply impressed in his forehead resembling a Hook, and being a new
Negro, cannot speak to be understood. The owner is desired to pay Charges, and take him away.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., July 8, 1773.

September 10, 1773
COMMITTED to the publick Jail, from Cumberland, a Runaway Negro Man called TOM five
Feet ten Inches high, remarkably black, his Face much scarified with his County Marks, both
Ears bored, his right with four Holes and his left five, appears to be upwards of forty Years old,
and cannot speak to be understood, had on a Crocus Shirt and Trowsers. His Owner is desired to
take him away and pay Charges.
PETER PELHAM
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., September 16, 1773.

December 23, 1773
COMMITTED to the Publick Jail, two Runaway Negroes, viz. HARRY, from Elizabeth City, an
outlandish Fellow, about five feet eight Inches high, appears to be above 30 years old, branded
on the left Breast with a P, his right Hand has been burnt, and occasioned a white Spot on his
Wrist. As he cannot speak one Word of English, he is not able to give the least Account of
himself or his Owner. STEPNEY, a short Fellow, Virginia born, of a yellow Complexion, is 53
Years old, and says he belongs to the Estate of Benjamin Baker of Gloucester. Their Owners are
desired to apply for them, pay charges, and take them away.
PETER PELHAM.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., December 23, 1773.

February 3, 1774
COMMITTED to the publick Jail, a Runaway Negro Man named BEN, middle sized, very black,
has lost his right Eye, stoops a little when he walks, and appears to be above forty Years old;
being an African, he speaks bad English, but gives me to understand that he belongs to the Estate
of William Smith, deceased, whose Widow used him ill, which induced him to run away, but he
cannot, or will not, inform where she lives. His Owner is desired to take him away, and pay
charges.
PETER PELHAM.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., February 3, 1774.

616

September 29, 1774
COMMITTED to the Publick Jail, on the 3d Instant, a Negro Man named CHARLES, who told
me he belonged to the Doctor Corbin Griffin, of York, which I have repeatedly notified to the
Doctor; but no application having been made from him for the said fellow, it is probable he has
told me a Falsity. From his own Story, he was lately the Property of Mr. James Pride, from
whom Doctor Griffin received him last February, and kept him in Possession till the July
following, at which Time he eloped. He is about 25 years old, five Feet nine inches high, slim
made, well dressed, and fit to act in the Capacity of a Waiting Man. His owner is desired to take
him away, and pay charges.
PETER PELHAM.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., October 6, 1774.

February 3, 1775
COMMITTED to the publick jail, a runaway negro man named Goliah. He says he belongs to
Mr. John Jones of Hampton, is about 23 years old, middle size, and his clothing such as field
negroes commonly wear. His owner is desired to apply for him, and pay charges.
PETER PELHAM.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., February 3, 1775.

November 15, 1775
BROKE jail on Monday the 13th instant (November) a remarkable light mulatto slave, named
DICK, the property of mr. Anthony Lamb of Amelia, about 20 years old, 5 feet 5 or 6 inches
high, has a down look, a scar in his upper lip, short dark hair, and dark eyes; had on, a red
lappelled sailor‘s waistcoat, narrow osnabrug trousers and shirt, a cocked hat, and shoes and
stockings. He has been run away for 18 months past, and went by water as a freeman, till last
summer, when he enlisted as a soldier, in Princess Anne county, under capt. Davis, by the name
of Will. Thompson, and came to this city, where he was taken up, and committed to jail. I
imagine he will again try to pass for a freeman, and endeavour to get on board some vessel, or
return to Princess Anne, where I hear he left a crop of corn. Whoever secures him in any jail, so
that I get him again, shall have 40s. and if brought home to me 3 l. reward.
JOHN LAMB.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., November 17, 1775.

617
December 4, 1775
The Negroes we have divers quarters found going over to the Governor and secured, are become
too numerous as our Goal [Hampton] is at present very insufficient; We therefore wish they may
be sent for - there are 14 in Confinement.
Source: Scribner and Tarter, eds., Revolutionary Virginia, 5:46.

December 13, 1775
Ordered, that the Slaves taken and confined at the Town of Hampton be sent to the publick Gaol
in the City of Williamsburg.
Source: Scribner and Tarter, eds., Revolutionary Virginia, 5:127.

December 14, 1775
Ordered, that the slaves taken and confined at the Town of Hampton be sent to the publick Gaol
in the City of Williamsburg.
Ordered, that the Committee of Safety do cause so many of the Captive Slaves as they shall think
necessary to be emploied in working in the lead Mines.
Source: Scribner and Tarter, eds., Revolutionary Virginia, 5:127, 140.

December 1775
Ordered that Colonel [Patrick] Henry be at Liberty to give direction to the Keeper of the public
Gaol for the discharge of James a Mulatto slave belonging to Lord Dunmore.
Source: Scribner and Tarter, eds., Revolutionary Virginia, 5:144.

December 24, 1775
Mr. Edmund Ruffin [Jr.] appeared [before the Committee of Safety] & claimed a negro man
named Joe, now in the public Jail, who with 5 others belonging to himself & father went of in a
boat to go to Lord Dunmore, but before they reached him, this Slave as he declared repented of
the expedition & found means to make his escape leaving the others at Mulberry Island, & was
soon after taken up on land & brought to this City; Mr. Ruffin thinks him Sincerely penitent &
wishes to have him restored, which the Committee allow of upon his paying charges of
Imprisonment. Mr. Ruffin also claims another negro man in the public Jail named Dick, but as

618
he appears incorrigible the Commee cannot consent to his being delivered at present, & as Mr.
Ruffin does not desire him to be delivered, he is to remain in the public Jail till further orders.
Note: According to Ruffin, the Committee of Safety ―refused to discharge‖ Dick, ―intending as
a Terrour to others to send the said Slave to the West Indies or Lead Mines.‖ That design was
frustrated by the death of Dick ―before such Step was taken.‖
Source: Scribner and Tarter, eds., Revolutionary Virginia, 5:239, 240.

December 29, 1775
Last Monday night arrived in town, from Hampton, under a strong guard 33 black and
white prisoners, coupled together, who were committed to the publick jail; since which a vessel
was drove ashore near Hampton, in the late snow storm, going on a pirating voyage to the
Eastern Shore for provisions, which had on board 14 whites and two black.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., December 29, 1775 supplement.

January 3, 1776
TAKEN up at sea on the 5th of December, about seven leagues from Cape Henry, a YAWL
without either oar, mast or sail, and has a white bottom, with top sides painted green. There was
a negro man in her who says his name is Dick, and that he belongs to mr. Ruffin on James river,
whom I sent to the publick jail. The boat is now at York, and the owner may have it on proving
his property and paying salvage.
JAMES DUNSLEY
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., January 12, 1776.

January 17, 1776
Mr. [Henry] King, from the committee appointed to inquire into the several cases of the
prisoners confined in the publick jail, reported, that the committee had, according to order, had
the same under their consideration; and that it appeared to them, that Henry Crouch was a
serjeant in capt. [John] Saunders‘s company. That it farther appeared to them, that negro Tom,
belonging to the estate of Joseph Selden; and Tawley, belonging to Edward Hack Moseley; Dick,
belonging to Edmund Ruffin [Jr.]; Lewis and Bob, belonging to Jacob Keeling; Dick, to James
Legate; Harry, to Joel Cornick; George, to Elizabeth Woodhouse; Jemmy to Thomas Banks;
Jasper and Luke, to William Keeling; Tom and Roger, to Mary Jones; Europe, to William
Haynes; Romeo, to Lemuel Cornick; Frank, to John Henley; Peter, to William Keeling; Will, to
Joel Cornick; Africa, to Charles Sayer [Sayes]; Harry, to Arthur Boush; that George, belonging
to Samuel Donaldson; Ishmael, to Geoge Gaskin; Cuff, to Willis Wilkinson; Ned, to William
Forsyth[e]; Cato, to Stephen Tankard; Lewis, to Robert Langley; Michael, to Robert Boush;

619
were taken at the Great Bridge. That Derry, belonging to Edward Cooper; and Bob, belonging
to John Shedden, have been active, and some of them born arms, under Lord Dunmore. That it
appeared to them, that Charles, belonging to John Poole; Cuffy, to Charles Boush; Davy, to
Charles Jenkins; Poole, to Willis Hoslin; Dennis, to the widow Hodges; were also taken at the
Great Bridge. That Billy, belonging to Anthony Robinson; Tom, Will, and Jemmy, belonging to
Mer[r]it[t] Moore; Anthony, to Henry Howard; Ned and Sam, to Bennett Tomkins; in attempting
to run away from their several masters, were by them pursued and taken at Point Comfort. That
it does not appear that the said Charles, Cuffey, Davy, Poole, Dennis, Billy, Tom, Will, Jemmy,
and Anthony, have ever born arms, or been active in the service of lord Dunmore. That it also
appeared, that Rachel and Amy, belonging to Bennett Tomkins, have been guilty of a robbery in
the county of York; and that Neptune, belonging to George Wythe, esq; was taken up as a
runaway. And that they had come to the following resolutions thereupon, which he read in his
place, and afterwards delivered in at the clerk‘s table, where the same were again twice read, and
agreed to.
Resolved, that the said Henry Crouch be detained as a prisoner.
Resolved, that the said several slaves, who have been active under lord Dunmore, or have
born arms in his service, be detained in jail until the Committee of Safety shall procure them to
be properly valued, and sent to the foreign West India islands, or the Bay of Honduras, there to
be sold, and the money arising therefrom, after deducting the charges, be paid to the treasurer of
the colony, to be repaid to their respective owners, provided they are not unfriendly to American
liberty.
Resolved, that such of the said slaves who have not born arms, or been active in the
service of lord Dunmore, be delivered to their respective owners, on their paying the expenses
which have accrued, or shall accrue, from the time of their being taken, till the time of their
delivery; and that a list of the said negroes, with the names of their several owners, be inserted in
the Virginia Gazette. And if the owners do not apply within two months from the date of the
advertisement, that such thereof as may then remain be sold at publick auction, and the balance,
after deducting the expenses aforesaid, be lodged in the hands of the treasurer of this colony, to
be paid to the owners, when demanded.
Resolved, that the said Rachel and Amy be committed to the jail of the proper county,
there to remain till discharged by the due course of law.
Source: Scribner and Tarter, eds., Revolutionary Virginia, 5:423-424; see p. 426 n. 14, 15, and
16 for information on the fate of several of this group of slaves.

January 19, 1776
AGREEABLE to an order of the General Convention, I do hereby give notice, that Tom, Will,
and Jemmy, negro slaves belonging to Merritt Moore; Anthony, to Henry Howard; Charles to
John Poole; Cuffey, to Charles Boush; Davy, to Charles Jenkins; Poole, to Willis Hoslin;
Dennis, to the widow Hodges; are now confined in the publick jail, and directed to be delivered
to their respective owners on their paying the expenses which have accrued, or shall accrue, from
the time of their being taken to the time of their delivery.
Peter Pelham, jailer.

620
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., January 19, 1776.

February 7, 1776
Caesar, a negro man slave belonging to Jno. Hancock, a prisoner taken at the Great
Bridge, was brought before this comm‘ee [Committee of Safety] and ex‘d. On his ex‘n declares
that his mas—, having joyned L‘d Dunmore, sent and ordered the Dep‘t and another slave to go
to the Fort at the Great Bridge, from whence he was sent with a party, who, being attacked by the
Provincials, left him, and he was runing to the provin‘s when he was shott by one of them. Mr.
Seymour Hoe, being swo. and ex‘d, saith that he went with to the party under Lt Colonel Scott
just after his engagem‘t below the Great bridge, and found our party in possession of the
Prisoner, whom they had wounded and taken. On considera.—Ordered, that he be valued by
Doct‘r Galt, Ben. Powell, Ro. Nicholas, and Humphrey Harwood, or any 3, being 1st swo., and
so report to this comm‘e. That the s‘d slave be taken—employed for the benefit of this colony in
the Lead Mi— under the direction of Mr. James Calloway.
Source: Calendar of Virginia State Papers, 8:77.

February 8, 1776
Ordered that Dr. Galt, Benjamin Powell, Robert Nicolson and Humphrey Harwood or
any 3, being first swo. do appraise, Will, a negro man belonging to Andrew Sprowle, and Dick,
belonging to Hezekiah Halder, and return their appraisements to this committtee.
Source: Calendar of Virginia State Papers, 8:78-79.

March 8, 1776
Same [a warrant] to Wm. Bibb for use John Watson for £1.13.0 for the Escort of slaves from
W‘msburg to the Lead Mines.
Source: Calendar of Virginia State Papers, 8:113.

March 22, 1776
COMMITTED to the publick jail, a runaway boy named CHARLES, who says he belongs to mr.
Richard Hanson of Petersburg. He was formerly the property of mr. James Burwell, of whom
mr. Hanson purchased him. He is about 5 feet 5 inches high, has a remarkable prominent mouth,
a slight scar, or scratch, across his forehead, and a little black bump on his right cheek, near his
nose, much like a wart. His owner is desired to apply for him, pay charges, and take him away.

621
PETER PELHAM.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., March 22, 1776.

March 29, 1776
Three runaway negroes are now lodged in the publick jail, who last Sunday evening came on
board one of our armed vessels, supposing her to be a tender, as they had heard her fire some
guns. Before they were undeceived, they declared their resolution to spend the last drop of their
blood in lord Dunmore‘s service.—What a hopeful crew has his lordship invited to become his
life-guards! Many a less noble man would hardly have admitted such caitiffs into his service as
shoe-blacks. But, considering these hard times, it is something fortunate that his lordship is
content to put up with so miserable a set of attendants. It is to be hoped, however, that general
Lee, so soon as he finds it convenient, will take care to provide our governour with a more
suitable household, agreeable to his high birth, and distinguished merit.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., March 29, 1776.

April 3, 1776
The Commee having considered the Impracticability of transporting the following Slaves, vizt.
Dick belonging to Edmd Ruffin [Jr.] George to Elizabeth Woodhouse Dick to James Legat,
Jasper to Wm Keeling, Africa to Charles Sayes George to Samuel Donaldson, Lewis to Robt
Langely Deny to Edwd Cooper & Will to Robt Shedden to the West Indies, according to a
former Order of the Commee, and that they may be Employed more beneficially for the Interest
of the Colony, by working at the Lead Mines do order that the said Slaves be sent under a proper
Guard to sd. Mines in Fincastle County to be delivered to Mr. James Calloway & Employed
under his direction.
Source: Scribner and Tarter, eds., Revolutionary Virginia, 6:317.

April 12, 1776
COMMITTED to the publick jail in Williamsburg, a runaway negro man named WILL, who
says he belongs to Richard Batte in Chesterfield county. He is 6 feet high, of a yellowish
complexion, about 30 years old, and has worked at the carpenter‘s trade. His owner is desired to
apply for him, and pay charges.
PETER PELHAM.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., April 12, 1776.

622
April 13, 1776
Two of the Negroes who mistook one of our armed vessels at Jamestown for a tender, and
expressed their inclination to serve Lord Dunmore, are under sentence of death, and will be
executed in a few days as an example to others.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., April 13, 1776.

May 1776
A memorial of Charles Lynch . . . . setting forth, that in may of 1776, this House ordered that the
negroes then in the public jail to be delivered to him for the purpose of make saltpetre, and that he
should receive any sum of money out of the public treasury not exceeding 500 [pounds] which,
together with a reasonable hire of negroes, he was to pay in gunpowder at 6 s. per pound; that he
now hath a sufficient quantity of saltpetre, which soon be manufactured into gunpowder, and is
desirous to know what the hire of the negroes is to be, also what further quantity will be taken of
him, as he can have it ready.
Source: Scribner and Tarter, eds., Revolutionary Virginia, 7:179-180.

May 3, 1776
COMMITTED to the publick jail in Williamsburg, a runaway negro man named Tobit, who says
he belongs to Winfield Cosby in Hanover county, but eloped from Giles Harding, in Goochland
county, to whom he was hired by his master. He is a tall well made fellow, thin visage, and is
blind in his left eye. His master is desired to apply for him, pay charges, and take him away.
PETER PELHAM.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., May 3, 1776.

May 8, 1776
On the representations of Mr. Benjamin Powell, the Comm‘ee [Committee of Safety]
agree that six slaves now in the public jail, the property of certain Tories, may be employed
under the direction of Mr. Powell upon the prison lot for the use of the public, they being
confined under a sufficient guard to prevent their escape.
Source: Calendar of Virginia State Papers, 8:173.

June 28, 1776

623
COMMITTED to the publick jail in Williamsburg, a runaway negro man who calls himself
PHILL, and says he belongs to George Slackum of Dorset county on the Eastern Shore,
Maryland. His master is desired to make application for the said fellow, pay charges, and take
him away.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., June 28, 1776.

July 13, 1776
Ordered, that John Minson Galt, Robert Nicolson, & James Southall, Gentlemen; be
appointed to examine the Negroes now in the Public Jail; and report their opinion what their
yearly hire ought to be.
The Gentlemen appointed to examine the Negroes in the public Jail, according to order,
made an estimate of their yearly value and returned the following report, to wit;
In obedience to an Order of the Honble Privy Council We have made an estimate of ye
yearly hire of the Negroes at the Public Jail & the return as follows,
Joachim

12 Sawyer & Shoemaker
} belonging to Edmund Bailey

Joe

15

Luke

William Bailey

10

Peter

Thomas Jacobs

10

Charles

George Wythe Esqr

9

Mr Bowdoin

8
10
8

Juba

William Maury

9

Peter

Mrs Reade

8

Jamie
Reubin
Ned

{

Gilbert, belonging to Mrs Roan

9

James
Fielding

8
9
}

Baleigh Dolman

David
Hercules
Bristol

9
10
William Montague

8

624
Aaron

Thomas Parramore

9

James

8
}

William B. Brown

Prince

8
£ 167
J. M. Galt
Robt Nicolson
James Southall

Ordered, that the Keeper of the Public Jail, do deliver the Negroes in his custody to Mr
Peter Terrel, to be by him carried to the Lead Mines, and there delivered to Mr James Calloway;
and that Mr Terrel give his Receipt to the Jailor for the same
Ordered, that the General be requested to order a Waggon to assist in removing the
Slaves up to the Lead Mines, and that he be informed it is expected, Mr Calloway will have a
Load of Lead ready to send down by the return of the Waggon
Ordered that Mr Terrel be empowered to hire a Guard of four Men, to assist in removing
the above slaves; and in case he shall not be able to procure the same—that he then apply to the
Lieutenants of the several Counties, through which, he is to pass, who are requested to order a
proper Guard to attend him to the next County.
Source: McIlwaine, ed., Journal of the Council of the State of Virginia, 1:70-71.

July 29, 1776
COMMITTED TO the publick jail, a likely young negro woman named SALLY, who says she
belongs to James Perkins of Charles City county, and was purchased by him of col. Lewis
Burwell of King‘s Mill. Her master is desired to apply for her, pay charges, and take her away.
PETER PELHAM.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., August 2, 1776.

August 21, 1776
MADE his escape from the publick jail a negro boy named JAMES, formerly the property of
George Thomas of Hampton, but lately purchased by mr. John Mayo. He is small, appears to be
about 15 years old, and has round his neck an iron collar with G. Thomas inscribed on it. He
was tried last Monday, by a court of Oyer and Terminer at York, for a felony committed by him
in this town, and being convicted of the same, is now under sentence of death. Whoever
apprehends the said boy, and recommits him to the publick jail in this city, shall be reasonably
rewarded.
PETER PELHAM.

625

Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., August 23, 1776.

November 1, 1776
COMMITTED to the publick jail in Williamsburg, a runaway negro man named CHARLES,
who says he belongs to Henry Lyne of Halifax county, North Carolina, whose overseer is named
John Jeter. He appears to be between 20 and 30 years old, is 5 feet 6 or 7 inches high, and has a
thin visage. It is need less to describe his dress, as he has changed it since his elopement. His
master is desired to apply for him, pay charges, and take him away.
PETER PELHAM.
Source: Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., November 1, 1776.

The Raleigh Tavern
Letters, diaries, newspaper advertisements, and other primary documents indicate that the
Raleigh was one of the most important taverns in colonial Virginia. It served as a center for
social, commercial, and political gatherings, small private and large public dinners, lectures and
exhibits, and auctions of merchandise, property, and slaves.
The Raleigh‘s location, its convenient meeting rooms, and (possibly) its proprietors‘ sympathy
for the colonists‘ cause made it a center of political activities in Williamsburg during the 1760s
and 1770s. In 1769, when Governor Botetourt dissolved the General Assembly because of its
protest against the Townshend Acts, many of the burgesses gathered at the Raleigh and approved
the Association of 1769. Five years later, the Assembly again being dissolved, other nonimportation measures were agreed upon at the Raleigh after the news reached Virginia that Great
Britain had ordered the port of Boston closed. The ―late representatives of the people‖ issued the
call for delegates from all the colonies to meet in the first Continental Congress.
The Raleigh Tavern also served as a center of activity for slaves who lived in Williamsburg and
for slaves who accompanied their masters to the colonial capital. Slaves owned by Anthony Hay
and James Southall had the opportunity to gather information about other enslaved laborers and
to hear the Burgesses discuss legislation that placed restrictions on slaves and free blacks. In
addition, the tavern keepers‘ slaves might have listened to colonial legislators as they decided to
end the importation of slaves from Africa. The slaves who lived and worked at the Raleigh also
witnessed sales of enslaved men, women, and children on the steps of the tavern. In May 1771,
Anthony Hay‘s executors sold the tavern keeper‘s slaves during a public auction at the Raleigh.
This section includes information on the enslaved laborers owned by Alexander Finnie, William
Trebell, Anthony Hay, and James Southall.

626
Alexander Finnie
Alexander Finnie first appeared in the York County records on November 19, 1744 when
he was presented for not listing three tithes. It is possible that the tithes were journeymen who
helped Finnie in his business of wig making and barbering. In September 1745, Finnie
announced that he was "in want of Two or Three Journeymen, that understand the Business of a
Barber and Peruke-Maker."207 Finnie probably had several journeymen in his employment when
his seven tithes were to be added to the list for Bruton Parish in August 1747. His labor force
included an old woman named Jenny whom he hired from the estate of John Burdett. Perhaps
Finnie needed a female slave to perform domestic duties while he ran his wig making and
barbering businesses.
Finnie bought the Raleigh Tavern from Alexander McKenzie, John Dixon, Patrick
Barclay, David Mead, and James Murray on June 15, 1749. He received his first license to
operate a tavern on the same day. Finnie had two slave men—both named William—and at least
one indentured white servant at the Raleigh in 1751. In May of that year, Finnie, Alexander
Craig, and John Mitchelson offered a reward for the return of the following runaway servants:
William Welton, a shoemaker; Nicholas Foster; James Seayres, a gardener; William Nailor, a
butcher; John Ashwell, a barber; and Thomas Alley, a baker. Perhaps Seayres, Nailor, Ashwell,
and Alley worked for Finnie; he could have used the services of a gardener, a butcher, a barber,
and a baker at the Raleigh. Finnie acquired twenty acres adjoining Williamsburg and a slave
man named Prince from Andrew Anderson, a barber and a peruke maker, in December 1751.
Finnie‘s customers left their horses on the land that became known as the Raleigh Lot. Prince
might have dressed the wigs of the men who stayed at his master‘s tavern.
In February 1752 Finnie announced that he intended "to have a BALL, at the Apollo in
Williamsburg, once every Week, during the sitting of the General Assembly and Court."208 Five
months later, in July 1752, he informed the public that he planned on leaving for Great Britain
and that he would "sell the Raleigh Tavern, to be enter'd on in December next. Any Person that
has a Mind to purchase it privately, may apply to me."209 Finnie and his wife Sarah sold the
Raleigh Tavern and the Raleigh Lot to John Chiswell and George Gilmer on August 17, 1752.
Finnie's December 1, 1752 advertisement in the Virginia Gazette noted that "He will dispose of
sundry Houshold and Kitchen Furniture, and several valuable Slaves, particularly a good HouseWench, that understands Cooking, Washing, and Ironing, which he will sell either privately, or at
public Sale, at the Court of Oyer & Terminer, in December."210 Mary, a slave who was baptized
on August 2, 175[2], might have been the ―good House-Wench‖ in Finnie‘s advertisement.
Evidence in the York County records and other primary documents indicates that Finnie
did not leave for Great Britain. He stayed in Williamsburg and he continued to operate his
207

Virginia Gazette, September 12, 1745.

208

Virginia Gazette, February 27, 1752.

209

Virginia Gazette, July 24, 1752.

210

Virginia Gazette, December 1, 1752.

627
tavern at the Raleigh. George Washington paid five shillings, three pence for "Dinner and Club
at Finnies" in the fall of 1754.211 The following spring Finnie noted that he would soon head to
the Ohio and that "My House will be kept in my Absence, as usual, by my Wife."212 Sarah
Finnie operated the Raleigh with the help of the family slaves and the enslaved laborers whom
her husband hired. Four months later, in December 1755, Finnie stated his intention "to leave
the Raleigh Tavern, about the 25th of July next."213
Once again, it appears that Finnie stayed at the Raleigh in spite of his plan to leave.
Perhaps Finnie continued to operate a tavern so that he would be able to pay his many debts. If
so, his efforts were not successful. In May 1761, Finnie mortgaged two slaves, John and Will, to
John Prentis, his security on a bond for £156.05. It is likely that he operated the Raleigh until
May 1763 when William Trebell bought the tavern from John Robinson, John Blair Junior, and
Thomas Walker, the executors of George Gilmer.214
After he left the Raleigh, Finnie moved to the eight lots in the Moody Subdivision that he
purchased in June 1762. He made his home in this section of Williamsburg until October 1765
when he sold his Moody Subdivision lots to John Blair. Finnie relocated to his Bruton Parish
plantation—―Portobello‖—that he bought from John James Hulett sometime before January 17,
1763. Finnie‘s slaves might have found it difficult to maintain ties to some of their friends after
their master moved them from Williamsburg to ―Portobello.‖ In addition, the work that Finnie
assigned his slaves probably changed after he moved them to his plantation. His slaves might
have found themselves tending fields on their master‘s plantation instead of running errands in
Williamsburg, cooking for customers at the Raleigh, or caring for the horses owned by men who
stayed in the tavern.
Finnie's financial problems continued after he left the Raleigh. He mortgaged slaves
Tom, Will, Juba, and Mars to Nathaniel Walthoe to secure a payment of £110. In February 1767
the justices of the peace decided that Walthoe was to recover Tom valued at £50, Will valued at
£50, Juba valued at £15, and Mars valued at £15 from Finnie or their value. Finnie entered into
another mortgage with Jerman Baker, William Prentis, Robert Prentis, Frederick Bryan (all of
York County), and William Trebell of James City County on December 19, 1767. He conveyed
Tom, Will, Juba, Mars, and "3 Negroes named Jack, Fortune, & Sharper" to this group of five
men in trust.
Finnie announced a sale of real and personal property in an advertisement in the March 9,
1769 issue of the Virginia Gazette. He added that he would sell "several valuable slaves" after
he had sold Portobello.215 Finnie died on May 2, 1769 and his administrators informed the public
211

Gibbs, ―Taverns in Tidewater Virginia.‖

212

Virginia Gazette, April 25, 1755.

213

Virginia Gazette, December 26, 1755.

214

John Chiswell sold his share of the Raleigh and the adjoining rural land to George Gilmer on May 8, 1758.

215

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., March 9, 1769.

628
that Portobello could be purchased at a sale on December 15, 1769. His administrators also
noted that "a likely young NEGRO fellow, who has been used to wait on a Gentleman" was to be
sold.216 Nathaniel Walthoe became the owner of Juba, the slave who waited on Finnie. Walthoe
held Juba until his death in 1770. Frederick Bryan owned Juba when he died in January 1771.
James Finnie, son of Alexander Finnie, gained possession of Juba in November 1771. It is likely
that most of Finnie‘s slaves were sold to raise money to pay his debts.
William Trebell
William Trebell was a resident of Williamsburg when he bought a lot in the Moody
Subdivision in December 1761. It is possible that he kept an ordinary in his house because
George Washington noted that he stopped at Trebell's tavern in June 1761. Trebell depended on
the labor of slaves, a free black woman, and a white apprentice in his tavern. Edy Cumbo, a free
woman of color, and two enslaved women—Lydia and Violet—probably helped Sarah Trebell
with the cooking and cleaning. Lydia and Violet also spent time raising their children. Lydia
was an adult when she was baptized on July 6, 1760. Her three sons—George (July 1, 1764),
James Doonda (June 7, 1767), and Henry (October 2, 1768)—were also baptized. Violet's
daughter (name torn) was baptized on December 4, 1763. Trebell sent a three-year old girl
named Phoebe to the Bray School in 1762.
Trebell was called an ordinary keeper on May 2, 1763 when he bought the Raleigh
Tavern and twenty acres adjoining Williamsburg. Washington was one of Trebell's first
customers at the Raleigh—he paid for "Club at Trebell's" on May 2, and 3, 1763. He frequented
Trebell's establishment through 1766.217
Between February 2, 1764 and January 10, 1766 the tavern keeper sent five slaves to
Joseph Royle‘s printing office to pick up books, playing cards, quills, and writing paper. Billy
carried items back to the Raleigh on fifteen occasions and Jimmy made eleven trips to Royle‘s
establishment. Austin made five stops at the printing office for Trebell and one stop for George
Johnson, one of his master‘s customers. Perhaps Harry and Primus spent most of their time
caring for the horses owned by Trebell‘s customers instead of running errands. Harry and
Primus made one trip each to the printing office. Edy Cumbo carried paper back to the Raleigh
in October 1764.
Trebell decided to leave the Raleigh and he sold the tavern and the adjoining twenty-acre
tract to Anthony Hay on January 1, 1767. Sarah Trebell informed her brother, John Galt, of their
move in a letter she wrote from their plantation at Martin's Hundred on January 16, 1767:
Doctr Pasteur writes to you by this opportunity. he says he shall tell you all the
news, but I suppose he will not be so minute in our little concerns as [illeg] you all I can
remember; There has been many changes [torn] time since you left it. I dare say none
will surprize you more then our [torn] Mr Trebell has sold the Raligh to A. Hay who now
lives there & all his little family. he has made a nurssery of Jamies Shop I sincerely wish
them success. he gives Mr. Trebell £ [torn]00 for it & Wall-Hill he takes the store of
216
217

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., December 7, 1769.
Gibbs, ―Taverns in Tidewater Virginia.‖

629
Liquor & all the Furniture [torn] which I imagine will amount near to £ 1000 more.
Austin continues [illeg] they have Lydie till after the April court, I cant judg of their
management yet as they have been there but a week. we are living at the place Mr
Trebell purchased of Mr Lester.218
Sarah Trebell's letter indicates that she had played a role in the management of the Raleigh
Tavern. She also noted that Austin continued to work at the tavern, as did Lydia. Trebell
allowed Anthony Hay to hire Lydia until April 1767 so that she could show Hay's enslaved
women around the Raleigh. When Lydia left Williamsburg for rural James City County after the
April meeting of the court, she experienced the changes that Trebell's other slaves went through
earlier in the year. The move took Trebell's slaves from an urban area where it was easier to
develop ties to other slaves and where they could hear news of slaves, perhaps family members,
who lived in other areas of the colony.
Trebell paid taxes on sixteen tithes and 107 acres of land in James City County in 1768.
The former tavern keeper was assessed for nineteen tithes and the same number of acres the
following year. Trebell had twenty-eight slaves in 1783, twenty-five slaves in 1784, twenty-six
slaves in 1785, and twenty-nine slaves in 1786. He lived in the Yorkhampton section of James
City County until his death in October 1789.

Anthony Hay
Anthony Hay worked as a cabinetmaker when he first arrived in Williamsburg. In
November 1751 he placed an advertisement in the Virginia Gazette for a journeyman and a
servant. He and Christopher Ford Junior sold carpenter's, joiner's, and cabinetmakers tools in
1755. A carver named James Wilson also worked in Hay's shop in 1755. It is possible that Hay
conducted his business and lived on Lots 263 and 264 on Nicholson Street before he bought
them from Thomas Everard in August 1756.
The cabinetmaker‘s household included journeymen and slaves. Hay's son Thomas
inherited a slave woman named Elizabeth from his grandfather, Thomas Penman, in September
1759. A child named Jeremiah was baptized on January 7, 1759 and another child, Tom, was
baptized on June 7, 1761. The baptism of Ben, the son of his slave woman Peg, was recorded in
1762. Hay sent Rippon, age three, to the Bray School in September of 1762. Two more slave
children—Richard, the son of Nanny, and Peg's daughter Lucy—were baptized in April and June
of 1765, respectively. Jenny, another one of Peg's daughters, attended the Bray School in
November of 1765.
Hay decided to give up his cabinetmaking business in 1767. He purchased the Raleigh
Tavern and the twenty-acre parcel of land adjoining Williamsburg from William Trebell on
January 1, 1767. A week later he announced these changes in the Virginia Gazette. Hay
informed "The Gentlemen who have bespoke work of the subscriber may depend upon having it
218

Sarah Trebell to John Galt, January 16, 1767, Miscellaneous Manuscripts, Special Collections, Rockefeller
Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

630
made in the best manner by Mr. Benjamin Bucktrout, to whom he has given up his business."219
Benjamin Bucktrout's announcement noted that Hay had moved to the Raleigh Tavern.
Hay‘s labor force continued to grow. Peg's son James was baptized in early 1767.
Thomas Hay's slave woman Elizabeth gave birth to a son in 1768. Henry was baptized on April
10th of that year. The proprietor of the Raleigh continued to send slave children to the Bray
School—Jerry, Joseph, and Dick were among Ann Wager‘s students in February 1769.
The proprietor of the Raleigh Tavern died between November 19, 1770 and December
17, 1770. Hay left his whole estate (after the payment of his debts) to his widow, Elizabeth, for
her support and for the maintenance and education of his children. After her death, all of his
children (except Thomas who had been provided for by his grandfather) were to share the estate.
The February 2, 1771 inventory of Hay‘s estate listed twenty slaves and their appraised values:
Lucy £25
Peggy and her children Ben, Lucy, Jimmy, and Jenny £125
Caesar £45
Gaby £60
Rachel £30
Rippon £60
Jerry £50
Wiltshire £65
Sarah and her child Mary £70
Will £60
Tom £50
Kate £50
Betty £50
Nancy and her child Edmund £60
On January 17, 1771, William Trebell and Robert Nicholson, the executors of Hay's estate,
announced two sales of his real and personal property. The first was to be on March 6, 1771 and
included
THAT noted and well accustomed Tavern in Williamsburg, called the RALEIGH, which
has every Convenience to it, and an exceeding fine stable and Pasture adjoining. At the
same Time will be sold the Stock of LIQUORS, a great Quantity of HOUSEHOLD and
KITCHEN FURNITURE, some CHAIRS and HARNESS, CARTS and HORSES,
CATTLE, SHEEP, &c.------Also a very good DWELLINGHOUSE on the back street,
where Mr. Hay formerly lived, with large Cabinet Maker's Shop and Timber yard, and all
nescessary Out houses for a Family.
The second sale was to be on May 7, 1771 before the door of the Raleigh. People would have
the opportunity to buy "nineteen NEGROES belonging to the said Estate among them a very

219

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., January 8, 1767.

631
good Cabinet Maker, a good Coachman and Carter, some fine Waiting Boys, good Cooks,
Washers, &c."220
Elizabeth Hay renounced the will of her deceased husband on March 20, 1771. She
bought Lots 263 and 264 at the March 6, 1771 sale and received a deed for this property on
January 18, 1772. The widow Hay also bought two slaves—Sarah and her daughter Mary—on
May 7, 1771. Elizabeth Hay paid the assessment on Sarah and Mary (both over sixteen years
old) in 1784 and 1786. The widow Hay's household also included Judith (under sixteen years
old in 1786), Nelly (under sixteen in 1784 and over sixteen in 1786), and Sall (under sixteen in
1784 and 1786).
James Southall paid £101 for a negro fellow named Will whom purchased at the sale of
Anthony Hay's estate on November 6, 1771. Edmund Dickenson gained possession of Wiltshire,
a cabinetmaker. It is likely that Hay hired Wiltshire to Dickenson after he gave up his
cabinetmaking business in 1767. The settlement of Hay's estate noted that Corbin Griffin paid a
portion of the money that he owed for a slave whom he purchased. Unfortunately, the slave's
name was not included.

James Southall
James Southall was a tavern keeper in Williamsburg by May 17, 1757 when George
Washington noted the following expenditures: "By Supper and Club at Southalls 2/6 Expences
ditto 1/0."221 There is no information about the location of his establishment. It is possible that
James Southall operated his business in a building that he rented from Edward Charlton in 1759.
In April of that year Southall‘s ax was stolen when Isaac, a slave belonging to Samuel Spurr,
broke into Charlton's kitchen. Southall was at Wetherburn's Tavern by June 1767 and it is
possible that he was the proprietor of this tavern as early as 1763.
Southall had both slaves and apprentices to help him in his tavern in the 1760s. On
September 15, 1760 the justices of the peace ordered that Southall's two tithes to be added to list
for Bruton Parish. It is possible he had an adult slave or an apprentice. Southall's slave Flora
had three children—a son baptized on December 4, 1763; a daughter Celia baptized on April 7,
1765; and a second daughter, Amy, baptized on December 6, 1767. Southall employed William
Rawlinson Drinkard as a waiter in 1765. The following year Southall announced that he
"Wanted, a young man qualified to act as bar-keeper, that can write a tolerable hand, and
understands something of accounts."222
This tavern keeper took the opportunity to move his business to a well-known location in
early 1771 and he purchased the Raleigh from the executors of Anthony Hay. On March 7,
220

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., January 17, 1771.

221

Gibbs, ―Taverns in Tidewater Virginia.‖

222

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., August 29, 1766; ibid., Rind, ed., September 5, 1766.

632
1771, the new proprietor of the Raleigh begged "Leave to solicit the Customers of that House for
a Continuance of their Favours, and he hereby acquaints the Gentlemen who lodged there in
publick Times that their Rooms will be still kept in Order to receive them. He flatters himself
that he will be able to give Satisfaction; as no Pains, nor Cost, shall be spared for that end."223
Southall's receipt book provides some information about his slave holding. The keeper of
the Raleigh bought Will, a coachman and a carter, from Hay's estate on November 6, 1771.
Southall might have sent Will to his nearby plantations in Warwick, James City, and Charles
City counties for meat, produce, and fodder to be used at the Raleigh. The proprietor of the
Raleigh purchased two slaves in 1773: Juba from Maurice Langhorne of Cumberland County
and a woman named Phillis from John Earnshaw.
The tavern keeper‘s records suggest that he preferred to have ten adult tithes at the
Raleigh. William Russell noted that he "Recvd of Mr Jas. Southall five pounds for the Tax of
the Corporation on Ten Tithables" on January 12, 1773. Two years later, Southall also paid the
annual assessment for ten tithes. He rented slaves when he needed extra help at the tavern.
Southall hired a male slave from Lockey Collier of Elizabeth City County and from William
Sheldon Sclater of Charles Parish in 1771. John Earnshaw rented his slave woman Phillis to
Southall in the same year. Southall might have hired Joe, a slave belonging to Thomas Cowles,
to work at his tavern in that year. He hired Thomas Carter's slave woman in December of 1773.
Southall hired a slave named Nanny Trail from Robert Evans, a free black man, in July 1775.
Southall operated the Raleigh after the Revolution. He had either nine or ten adult slaves
who worked at his tavern in 1783, 1784, and 1786.
1783—Will, Will, Jemmy, Davy, Betty, Fanny, Kate, Venus, Celia and Dinah over
sixteen
Luke, Nan, Sarah, Milly, Phebe, Mary, Billy, Peg, and Jenny under sixteen
1784—Will, Will, Davy, Marcus, Betty, Fanny, Kate, Venus, and Dinah over sixteen
Luke, Harry, Nanny, Moll, Betty, Billy, Jenny, Lucy, and Peg under sixteen
1786—Will, Will, Marcus, Davie, Venus, Betty, Fanny, Cate, and Dinah over sixteen
Luke, Nan, Janey, Peg, Lucy, Mical, Edith, and Mary under sixteen
Southall advertised the Raleigh Tavern for rent on September 20, 1797. He noted that "THE
RAWLEIGH TAVERN, in the city of Williamsburg, at present occupied by Mr. Gabriel
Maupin, which, in point of situation, as a public house, is inferior to none in the place. The yard
and garden belonging thereto are just newly enclosed, and the houses will be put in repair as
soon as possible. Very conveniently situated to the tavern, lies an extensive pasture, containing
about fourteen acres of land, under a good post and rail fence, and on which stands a large and
spacious stable, sufficient for the accomodation of thirty horses. If agreeable, an extraordinary
good BILLIARD TABLE may be had with the said house. Any further description is deemed
unnecessary, as it is supposed that any person inclined to rent the above tenement, would wish
223

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., March 7, 1771; ibid., Rind, ed., March 7, 1771.

633
first to view the premises thereof. Bond with approved security will be required, and the terms
may be known by application to the subscriber."224

The Randolph House
Four members of the Randolph family—Sir John Randolph, Lady Susannah Randolph, Peyton
Randolph, and Betty Randolph—were slaveowners. This examination of the enslaved men,
women, and children who worked for the Randolphs begins with a look at John and Susannah
Randolph‘s slaves. Next, the study turns to Peyton Randolph‘s urban slaves, the enslaved
laborers on his plantations in James City County, differences between his urban and rural slaves,
the impact of Randolph‘s death on his slaves, the decision of enslaved individuals to run to the
British, and Randolph‘s thoughts on slavery.
Sir John Randolph
John Randolph was a member of a prominent and influential family. The son of William
Randolph of Turkey Island in Charles City County, John Randolph attended William and Mary
from 1709 to 1711. He also studied law in England between 1715 and 1717. When he returned
to Virginia he was appointed clerk of the House of Burgesses and also served as agent for the
colony for many years. In 1732, he became the only colonial Virginian to be knighted.225 Two
years later he was elected Speaker of the House of Burgesses, a position he held until his death
on February 27, 1736/7.
Randolph lived on Lots 207 and 237 on the north side of Market Square with his wife,
Susannah, and their children, Beverley, Peyton, John, and Mary. This household also included
white indentured servants and slaves. In November 1733 the grand jury presented John
Randolph for not listing his tithes. Unfortunately, the York County clerk did not specify the
number of tithes that Randolph had on his urban property, the number of indentured servants, or
the number of bond laborers. The first evidence of slaves in Randolph‘s Williamsburg
household is contained in his will which he wrote on December 23, 1735 and to which he added
a codicil on February 17, 1736/7. His last testament was recorded in the General Court on April
28, 1737. He left to his wife during her lifetime
all my houses and lots in the city of Williamsburgh and the plantation and lands adjoining
to the town which I purchased of Mr. Thomas Corbin and Mr. Thomas Bray with the
appurtenances and also my household servants and slaves and the slaves living and
residing upon the said plantation. . . . I also give her the profits of all my other plantations
and negros or other slaves until my several sons shall respectively attain the age of
224

Virginia Gazette and General Advertiser, September 20, 1797.
Randolph relied on John Custis to inform him about activities on his plantations while he was in England. On
December 4, 1732, Custis wrote Randolph that "Your plantation business goes on tolerably well; only some of the
Negros, and particularly Simon at Chicohominy has bin a little [illeg] sunnen and run away, haveing a notion he had
no master; but upon complaint of the overseer, I went immediately up; and undeceived him to his cost." John Custis
Letter Book, 1717-1741, Library of Congress.
225

634
twenty four years. . . . And after that my will is that she shall receive of my sons one third
part of the profits of my said plantations and slaves for her dower.
After his mother's death Peyton Randolph would gain possession of
all my said houses and lots in Williamsburg and at the college landing and the said
plantation and lands lying near or adjoining to the town upon Archers hope creek
[College Creek] which I purchased of the said Thomas Corbin and Thomas Bray and my
household servants and slaves and slaves belonging to the said plantation . . . . I also give
unto my said son Peyton his heirs and assignes all my lands tenements and hereditaments
with the appurtenances lying and being in Martin's hundred in the county of James City
and all the slaves horses hogs cattle sheep and other goods and chattles belonging to the
said lands or at the time of my death living residing or being upon the same.
John Randolph noted that "Whereas my negroes Peter and Hull do not live constantly at any
plantation I give Hull to my son Beverley and Peter to my son John. I also give unto my son
Beverley the mulatto boy Billy and all the rest of my estate both real and personal."226 This
bequest suggests that most of Randolph‘s enslaved laborers lived at a specific plantation. It is
possible that Peter and Hull ran errands between Randolph‘s properties for their master.
The elder Randolph made some additional gifts of slaves in his codicil. He gave
Beverley "a negro girl named Ffrank who lives with Mr. Pasteur a negro girl Lucy who lives
with Mr. Bridges a mulatto girl called Nanny who lives at my quarters at Archer's house and a
negro girl called Easter." Peyton received a mulatto boy named Lewey. 227 Randolph‘s codicil
indicates that he took advantage of the opportunity to add to his income by hiring out enslaved
girls to Williamsburg residents. Frank and Lucy probably performed domestic duties for Pasteur
and Bridges, respectively. Jean Pasteur was a barber and a wigmaker who lived on Lot 27 on
Duke of Gloucester Street. Perhaps Pasteur hired Frank to help his wife, Martha, with work in
their household. Lucy worked in the dwelling that the painter Charles Bridges rented from the
estate of Richard King. On Christmas Day 1736, Bridges decided to lease Lots 319-328 on
Prince George Street from King‘s executor, Thomas Jones, for one year.

Lady Susannah Randolph
The widow Randolph inherited a life right to her husband‘s Williamsburg property and
his plantation at Archer‘s Hope Creek. As a result, Lady Randolph managed the labor force at
Archer‘s Hope Creek in addition to the household servants and slaves whose work she already
supervised.228 It is known that she lost one of her household servants at the end of 1737. In
November of that year a white indentured servant named Esther Pugh petitioned the York
226

Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 36 (1928): 376-381.

227

Ibid.

228

It is likely that John and Susannah Randolph employed an overseer at the Martin‘s Hundred Plantation in James
City County and at the plantation in Gloucester County (Sir John Randolph left this land to his son, Beverley).

635
County Court. Pugh wanted to be discharged from her service to the estate of Sir John Randolph.
Two of Randolph's executors, Richard Randolph and Henry Whiting, gave their consent to
Pugh's request. It is unknown if there were other white indentured servants in the Randolph
household in the late 1730s.
Susannah Randolph directed a number of her own affairs after her husband's death. On
May 26, 1740, she petitioned the House of Burgesses as guardian of her son Peyton, the
proprietor of the public warehouses at the College Landing. The widow Randolph informed the
Burgesses that
since the last Session of Assembly, the Warehouses, at the Place aforesaid, being too
small to receive the Tobacco brought there, another Warehouse 40 Feet long, and 20 Feet
wide, was obliged to be built, at a considerable Expence. And praying some Allowance
for the same, and an Increase of the Rent of the said Warehouses.
Four days later the Burgesses granted an increase of £4.10 for the rent of the warehouses.229
Peyton Randolph reached the age of twenty-four in 1745 and took over management of his estate
from his mother. However, Lady Randolph's name continued to be associated with a portion of
her husband‘s real property. On September 26, 1745, William Newell offered a reward for a
horse that strayed from the College Landing. He wanted the horse returned to him "at the Lady
Randolph's Quarter, near the said Landing."230
It is possible that Susannah Randolph moved from the main house to another structure on
the property after Peyton and Betty married. The building identified as Structure A might have
served as John Randolph's law office during his lifetime. Perhaps it was converted into a dower
house for Lady Randolph in the mid-1740s. The building was demolished during Peyton
Randolph's lifetime—most likely between 1755 and 1765—after his mother's death.231 Susannah
Randolph‘s dower slaves who lived in and worked in Williamsburg probably stayed with their
mistress during her lifetime, and later became a part of the household headed by Peyton
Randolph.
Peyton Randolph’s Urban Slaves
Peyton Randolph followed in his father‘s footsteps when he attended William and Mary
and traveled to England to study law. Randolph received an appointment as Virginia's Attorney
General in May 1744. He married Betty Harrison, the daughter of Benjamin Harrison of
229

H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia 1727-1734, 1736-1740, (Richmond: Virginia
State Library, 1910), pp. 399-400, 409.
230

231

Virginia Gazette, September 26, 1745.

Willie Graham, ―Building an Image: An Architectural Report on the Peyton Randolph Site,‖ (unpublished
report, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1985) and Department of Archaeological Research, ―View from the Top:
Archaeological Investigations of Peyton Randolph‘s Urban Plantation,‖ (unpublished report, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation, 1988).

636
Berkeley Plantation in Charles City County, in March 1745/6. It is likely that Peyton and Betty
Randolph lived in the family house after their marriage. Betty brought three slaves to
Williamsburg with her—Liddy, Kate (the daughter of Aggy), and Charlotte. She inherited the
enslaved females from her father when he died in July 1745. It is possible that Betty lived with
her sister, Ann Harrison Randolph, in Goochland County after the death of their father and
before her marriage to Peyton Randolph. If so, Liddy, Kate, and Charlotte had their lives
disrupted twice within one year. The move to Williamsburg was a big change because they went
from the rural house of a Burgess to the urban household of the colony's Attorney General. In
addition, Betty took Liddy, Kate, and Charlotte from their families in Charles City County.
The Smallpox List provides some clues about the individuals who lived at the Randolph
house in February 1747/8. Dr. John de Sequeyra noted that nineteen members of this household
had recovered, one had not caught the disease, and four were dead. Evidence from the York
County Court records, the Bruton Parish Birth Register, and other primary sources further
reveals individuals, white and black, who might have lived on this property during the epidemic.


Susannah Randolph and her slaves Ann, Frank, and Yarrow. It is likely that Ann, Frank,
and Yarrow were in Williamsburg in 1747/8 because they were adults when they were
baptized—Ann (―woman‖) and Frank (―man‖) in November 1750 and Yarrow (―man‖) in
July 1754. Ann, Frank, and Yarrow were three of Lady Randolph‘s dower slaves.



Peyton and Betty Randolph and their slaves. It is possible that the three Harrison slaves
from Charles City County—Charlotte, Kate, and Liddy—were still alive in early 1747/8.
Lewey, a boy when John Randolph bequeathed him to Peyton in 1736/7, would have
been in his twenties during the Smallpox Epidemic. It is likely that five slaves baptized
between 1747 and 1767 were part of the Randolph household at that time: Mourning
Frances, an infant, on August 2, 1747; James, an adult, on May 7, 1749; Denbo, an adult
on July 1, 1751; Humphrey, an "old man," on March 2, 1766; and Sarah an "old woman"
on May 3, 1767. Sukey, baptized on February 4, 1753, and the mother of Lewis who was
baptized on December 6, 1767 might also have been part of this household in 1747/8. It
is possible that the four people who had died by the time that Dr. John de Sequeyra wrote
his list and the one who had not caught the disease were also bond laborers.



It is likely that one or more of Betty Randolph's brothers and sisters lived in
Williamsburg at the Randolph House in the late 1740s and 1750s. Betty and Ann
Harrison Randolph probably shared the responsibility of raising their younger brothers
and sisters after the deaths of their parents, Benjamin and Ann Harrison. If one of Betty
Randolph‘s siblings was in Williamsburg during the Smallpox Epidemic, it is likely that
he or she had a waiting boy or a maid with them. The trip to Williamsburg enabled a
Harrison slave from Charles City County to visit with Kate, Liddy, and Charlotte and to
tell them about friends and family.

The records indicate that the Randolph household included as many as twenty-one bond laborers
at the time of the Smallpox Epidemic.

637
The Randolphs owned slaves who were at different stages of the life cycle in 1747/8.
Humphrey and Sarah might have taught their skills to younger slaves and looked after boys and
girls while their parents worked. The Randolph slaves came from a variety of backgrounds. It is
possible that several of the Randolph slaves had spent a large part of their lives in this
Williamsburg household. In contrast, the Harrison slaves were accustomed to life in a rural area.
There might have been tensions between the two groups as Kate, Charlotte, and Liddy grew
familiar with the routines of an urban household and as Betty Randolph assumed management of
domestic matters from her mother-in-law. The names of two men—Yarrow and Denbo—
suggest that the labor force at the Randolph House in 1747/8 included at least two individuals
who had been born in Africa. Perhaps Kate, Charlotte, Liddy, and Lewey were natives of
Virginia. They might have learned about life and customs in Africa from Yarrow and Denbo.
The number of Virginia-born slaves who lived and worked on the Randolph property
increased between the late 1740s and late 1760s. Evidence from the York County records
indicates that Randolph did not purchase any slaves during this twenty-year period. However, it
is possible that he bought an enslaved laborer a deed that was recorded in the records of the
General Court, the Williamsburg Hustings Court, or the James City County Court. The
following individuals received their baptism between February 1748/9 and January 1769:
Effy and Charlie, infants, on February 5, 1748/9
William on July 2, 1749
Lucy, an infant, on April 1, 1751
Mars on May 6, 1751
Robert on November 5, 1751
Dabney on February 4, 1753
Charles on March 7, 1753
Aggy and Coy on July 1, 1753
Betty, a child belonging to Susannah Randolph, on June 3, 1754
William, the son of Succordia, on November 6, 1763
George, the son of Eve, on July 6, 1766
Lewis, the son of Sukey, on December 6, 1767
Henry, the son of Agnes, on August 14, 1768
Robert, the son of Elizabeth, on January 1, 1769
Unfortunately, the Bruton Parish vestry clerk did not always include the name of the child's
mother in the register.
Surviving documents provide information about the activities of several of the younger
slaves in the Randolph household. Three enslaved individuals attended the Bray School. In
September 1762, Aggy and Roger, both age seven, were pupils of Ann Wager. Three years later,
Sam joined Roger at the Bray School. In February 1769, Sam was described as Betty Randolph's
slave when his name appeared on the list of students at the school. This entry suggests that Sam
was the son of one of the enslaved females whom Betty Randolph inherited from her father.
Randolph had his male slaves run errands for him. In February 1764, he sent Johnny to
the Printing Office to buy a stick of the best Dutch sealing wax. The next month Johnny

638
purchased a quire of post paper. He also purchased a stick of the best Dutch sealing wax for
Randolph in November 1765. Governor Botetourt‘s butler, William Marshman, referred to
Johnny as the "Speaker's Man" when he gave him a tip of £0.3.9 in April of 1769.232 Watt
returned from the Printing Office with a tobacco pamphlet in June 1764. Randolph entrusted
Ned to purchase a stick of sealing wax in August of the same year. Billy made two trips to the
Printing Office in 1764: he bought a dozen packs of the best "Harry" cards in September and a
stick of sealing wax in October.233
Johnny served as Randolph‘s waiting man by 1769. It is likely that the Speaker had a
coachman and postilion who accompanied him on journeys. Perhaps a gardener tended the
planting beds located on Randolph‘s ―urban plantation.‖ Like his brother, Peyton Randolph had
male slaves who worked as footmen and waiting men. The Speaker‘s female slaves worked at
domestic tasks in his urban household. Betty Randolph supervised the enslaved women and girls
as they cooked, cleaned, laundered clothes, and worked in the dairy. Sarah and other older
women looked after the sons and daughters of the younger females. Unfortunately, the extant
records do not indicate which enslaved woman or women prepared the food. Perhaps Peyton
Randolph had a cook, an under cook, and a pastry maid as did his brother John. It is likely that
Betty Randolph had a personal maid. Perhaps one of the enslaved girls who she inherited from
her father served in this position at the time of Peyton and Betty Randolph‘s marriage.
Peyton Randolph’s Slaves in James City County
The Reverend John Camm's list of tithables in Yorkhampton Parish in 1758 and the
Williamsburg-James City County Tax List for 1768 and 1769 provide information about
Randolph's slave holdings on the two James City County properties that he inherited from his
father. Randolph had fifteen tithes at the Martin‘s Hundred plantation in 1758. Ten years later
the Speaker paid the assessment for 1671 acres in James City. He had seventeen tithes at
Martin‘s Hundred and six laborers over the age of sixteen at Archer‘s Hope Creek. The
following year Randolph had sixteen tithes who worked in the fields at Martin‘s Hundred. Seven
tithes tended the crops at the Rock Spring Farm on Archer‘s Hope Creek.
Both of Randolph‘s James City County plantations were within walking distance of
Williamsburg. Sir John Randolph described the Archer‘s Hope Creek ―plantation and land
adjoining to the town‖ in his will.234 It is likely that the Rock Spring Farm was about two to
three miles from the colonial capital. Martin‘s Hundred was approximately five to eight miles
from Randolph‘s urban property. The proximity of the Speaker‘s James City County property to
Williamsburg suggests that his urban and rural slaves had opportunities to interact and to
establish family and friendship ties to each other and to other slaves who lived in or near
Williamsburg.
232

Joseph Royle, Virginia Gazette Journals, 1764-1766, pp. 12, 27, 213; "Dayly Account of Expenses" kept by William
Marshman at the Governor's Palace, f. 16.
233

Joseph Royle, Virginia Gazette Journals, 1764-1766, pp. 73 (Watt), 93 (Ned), 97 (Billy), and 110 (Billy).

234

Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 36 (1928): 376-381.

639

Randolph. Like his father, relied on his rural slaves, males and females, in James City
County to produce some of the food that he needed to feed members of his urban household. Sir
John Randolph had ―horses hogs cattle sheep and other goods and chattles‖ on his Martin‘s
Hundred plantation in December 1735. The elder Randolph also noted that there were cattle and
sheep on the Rock Spring Farm. Enslaved men probably cut firewood for Sir John Randolph‘s
urban home from the land near Archer‘s Hope Creek.235 Randolph‘s contemporaries also
depended on plantations located a short distance from town to provision their urban households.
In May 1764, Robert Carter informed James Buchanan that ―every family here have small
Farms; which supply them with Articles to be bought in good Markets.‖ Carter and other
residents of Williamsburg did not think that the market in the colonial capital provided them with
enough good food at the right price.236
Documents recorded after the death of Peyton Randolph provide information about crops
that his enslaved workers produced on his plantations in James City County. On July 19, 1776,
Landon Carter noted in his diary that
Nat brought me from town a handful of thrashed barley, very large grain indeed, which
he says he got of the late Speaker's people. It seems that gentleman had a small vial
given him from which he raised four, if not five, bushels of seed. I will endeavour to do
the same, but then it must be in my garden or I am certain it will be destroyed as was my
Sicilian wheat and Polant oates this year.237
Records pertaining to the settlement of Peyton Randolph‘s estate indicate that his bond laborers
grew corn, wheat, cotton, oats, and tobacco under the supervision of an overseer at Martin‘s
Hundred in 1783 and 1784. Randolph‘s enslaved men also cut timber on his plantation. On
August 13, 1776, James Roan received £ 13.19 for carrying 196 posts and 2,300 rails from
Martin‘s Hundred to Williamsburg. John Greenhow used the posts and rails to enclose his
meadow.238
Peyton Randolph managed his plantations in James City County and Charlotte County
from his house in the colonial capital.239 It is possible that he stored equipment in outbuildings in
Williamsburg until the tools were needed on his rural properties. If Randolph followed this
235

Ibid.

236

Robert Carter to James Buchanan and Co., May 10, 1764, in the Letterbook of Robert Carter III of Nominy Hall
for the Years 1764-1768, Special Collections, Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Provisioning
Report.
237

Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, ed. Jack P. Greene, 2 vols., (Richmond: Virginia
Historical Society, 1987), p. 1060.
238

239

Estate Papers of Peyton Randolph, Library of Congress.

Randolph received a patent for 400 acres of land in Lunenburg County on June 10, 1760. Charlotte County was
formed from of Lunenburg County in 1764. Nell Marion Nugent et al., eds., Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of
Virginia Land Patents and Grants, 6 vols., (Richmond: Virginia Genealogical Society, 1934-1998), 6:369.

640
practice, he probably intended to send the ―5 Flax Wheels 2 Check Reels & 2 Common Reels [£]
5‖ in his York County inventory to his plantation in Charlotte County. On September 25, 1784,
Edmund Randolph made a list of his slaves on his plantations in Charlotte, Albemarle, Henrico,
and James City counties. Seven enslaved women in Charlotte County produced cloth. Randolph
noted that Dilce was a ―semptress and spinner‖ and that Aby was a ―Spinner in the house.‖
Frank, Lydia, and Nell worked as spinners. Nanny received assistance from Judy as she wove
cloth.240 It is unlikely that Randolph depended on the enslaved men, women, and children on his
Charlotte County property to provide provisions for his urban household because of the distance
between this plantation and Williamsburg.
Connections and Differences between Randolph’s Urban and Rural Slaves
The short distances between Randolph‘s Williamsburg home and his plantations in James
City County suggest that the Speaker‘s enslaved laborers had opportunities to interact with each
other, to establish family and friendship ties, and to share information. An advertisement
indicates that an enslaved man named Moses traveled between Williamsburg and the Martin‘s
Hundred quarter. On January 27, 1774, Williamsburg‘s John Lewis informed readers of the
Virginia Gazette that he had "great Reason to suspect" that his runaway mulatto slave girl Fanny
had been "harboured by a Negroe Fellow named Moses, belonging to Peyton Randolph, Esq;
about his Quarter of Martin's Hundred, from whence I suppose, she will endeavour to cross the
York to go to her relations in Middlesex."241 Randolph probably sent Johnny, Watt, Ned, and
Billy on errands to Martin‘s Hundred and the Rockspring Farm. The fact that both urban and
rural slaves decided to join the enemy suggests that slaves from the Speaker‘s house and
plantations discussed whether or not to take their chances with the British.
The Bruton Parish Birth/Baptism Register provides evidence of differences between
Randolph‘s urban and rural slaves. Twenty-five of the bond laborers in the Speaker‘s household
received their baptism between August 2, 1747 and January 1, 1769.242 Just three—Denbo,
Sukey, and Lewis—lived at Martin‘s Hundred at some point in their lives. Perhaps Peyton and
Betty Randolph encouraged adult slaves to be baptized or persuaded mothers to have their
infants baptized. It is possible that the urban slaves hoped that their baptism or the baptism of
their children would yield more favorable treatment from their master and mistress. The
Speaker‘s slaves might have drawn strength to endure slavery when they heard words from the
Bible spoken each Sunday. Attendance at Bruton Parish Church also enabled enslaved men,
women, and children to maintain ties to others who accompanied their masters and mistresses.
240

York County Wills and Inventories (22) 337-341, ordered November 20, 1775, dated January 5, 1776, and
recorded July 15, 1776; Estate Papers of Peyton Randolph, Library of Congress.
241

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., January 27, 1774. Fanny probably ran from Lewis‘s plantation in New Kent
County. It is possible that Moses met a woman named Elizabeth Maloney on one of his journeys. The clerk of the
Bruton Parish vestry noted that Moses was the father of Jane, the illegitimate daughter of Elizabeth Maloney. Jane
Maloney was born on December 14, 1768 and baptized on January 2, 1769. It is likely that Moses was also the
father of Maloney's illegitimate son, Moses Carter, born in January 1767.
242

This number includes Lady Susannah Randolph‘s slaves who were baptized.

641

The Death of Peyton Randolph
Peyton Randolph died in Philadelphia on October 22, 1775. The widow Randolph
returned to Williamsburg on November 6, 1775 with Johnny and an unidentified slave boy.243
Randolph‘s executors, Betty Randolph and James Cocke, took his will to be probated in the York
County Court on November 20, 1775. The Speaker left Little Aggy and her children, Great
Aggy and her children, Eve and her children, and Lucy and her children to his wife Betty.
Randolph bequeathed a boy called Caesar, the son of Sue, to his nephew, Harrison Randolph.
His brother John was to gain possession of two boys of his choice and all his estate real and
personal after Betty's death with the exception of "my man Johnny" who was to go to his nephew
Edmund Randolph. He also empowered his "exrs. to sell my books & presses to pay my debts &
if that is not sufficient to sell so many of the negroes as they think can be best spared from the
use of the plantations to answer that purpose."244 Randolph‘s bequests reflected a division
between the urban slaves and those who tended the fields on his plantations. Betty Randolph
gained possession of the domestic workers and Edmund Randolph became the owner of his
uncle‘s rural laborers after his father (John Randolph, a Loyalist) left for England.
The January 5, 1776 inventory of Randolph's estate in York County included the names
of twenty-seven slaves. A close examination of the order in which the names of the Randolph
slaves appeared in the inventory of the Speaker‘s estate provides some clues about the ages of his
enslaved laborers, their family relationships, and possible responsibilities in the household.245
Johnny £100
gone to the enemy
Billy £100

gone to the enemy
George £30

gone to the enemy
Henry £30

gone to the enemy
Sam £40

William £30

245

Ben £80

sold
Caesar £25

244

Watt £100

dead
Breeches £10

243

Jack £25

Bob £25

Virginia Gazette, Pinkney, ed., November 9, 1775.
York County Wills and Inventories (22) 309-310, dated August 18, 1774 and recorded November 20, 1775.

York County Wills and Inventories (22) 337-341, ordered November 20, 1775, dated January 5, 1776, and
recorded July 15, 1776; Estate Papers of Peyton Randolph, Library of Congress. The note above an individual‘s
name can be found on the copy of Randolph‘s inventory at the Library of Congress.

642

Caesar £30

Watt £25

gone to the enemy
Eve £100

Charlotte £80

gone to the enemy
Aggy £60

Succordia £10

Little Aggy £60

Kitty £20

Betsy £10

gone to the enemy
Lucy £60

Katy £20

gone to the enemy
Peter £15

Betty £100

sold
Roger £60

Moses £60
The appraisers began the list of slaves with Johnny whom they deemed worth £100. This
valuation indicated the important role that the ―Speaker‘s Man‖ played in the Randolph
household and that he was in the prime of his working years. Billy (approximately twenty-seven
years old in 1776), Watt, and Ben might have had skills in addition to being young adults. The
position of Jack‘s name on the list suggests that he was an adult who could not perform as much
work as he had done when he was younger or that he was young and in the process of learning
how to be a waiting man from Johnny. Breeches died a short time after the appraisers tallied
Randolph‘s personal possessions, an indication that he was sick, old, or both in early 1776.
The next eight names are those of boys who were old enough to perform some work
around the household. Entries in the Bruton Parish Register provide approximate ages for five of
this group in 1776: George was ten years old, Henry was eight years old, Sam was fourteen
years old, William was thirteen years old, and Bob was seven years old. The valuations in the
inventory suggest that Caesar, Sue‘s son Caesar, and Watt were also between the ages of seven
and fourteen.
Eve was the first female to appear on the list of Randolph‘s personal property. Her value
of £100 indicates that she was an important part of the day-to-day activities in the household and
that she might have been Betty Randolph‘s personal maid. Charlotte and Great Aggy also
provided necessary labor. It is probable that Succordia (valued at £10 in 1776 and described as
an ―old woman‖ in 1783) looked after the young children while their mothers cooked and
cleaned. Little Aggy‘s name is followed by Kitty valued at £20 and Betsy who was worth £10.
The arrangement of these names suggests that Kitty and Betsy were the daughters of Little Aggy.
Lucy was the mother of two children, Peter and Katy. Peter, who was worth £15, was young and

643
not able to do much work. Katy was a few years older than her brother. The final three names
on the list—Betty, Roger, and Moses—were adults. Betty‘s valuation at £100 indicates that she
played an important role in the Randolph household. It is possible that the education that Roger
received at the Bray School influenced David Ross‘s decision to buy him in 1779. Moses ran
errands for the Speaker between his Williamsburg home and his plantations in James City
County.
Randolph‘s inventory included eight men, seven women, nine boys, and three girls. It is
likely that all twenty-seven individuals were able to do some work around the house; none of the
older slaves were described as ―infirm‖ and none of the children were listed with their mothers.
The females—women and girls—had domestic responsibilities. Great Aggy, Little Aggy,
Charlotte, Lucy, and Betty worked in the kitchen, the dairy, and the laundry that stood behind the
house. Perhaps these women and their children slept in the buildings in which they worked.
Betty Randolph‘s personal maid—possibly Eve—spent most of her time in the dwelling house.
She was in closer contact with her mistress than were the women who worked in the
outbuildings. The widow Randolph‘s sale of Eve indicates that she took greater offense to Eve‘s
decision to join the British during the Revolution than she did to the departure of the other slaves
who ran to the enemy.
The enslaved men and boys had a greater number of opportunities to move about
Williamsburg and the surrounding countryside than did the females who worked in the Randolph
household. Caesar, George, Henry, Sam, William, Bob, Caesar, and Watt might have run
errands to the Printing Office in the 1770s as Johnny, Billy, Watt, and Ned had done in the
1760s. It is likely that one of the men was Randolph‘s postilion when the Speaker rode in his
chariot. Others might have been responsible for carrying food produced at Martin‘s Hundred
and Archer‘s Hope Creek to Williamsburg on a cart. It is likely that the Speaker had at least one
enslaved man dressed in livery to open his door for important guests. The Randolph household
had more male slaves than did the typical Williamsburg household.246 Perhaps the Speaker relied
on enslaved men and boys to run a greater number of errands in town, to his plantations, and to
his warehouses at College Landing as his health declined. It is possible that Randolph hired out
several of his male slaves to Williamsburg residents as his father had done in the 1730s.

When Did the Randolph Slaves Run to the British?
Peyton Randolph's will was probated on November 20, 1775, four days after Lord
Dunmore issued the proclamation in which he decreed martial law and declared "all indented
Servants, Negroes, or others (appertaining to the Rebels) free, that are able and willing to bear
Arms, they joining His Majesty's forces."247 Dunmore's offer of freedom might have been
especially appealing to the Randolph slaves because of the disruption caused by their master‘s
death. The copy of Randolph‘s York County and James City County inventories at the Library
246

Michael L. Nicholls, ―Aspects of the African American Experience in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg and
Norfolk,‖ (unpublished report, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1990), pp. 3-5, 12-13.
247

Dunmore signed his proclamation on November 7, 1775.

644
of Congress includes the notation ―gone to the enemy‖ above the names of thirteen Randolph
slaves. Eight of the urban slaves—Billy, George, Henry, Sam, Eve, Great Aggy, Lucy, and
Peter—ran to the British. Denbo, Roger, Dick, Jimmy, and Nanny left James City County and
joined the enemy. However, the person who added the notes did not mention when the thirteen
men, women, and children ran or when he or she made the notations on the inventories. An
examination of Randolph‘s inventories and the three opportunities that Virginia slaves had to run
to the enemy during the Revolution provide some clues about when the Speaker‘s slaves decided
to run to the British.
First, it is likely that the person who added the notes to his or her copy of the inventories
was someone financially responsible for the estate. The executors of Randolph‘s estate—Betty
Randolph and James Cocke—needed to account for all property when the estate was settled. A
comparison of Betty Randolph‘s handwriting in a letter she wrote to her uncle Landon Carter on
September 16, 1776 with the Speaker‘s inventories indicates that the widow Randolph added
―gone to the enemy‖ to her copy of the inventories soon after the slaves departed as a way to
account for the value of the missing slaves.248 In addition, Betty Randolph managed the
settlement of her deceased husband‘s estate until the time of her death on January 31, 1783.
Edmund Randolph took over the management of his uncle‘s estate after the death of his aunt.
Enslaved men, women, and children in Virginia had three chances to join the British
troops between 1775 and 1782. The first opportunity was between the spring of 1775, when
Dunmore began to consider the emancipation of slaves owned by Patriots, and the summer of
1776, when he left Virginia for New York. Dunmore turned away the slaves who traveled to the
Palace before he issued his proclamation. The majority of enslaved individuals who joined
Dunmore did so after November 16, 1775. However, it would have been difficult, but not
impossible, for Randolph‘s slaves to become a part of the Ethiopian Regiment in late 1775 or
early 1776 because they had to travel to Norfolk to join Dunmore. The majority of the slaves
whom Dunmore left behind on Gwynn‘s Island in August 1776 ran from owners who lived in the
city of Norfolk, Nansemond County, Norfolk County, and Princess Anne County.249 If
Randolph‘s slaves decided to join Dunmore‘s Ethiopian Regiment in late 1775 or early 1776,
Betty Randolph had time to ask Thomas Everard to add the notation ―gone to the enemy‖ to the
copy of the Speaker‘s inventory that he recorded in the York County Court records on July 15,
1776.
It is possible that Johnny was the first Randolph slave to run from Williamsburg. In
December 1777, Edmund Randolph noted that he would
give a reward of five dollars, besides what the law allows, to any person who will
apprehend Johnny, otherwise called John Harris, a mulatto man slave who formerly
waited upon my uncle, the late Peyton Randolph, Esq; and secure him, so that I may get
248

Betty Randolph to Landon Carter, September 16, 1776, Sabine Hall Papers, Mss 1959a-2658, Special
Collections, Alderman Library, University of Virginia; Estate Papers of Peyton Randolph.
249

Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., August 31, 1776. Americans drove the British and Dunmore‘s followers off
Gwynn‘s Island on July 9, 1776.

645
him again. He took with him, when he went away, a green broadcloth coat, and a new
crimson waistcoat and breeches, a light coloured Bath coating great coat, a London
brown bath coathing close bodied coat, a pair of old crimson cloth breeches, and some
changes of clothes. He is about five feet seven or eight inches high, wears straight hair,
cut in his neck, is much addicted to drinking, has grey eyes, can read and write tolerably
well, and may probably endeavour to pass for a freeman. The above reward of five
dollars will be given if he is taken in Virginia, but five pounds, besides what the law
allows, will be paid to any person who apprehends him out of Virginia, and conveys him
to me.250
Betty Randolph did not note on her copy of her husband‘s inventory that Johnny ran. Perhaps
she did not need to account for Johnny because Edmund Randolph had possession of his uncle‘s
waiting man. The fact that the younger Randolph mentioned a reward for someone who found
Johnny in a place other than Virginia suggests that he believed his slave might try to leave the
state. The trip that Johnny took (with the Randolphs) to Philadelphia in 1775 exposed him to life
in the largest city in North America, a city with a large, thriving free black population. It is
possible that Johnny returned to Philadelphia to renew contacts with friends and to try to pass as
a free man. There is no evidence that Randolph regained possession of him.
The second possibility for Virginia slaves to join the enemy was in 1778, when the
British returned to Norfolk. Again, the distance between Williamsburg and Norfolk made it
unlikely that the Speaker‘s slaves took this opportunity to seek their freedom. The best chance
that bond laborers in the Old Dominion had to make it to the British was in 1780 and 1781.
Perhaps the presence of the enemy in locations that were closer to Williamsburg helped thirteen
Randolph slaves to decide to run away. It would have been easier for Eve and her son George,
Great Aggy and her son Henry, and Lucy and her son Peter to travel to Yorktown than it would
have been to journey to Norfolk. The short distance between the Randolph slaves in
Williamsburg and on the James City County plantations and the British in Yorktown meant that
there was a realistic chance for families to run together.
Several documents suggest that the widow Randolph‘s slaves ran in 1781. Bequests in
the will that Betty Randolph wrote on June 1, 1780 imply that the Randolph slaves had not yet
joined the British. She left her mulatto woman Little Aggy and Aggy‘s daughter Betsy and son
Nathan to her nephew, Benjamin Harrison of Berkeley. Another nephew, Carter Harrison of
Berkeley, gained possession of a mulatto boy named Wat. Randolph bequeathed her enslaved
woman Eve and her son George to niece Ann Copeland. The woman called Great Aggy and her
son Henry were to become the property of her niece, Elizabeth Rickman. She left her mulatto
girl Charlotte to niece Lucy Randolph. A third nephew, Harrison Randolph, inherited a slave
woman, Lucy, and her children. In August 1780, the justices of the peace noted that Betty

250

Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., December 12, 1777. Some of the clothing that Johnny took with him might have
been made out of the material in one of Randolph‘s outbuildings in 1775. Randolph‘s inventory included thirty-five
yards of green cloth and ten yards of crimson cloth. The Speaker also had forty yards of cotton, about thirty yards of
green ―planes,‖ twenty ―Ells Oznbr.,‖ and four pairs of coarse shoes.

646
Randolph‘s nineteen tithes were to be added to the list for Bruton Parish, an indication that her
bond laborers were still in Williamsburg.251
The British troops occupied Williamsburg for two days in April 1781 and also between
June 25 and July 4 of that year. A letter from St. George Tucker to his wife Fanny on July 11,
1781 reveals that several Williamsburg slaves joined Cornwallis in June and July of 1781.
Tucker also informed his wife that Betty Randolph did not have any slaves in her household.
Tucker wrote that
The small-pox, which the hellish polling of these infamous wretches has spread in
every place through which they have passed has now obtained a crisis throughout
the place so that there is scarcely a person to be found to nurse those who are
most afflicted by it. Your old friend Aunt Betty is in that situation. A child of Sir
Peyton Skipwith‘s who is with her, was deserted by its nurse, and the good lady
was left without a human being to assist her in any respect for some days.252
Perhaps the thirteen enslaved men, women, and children ran to the enemy in the spring of 1781
and Betty Randolph moved the remaining household slaves to Berkeley Plantation in Charles
City County so that they would not get exposed to smallpox.
The codicil that the widow Randolph wrote to her will on July 20, 1782 hints that at least
one slave had left her. She explained that she had been forced to sell Eve because of bad
behavior. Randolph wanted the money from this sale to be used to buy a girl for her niece, Ann
Copeland, and a boy for her nephew, Peyton Harrison.253 Perhaps Eve remained with the British
and the other Randolph slaves returned to Williamsburg.254 An advertisement placed by Harrison
Randolph in the Virginia Gazette and General Advertiser in 1782 suggests that he purchased Eve
from his aunt:

251

Peyton Randolph had fifteen tithes in September 1775.

252

St. George Tucker to Fanny Tucker, July 11, 1781, in Mary Haldane Coleman, ed., St. George Tucker: Citizen of
No Mean City, (Richmond: Dietz Press, 1938), pp. 66-67.
253

York County Wills and Inventories (23) 4-5, dated 1 June 1780, codicil dated July 20, 1782, and recorded
February 17, 1783. The widow also noted that she had lent Charlotte to Harrison Randolph during the rest of her
own lifetime. She decided that Harrison Randolph should gain possession of Charlotte's son, Thomas Prouce, to
cover his expenses in providing for Charlotte and any other children she might bear.
254

The slaves who joined the British in 1781 did not leave with the British officers and the few Loyalist families
after the surrender of Cornwallis. The bond laborers who had not died of the smallpox were returned to their
owners. It is possible that the Randolph slaves who did not return to Williamsburg died of the smallpox in
Yorktown. Slaves from Virginia accounted for one-third of the approximately 3,000 slaves evacuated with the
British from New York in 1783. This list did not include an enslaved man, woman, or child owned by Peyton or
Betty Randolph. See Edward M. Riley, ed., ―St. George Tucker's Journal of the Siege of Yorktown, 1781,‖ William
and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., VI (1948): 375-395; Billy Harbin, ed., ―Letters from John Parke Custis to George and
Martha Washington, 1778-1781,‖ William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XLIII (1986): 267-293; and Graham Hodges,
ed., The Black Loyalist Directory: African Americans in Exile After the American Revolution, (New York and London:
Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996).

647
TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD,
FOR apprehending EVE, Negro woman slave, who left York after the surrender; she is
about forty years old, very black and slender, has a small mouth for a Negro, and a
remarkable mole on her nose: She has since been seen on her way to Hampton. She
carried with her a variety of striped and checked Virginia cloth cloathes. Whoever
delivers her to the subscriber in Richmond, shall receive the above reward.255
Perhaps the ―bad behavior‖ that Betty Randolph mentioned in the codicil to her will was Eve‘s
decision to stay with the British. Harrison Randolph might have purchased Eve from his aunt
because of Eve‘s skills. The appraisers of Peyton Randolph‘s estate valued this woman at £100
in January 1776.
It is possible that the death of Betty Randolph on January 31, 1783 had a greater impact
on the Randolph slaves than the passing of Peyton Randolph. The widow Randolph‘s will was
probated on February 17, 1783. The enslaved women and children who had spent their entire
lives in Williamsburg became the property of Betty Randolph‘s nieces and nephews who lived in
Charles City and Henrico counties. The domestic slaves who interacted with the widow
Randolph each day might have known about the provisions for their futures in her will.
Knowledge that they would be moved away from family members and friends who labored on
the Randolph plantations in James City County might have provided the impetus for the
Randolph slaves to run in 1780-1781 instead of in 1775-1776. Unfortunately, the exact time that
the Randolph slaves took advantage of the opportunity presented by the Revolution will never be
known. What is known is that Betty Randolph‘s note—―gone to the enemy‖—indicates that
these enslaved men, women, and children decided to run to the British and acknowledges their
ability to make a decision that affected their lives.
Peyton Randolph’s Thoughts on Slavery
Peyton Randolph did not leave a letter or diary that reveal his thoughts about slavery.
However, extant court records contain some clues about his opinions on the institution.
Randolph took an active role in administering punishments to slaves who had committed crimes.
He was one of the twelve York County justices who sat on at least fifteen oyer & terminer cases
between 1751 and 1773. The Speaker was one of the few justices of the peace from
Williamsburg or Bruton Parish who traveled to Yorktown to be a part of the proceedings.
Magistrates from the area around Yorktown attended most of the oyer & terminer trials in spite
of the fact that much of the crime was committed in and around Williamsburg.256 Perhaps
Randolph took an active role in the proceedings of the oyer and terminer court because two
slaves had stolen items from him. On October 25, 1752, Essex, a slave owned by Matthew
255

Virginia Gazette or American Advertiser, Hayes, ed., February 9, 1782 in Lathan A. Windley, comp., Runaway
Slave Advertisements: A Documentary History from the 1730s to 1790, 4 vols., (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood
Press, 1983), 1:336.
256

Anne R. Willis, "The Master's Mercy: Slave Prosecutions and Punishments in York County Virginia 1700 to 1780,"
(M.A. thesis, College of William and Mary, 1995), pp. 42, 44.

648
Pierce, and Nat, a mulatto slave who belonged to William Drummond of James City County,
stole "3 damask tablecloaths of the value of 8 £ and one diaper table cloath of the value of 10 s
current money of the proper goods and chattels of Peyton Randolph esq."257 It is also possible
that he believed it was necessary for slave owners to maintain control of their enslaved laborers
in order to avoid the possibility of slave unrest.
There is evidence that the Speaker, like his father before him, kept slave families
together. Sir John Randolph‘s will suggests that most of his bond laborers lived at a specific
plantation. Peyton Randolph appears to have kept one group of slaves at Martin‘s Hundred and
another group at the Rockspring Farm. He also kept enslaved mothers and their children
together when he wrote his will in August 1774. Betty Randolph‘s nieces and nephews inherited
mothers and their young children after her death in 1783. It is possible that slave fathers on
Randolph‘s rural plantations stayed closer to their children (whether at Martin‘s Hundred,
Rockspring Farm, or a nearby quarter) because Edmund Randolph gained possession of all the
slaves in James City County, not just the women and their sons and daughters. Edmund
Randolph‘s notes in the Peyton Randolph Estate Papers indicate an awareness of slave families
and a concern to keep mothers with their children.

The Windmill, The Cooper, and Rural Trades
Slaves and free blacks in Williamsburg and the surrounding rural area received training and
worked at rural trades in the eighteenth century. This section includes information on an
enslaved miller, a free black cooper, two enslaved coopers, and two free black planters.
The Windmill
Slaves worked as millers and operated mills for their masters by October 1705 when the
colonial legislators passed a law entitled An act for encouragement of building Water-mills.
Enslaved millers knew how to grind grain and collected a toll from each customer at their
masters‘ mill. If a mill operated by a slave did have the appropriate measures or toll-dish, the
master was at fault. However, if a slave ground grain out of turn, ground grain insufficiently, or
charged a customer more than the fee specified by law, he was responsible for his actions and
would be punished for his first two offenses. If a slave was found guilty a third time, his master
had to pay a fine.
Lorena S. Walsh notes that there was an enslaved miller named Gregory at Nathaniel
Burwell‘s Mill Quarter in the 1780s. When Burwell‘s ―white miller was absent, miller Gregory
collected payments from customers who brought grain to be ground at Burwell‘s mill or else
came to purchase flour, cornmeal, cider, or whiskey.‖
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:403-404; Walsh, From Calabar to Carter‘s
Grove, pp. 185-186
257

Essex was found guilty, and as his punishment he was burnt in his left hand and received twenty-five lashes. The
justices decided that Nat was not guilty. York County Judgments and Orders (2) 173-174, January 31, 1753.

649

The Cooper
A cooper named Adam Waterford was one of the free black residents of Williamsburg.
Waterford‘s skills were in great demand in tidewater Virginia. People used casks—firkins,
hogsheads, rundlets, and tuns, to name just a few of the different sizes and shapes of barrels—to
transport all sorts of goods. Surviving accounts from the 1770s and 1780s indicate that
Waterford provided casks for the Palace, the Public Gaol, and the quartermaster general of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
The 1769 Williamsburg-James City County Tax List indicates that Waterford paid taxes
for two adults, himself and perhaps his wife, in 1769. It is also possible that he owned or hired a
slave in that year. Waterford was able to purchase a lot at the southeast edge of the city (behind
Providence Hall House of the Williamsburg Inn). Waterford owned this lot until his death in the
late 1780s.

****
Two Williamsburg residents owned slaves who received training as coopers. In April
1766, John Greenhow place the following announcement in the Virginia Gazette:
Run away, last December, from the said Greenhow, an ole Negro man named Harry, by
trade a cooper; he did belong to Col. Moseley of Princess Anne, and lived many years at
Hampton, where he has children. It is supposed he is either about Hampton, Norfolk or
Newtown. He is a sly thief, few locks or doors will turn him, and is seldom long in a
place before he puts his ingenuity in practice. Whoever conveys him to me shall be paid
as the law directs. He is outlawed.258
There is no evidence that Greenhow regained possession of Harry.
Francis Jaram, a carpenter, had an enslaved cooper who ran away in the spring of 1777.
Jaram noted
RUN away from the Subscriber, about 8 or 10 weeks ago, a Negro Fellow named
HARRY, about 5 feet 5 or 6 inches high, by Trade a Cooper and carpenter, and when he
works at a Bench he works on the wrong side. The above slave I purchased of the estate
of the late Dr. Andrew Anderson, in New Kent county. Mr. Anderson purchased him of
the Estate of the late Mr. Shermer of James City County, where I believe he is now
lurking, otherwise at one of the Plantations of the said Mr. Shermer in King William
County. I will give 40 s. to any Person who will secure the said slave, so as I get him
again, or 3 £. if delivered to me in Williamsburg.259
258

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., April 11, 1766.

259

Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., April 25, 1777.

650

It is likely that Harry was not returned to Williamsburg. Jaram paid the tithe on an enslaved man
named London in 1783.

Rural Trades
A free black woman named Katherine Alvis apprenticed her nine-year old son, William,
to Robert Crawley of Bruton Parish on May 21, 1750. William Alvis was to serve Crawley until
May of 1762. Crawley agreed to teach Alvis how to plant and how to read. Katherine Alvis
might have entered into this agreement with Crawley because her son‘s father was a slave and
she wanted to make sure that William learned a skill.
Crawley placed the following advertisement in the November 14, 1751 issue of the
Virginia Gazette:
Ran away from the Subscriber, living in York County, on the 28th Day of February last, a
Negroe Boy, named William Alvise, about 12 Years old; he has a very sly rougish Look, and had
on when he went away a blue Half-thick Waistcoat and Breeches. Whoever brings him to me,
shall have a Pistole Reward, besides what the Law allows.
Documents indicate that Crawley regained possession of Alvis and that he finished his
apprenticeship. Alvis appeared on the York County Personal Property Tax List in 1784 and from
1789 to 1794. It is likely that he rented a tract of land in Bruton Parish.

****

Moll Banks, a free black woman, apprenticed her son, Peter, to Thomas Wootten Senior
of Yorkhampton Parish on July 16, 1753. The elder Wootten agreed to teach Banks the skills of
a planter and to instruct him in reading and writing. Banks consented to serve the elder Wootten
until his twenty-first birthday. Moll Banks, like Katherine Alvis, wanted her son to have a skill
that he could use to support himself.
It is likely that Peter Banks rented a small plantation from a York County planter after
finished his apprenticeship. The fact that Banks failed to list himself as a tithe in November
1770, July 1771, November 1772, and November 1773 implies that he had a hard time making
ends meet.

651
The Shoemaker
There is evidence that slaves in Williamsburg and the surrounding rural area worked as
shoemakers in the eighteenth century. William Pearson had an enslaved shoemaker who worked
at his tan yard and a man named Jammy made shoes at Carter‘s Grove. John Rawlinson, a free
black man, and his son, Hulett, also supported themselves and their families as shoemakers.
This section focuses on three white shoemakers—Robert Gilbert, Thomas Skinner, and James
Taylor—and an enslaved shoemaker owned by John Greenhow. See the ―Enslaving Virginia
Biographies‖ in Appendix 4 for information about John Rawlinson.
Robert Gilbert
Robert Gilbert opened a shop near the Capitol in June 1768 where he carried on his
business of boot and shoemaking. He advertised for journeymen shoemakers to assist him in
May 1769 and August 1772. Gilbert hired a slave man named Jack from a resident of Gloucester
County named Mr. Stubbs to assist him in his business. A runaway advertisment in Rind‘s May
20, 1773 issue of the Virginia Gazette indicates that Jack was trained as a shoemaker:
RUN away from the subscriber, on the 15th of April, a negro man named JACK,
belonging to Mr. John Fox, of Gloucester county . . He is by trade a shoemaker, and once
worked with Mr. Robert Gilbert in Williamsburg, is fond of the violin, and has taken with him a
new one, which his master lately gave him . . . His cloathing was the same as that of other
labouring Negroes . . . He is well acquainted in Williamsburg, and Gloucester, and in many other
places in this colony.260
In May 1773 Gilbert informed the public that he would be forced to go out of business
because he was having a hard time collecting his debts. It is likely that several of the persons
indebted to Gilbert paid their obligations because he stayed in business through February 1783
when he moved to Richmond. Gilbert also operated a lodging house in 1777. In October of that
year he announced "To be RENTED, Seven neat rooms, in the house occupied by Mr. Richard
Charleton, in the back street, opposite to Mrs. Starke's to gentlemen who choose to live private
and furnish their own rooms. A good stable belonging to the premises and immediate possession
given at the meeting of the Assembly."261

Thomas Skinner
There is no evidence that Thomas Skinner had a slave who worked in his shoemaking
operation. He advertised for journeymen shoemakers in January 1771 and June 1775. Skinner

260

Virgina Gazette, Rind, ed., May 20, 1773.

261

Virgina Gazette, Purdie, ed., October 10, 1777.

652
gained an apprentice in 1776 when the churchwardens of Bruton Parish bound out a poor orphan
named Francis Driver to him.
In October 1774 Skinner offered a reward for the return of Dolly, a woman hired to him
by the trustees of Philip Johnson‘s estate. Johnson was a resident of the James City County side
of Williamsburg before his death in 1770. The shoemaker noted that he had hired Dolly for
almost four years. It is possible that Skinner relied on Dolly to do the cooking, cleaning, and
laundry.

James Taylor
A Williamsburg shoemaker named James Taylor paid for the hire of a slave from
Benjamin Weldon, a planter of James City County, on two occasions: December 25, 1772 and
December 25, 1773.

Billy
John Greenhow owned an enslaved shoemaker named Billy. The Williamsburg merchant
sold Billy to Joseph Penn of Amherst County sometime before August 1779. Billy ran away
from Penn‘s plantation in August 1779. Penn placed the following announcement in the Virginia
Gazette in October of the same year:
Sixty DOLLARS Reward.
RUN away from the subscriber in Amherst county, about the middle of August last, two
negro fellows, viz. Billy, about twenty years old, Virginia born, well made, rather tall
than otherwise, and is much marked on his legs with a breaking cut, which is but largly
healed up. He has served at the trade of shoemaking some years in Williamsburg, where
he was brought up, and belonged to Mr. John Greenhow of the same place, where I
expect he will endeavour to get to again. SAM, about nineteen years old, Virginia born,
middlesized, of yellow complexion, and likely. I must believe he was carried off by
Billy. I will give a reward of thirty dollars for each to any person that will apprehend the
said runaways, and have them confined in any publick jail, or for delivering to me, one
hundred dollars each.262

262

Virgina Gazette, Clarkson, ed., October 30, 1779.

653
The Silversmith
Six of the silversmiths who lived in Williamsburg in 1775 were slaveowners—James Craig,
James Galt, James Geddy Junior263, Blovet Pasteur, William Rowsay, and Anthony Singleton.
There is no evidence that these men relied upon the labor of their slaves in their business as did
silversmiths in Charleston, South Carolina.264 However, the financial success that each man
enjoyed might have enabled him to purchase slaves to perform domestic work and to run errands
in and around Williamsburg.

James Craig
James Craig, a London jeweler, arrived in Williamsburg in the 1740s. He had a shop on
Francis Street by September 1746. Craig taught Blovet Pasteur the skill of a silversmith and
jeweler between 1752 and 1760 (see below). He married Ann Stevenson by October 1759 when
their first child, Adam, was born. A slave woman named Sukey assisted in the domestic work in
the Craig household. Ann Craig and Sukey gave birth to a child in 1764: Sukey‘s daughter,
Letty, was baptized on May 6, 1764 and Ann Craig was born on May 21, 1764. Craig‘s
namesake was born on December 23, 1766.
Craig purchased part of Lot 53 from James Carter in August 1765. The jeweler bought
the remainder of the lot from Carter in June of the following year. In 1772 Craig announced that
a watchmaker worked in his shop. He also began to refer to his shop as ―The Golden Ball,‖a
trademark commonly used by jewelers and goldsmiths.265
Craig‘s property on Duke of Gloucester Street also served as his home. In June 1779, he
included a description of the buildings on Lot 53 when he announced that he would sell his
house and shop: ―To be sold to the highest bidder for ready money, before the Raleigh door, on
Thursday the 10th of June, the house and shop where the subscriber now lives in, with a garden,
kitchen, stable, chairhouse, smokehouse, and dairy.‖266 Craig retained ownership of 1/3 of a lot.
He had slaves in his household in 1783, 1784, and 1786:
1783—Stepney, Kate, and Nan over sixteen
Kitt and Billy under sixteen
1784—Stepney, Kate, and Nan over sixteen
Kate and Billy under sixteen
1786—Stepney, Kate, Nan, and Billy over sixteen
263

See the section on the Geddy House for information about the slaves owned by James Geddy Junior.

264

See E. Milby Burton, South Carolina Silversmiths 1690-1860, Contributions from The Charleston Museum X
(Charleston: The Charleston Museum, 1942).
265

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., October 10, 1772.

266

Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., June 5, 1779.

654
Kitty and Joe under sixteen
Unfortunately, there is no information about the work that Craig had his slaves perform. It is
likely that the female slaves served as domestics. Perhaps Stepney and Billy ran errands for their
master. Craig did not mention slaves in his 1793 will. He might have given his daughter Ann
several slaves when she married David Miller. The jeweler‘s will was probated on June 16,
1794. The June 1794 inventory of his estate included his slave woman, Nan, valued at £45.

James Galt
James Galt, the son of Samuel Galt, was a watchmaker in Williamsburg in 1751. He
followed his father as Keeper of the Public Gaol and served in this position from 1761 to 1766.
Galt noted that he was a clockmaker, a watchmaker, a goldsmith, and a silversmith when he
informed readers of the Virginia Gazette that he intended to move his business to Richmond in
June 1766. It is possible that Galt had property and a slave in Richmond by 1761. The clerk of
the Bruton Parish vestry noted that Peg‘s son George was born in Henrico Parish and County on
January 18, 1761. Samuel was born to Peg in Henrico Parish and County on April 1, 1764.
However, Peg was in Williamsburg when her daughter, Grace, was baptized in March 1766. The
movement between Richmond and Williamsburg might have strained the ties that Peg had to
slaves in both places.
This silversmith gained possession of five slaves by right of his wife, Mary, in 1767.
Mary Galt‘s brother, William English of Charles Parish, owned the enslaved laborers at the time
of his death. Three of the slave boys—Dick, Abram, and Jacob—were probably born in
Virginia. Violet and her son, George, were from Barbados. The fate of Dick, Abram, and
George is unknown. Violet and Jacob became a part of Galt‘s household.
Galt returned to Williamsburg by March 1773 when he served on a petit jury in York
County. The York County grand jury presented him for not listing a slave woman—Violet—in
November 1773. The silversmith‘s slave woman Grace was the mother of a son, John, baptized
on March 2, 1783.
1783—Jacob, Violet, Violet, Grace, and Sally over sixteen
Patrick, Dublin, Primus, and John under sixteen
1784—Jacob, Violet, Violet, and Sally over sixteen
Primus, Patrick, Dublin, and Suckey under sixteen
1786—Jacob, Violet, Sally, and Suckey over sixteen
Patrick, Dublin, and Primus under sixteen

655

Blovet Pasteur
Blovet Pasteur, the son of John and Mary Pasteur, learned the skills of a silversmith and a
jeweler from Alexander Craig. Pasteur boarded at Craig‘s between 1752 and 1760. He paid £14
per year for himself and £13 for his slave.267 It is possible that the slave was a mulatto fellow
named Joe who was owned by John Pasteur at the time of his death in 1741.
Pasteur carried on his business in a shop ―next door below the Raleigh Tavern.‖268 This
silversmith had one slave—a woman named Sally—in 1783.

William Rowsay
William Rowsay opened a jewelry store with his partner, John Rowsay, in April 1774.
Rowsay married Fanny Tabb of Yorktown on November 14, 1779. This jeweler owned slaves in
1783 and 1784:
1783—Will, Caesar, and Sarah over sixteen
Charlotte, Phil, Lucy, and Dick under sixteen
1784—Betty, Hannah, and Caesar over sixteen
Charlotte, Betty, and Dick under sixteen
There is no information about the work that these slaves performed in the Rowsay household.
Rowsay also had ―four or five valuable Negroes used to plantation business‖ on 200 acres of
land in York County.269 The jeweler mortgaged four of his slaves—Caesar, Annie, Crager, and
Bob—to Joseph Prentis in April 1786. He died between April 2, 1786 and February 5, 1787.

Anthony Singleton
On July 4, 1771, Anthony Singleton, a jeweler and goldsmith, announced that he had just
opened a shop across the street from the Raleigh Tavern. John Morris, a tithe in his household in
November 1773, might have been an apprentice. Singleton appeared on the 1783 and 1784
Williamsburg Personal Property Tax Lists as the owner of the following slaves:
1783—Roger, Judith, Kate, and Hannah over sixteen
Nanny, Lewis, Lucinda, Polly, and Hercules under sixteen
1784—Roger, Kate, and Hannah over sixteen
267

Alexander Craig Account Book.

268

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., October 8, 1767.

269

Virginia Gazette or American Advertiser, December 17, 1785.

656
Nancy, Lucinda, Lewis, and Polly under sixteen
Singleton also had two white tithes—William Whitaker and John Martin—in his household in
1784.

The Tan Yard
The Tan Yard operated by William Pearson (1760 to late 1776 or early 1777) and by William
Plume (1777 to 1783) was a craft enterprise where skilled slaves and white artisans worked
together. Pearson‘s operation depended on the labor of enslaved tanners, curriers, and
shoemakers.
Alexander Craig established a tannery on Capitol Landing Road between 1752 and 1758
with his partners, Christopher Ford (a carpenter) and Nicholas Sim (a tanner). Craig became the
sole owner of the tannery in 1758. It is possible that he hired a tanner named William Pearson to
operate the business after Sim moved to Petersburg.270 Pearson purchased Lots 2 and 3 in the
Waller Subdivision from Craig on November 17, 1760. Pearson gained possession of the land
on which the tannery was located. Craig retained possession of the tan vats, bark houses, a mill
house, a flocking house and other buildings used in the tanning business.271
In May 1767 Pearson announced that he would pay ―great wages‖ to a currier, an
indication that he had complete control of the tannery. It is possible that Pearson‘s six tithes in
1768 included himself, a white currier, and several slaves.272 Among the tanner‘s workers was an
enslaved man, Lewis. At an oyer and terminer trial on February 12, 1768 Lewis, and another
slave, Philip who belonged to the estate of John Coke, pled not guilty to the charge of breaking
into the dwelling house of Coke‘s widow, Sarah, and stealing ten gallons of liquor, ten pounds of
soap, and one pot of sweet meats. The justices found Philip not guilty and Lewis guilty of the
felony and innocent of the burglary. The magistrates decided that ―the said Offence being with
Harold B. Gill, ―Leather Workers in Colonial Virginia,‖ (Colonial Williamsburg Research
Report, 1966), pp. 65-66.
270

271

York County Deeds (6) 294-298, dated and recorded November 17, 1760. Pearson also
bought Lots 1, 4, 5, and 6.
Gill, ―Leather Workers in Colonial Virginia,‖ p. 75; Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds.,
May 7, 1767. Pearson also advertised for a currier in 1775. On September 29, 1775 Pearson
announced that he ―WANTED IMMEDIATELY, a CURRIER, who is a good workman. Such a
one will have good encouragement, by the month, six months, or a whole year.‖ See Virginia
Gazette, Purdie, ed., September 29, 1775, page 3.
272

657
the benefit of the Act of Assembly relating to Felonies It is Considered that he be burnt and the
left hand which was immediately done but it appearing to the Court that the said Lewis is a Great
offender It is Ordered that the Sherif give him fifteen Lashes at the Public Whipping Post on his
bare back well laid on.‖273
Pearson died between March 30, 1776 and January 17, 1777. The tanner died without a
will, and his widow, Mary Magdalen Pearson, became the administrator of his estate. The
inventory of his personal property included twelve slaves:
Sam £ 150 Will £ 150 Jimmy £ 100 Ben £ 100
Len £ 90 Molly £ 40 Old Sarah 5/ Sarah £ 80
Betty £ 80 Kate £ 80 Milly £ 30 Harry £ 25
The appraisers valued Pearson‘s enslaved laborers at £925..5. They determined that his entire
estate was worth £2115..16..9.274 It is likely that Sam, Will, Jimmy, Ben, and Len were skilled
workers (either tanners or shoemakers) because of their high value in Pearson‘s inventory.
On March 7, 1777 the widow Pearson announced the terms under which someone could
rent the tan yard:
TO be LET for a Term of six years, on the 24th Instant, the TAN WORKS in this City,
late the Property of Mr. William Pearson, deceased, with the Dwelling-house, and all
convenient Outhouses both for a Family and the Business, and several Acres of ground
under a good Enclosure; also four Negro Men TANNERS and CURRIERS, two
SHOEMAKERS, a CARPENTER, and two negro Women, one a good COOK, the other
a SPINNER. Any One whom it will suit to rent may enter on the Tanyard immediately.
As there is a small number of Hides that I will dispose of, and as Possession cannot be
given of the Negroes until the Business now in Hand is finished, they will be able, under
a proper Manager, to be assisting in their Work, on paying a proportionate Part of the
Expence. It is earnestly requested of those indebted to the Estate to make immediate
Payment, and those to whom any Thing is due will please to bring in their Accounts,
properly proved, and they shall be paid.275
Matthew Plume and Company occupied the tanyard by May 9, 1777 when Plume informed
readers of the Virginia Gazette that he and his company operated the business. Plume was a
tanner and a currier who had worked for James Parker, one of the partners in the Norfolk
tannery.276 It is possible that Plume owned at least one bond laborer. In February 1780 he noted
273

York County Order Book (1765-1768) 433-434, February 12, 1768.

274

York County Wills and Inventories (22) 387-388, dated March 13, 1777 and recorded June 15,
1778 [Note: The value of Pearson‘s slaves is in inflated war-time paper currency].
275

Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., March 7, 1777.

276

Gill, ―Leather Workers in Colonial Virginia,‖ p. 75.

658
that he ―would exchange a negro man, who is a good house servant and cook, and by profession
a biscuit maker, for a house wench or likely boy.‖277 Plume returned to Norfolk after his lease
expired in 1783.
Mary Magdalen Pearson received her dower in her deceased husband‘s estate on August
21, 1780. The widow became the owner of Ben, Molly, Sarah, Kate, and the houses and lots
where she lived on Francis Street.278 In 1782 her household included six whites and six enslaved
individuals. The 1783, 1784, and 1786 Williamsburg Personal Property Tax Lists provide details
about the enslaved laborers whom Pearson and her son, Matthew, owned:
1783: Ariana, daughter of Betty; baptized May 1783 (Matthew Pearson)
Betty, mother of Ariana; over sixteen years old (Matthew Pearson)
Harry under sixteen years old
Kate over sixteen years old
Milly under sixteen years old
Nanny/Nancy under sixteen years old
Sarah over sixteen years old
Will over sixteen years old
1784: Ariana, daughter of Betty (Matthew Pearson)
Betty, mother of Ariana; over sixteen years old (Matthew Pearson)
Isham over sixteen years old
Milly under sixteen years old
Nanny/Nancy under sixteen years old
Sarah over sixteen years old
1786: Ariana, daughter of Betty (Matthew Pearson)
Betty, mother of Ariana; over sixteen years old (Matthew Pearson)
Nanny/Nancy under sixteen years old
Sarah over sixteen years old
It is possible that the widow Pearson hired out her enslaved man Ben and her woman, Kate.
On March 1, 1783, Matthew Pearson announced that he wanted to sell ―THE TANYARD near this City. On the lots, exclusive of the necessary houses for carrying on the
business, there is an exceeding good dwelling-house, and convenient out-houses, in good order.
There will also be sold, two or three NEGROES, that have been used to attend the yard. A
speedy application is required, for unless sold in a month or two, the above will not be for sale
after that period.‖279 Pearson took out another advertisement on April 26, 1783. He planned to

277

Virginia Gazette, Dixon, ed., February 12, 1780.

278

York County Wills and Inventories (22) 498, dated and recorded August 21, 1780.

279

Virginia Gazette or the American Advertiser, March 1, 1783.

659
sell ―THREE NEGRO MEN, one is an exceeding good currier, having served under several good
hands at that business; the other two have been used to attend in a tanyard, and work in a
shoemaker‘s shop.‖280 Four years later Pearson still owned his father‘s tanyard. In September
1787, he advertised for ―a person that has been regularly bred a TANNER, such a one coming
well recommended for his honesty, industry, and knowledge in his business, will meet with
immediate employment and generous wages. If acquainted with the currying business also, it
will be the more agreeable.‖281 Ten years later, the guardian of Matthew Pearson‘s orphans
announced that the tanyard could be leased for the term of ten years.282

Wetherburn’s Tavern
Henry Wetherburn had twelve enslaved men, women, and children at his Williamsburg tavern at
the time of his death in late 1760. He also owned seventeen slaves who lived and worked at his
James City County plantation. Ann Wetherburn gained possession of ten slaves and
Wetherburn‘s nephew, Edward Nicholson, became the owner of nineteen enslaved laborers.
Benjamin Weldon, the executor of Edward Nicholson‘s estate, hired out a number of
Nicholson‘s slaves as a way to raise money for the support of Nicholson‘s son, Henry
Wetherburn Nicholson.
Henry Wetherburn died between November 13, and December 15, 1760.283 The tavern
keeper bequeathed a slave girl named Clarissa to his wife Ann and a slave boy to Henry
Armistead ―who now lives with me.‖ In addition, the widow Wetherburn also received one half
of her husband's personal estate. Since the Wetherburns did not have any children, the tavern
keeper‘s nephew, Edward Nicholson, a James City County planter, gained possession of the
remainder of Wetherburn's real and personal estate.284
The December 19, 1760 inventory of Wetherburn‘s estate in Williamsburg included
twelve slaves who were valued at £ 410. He had seventeen enslaved men, women, and children

280

Virginia Gazette or the American Advertiser, April 26, 1783.

281

Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, September 27, 1787.

282

Virginia Gazette, and General Advertiser, October 18, 1797.
Several of Wetherburn‘s slaves had been owned by other Williamsburg tavern keepers. Wetherburn‘s first wife,
Mary, was the widow of tavern keeper Henry Bowcock Senior. Wetherburn gained possession of Bowcock‘s five
slaves (Caesar, Cheshire, Lincoln, Nan, and Will) when he married the widow Bowcock by June 1731. Ann
Wetherburn was the daughter of John Marot, a tavern keeper. Marot owned ten slaves (Betty, Jenny, Mary, Nan,
Sue and her four children, and Tony) at the time of his death in November 1717. Marot‘s widow and their three
daughters were to share the tavern keeper‘s personal estate. Ann Marot‘s second husband, James Shields Junior,
operated a tavern in the same building that Marot did. Shields had at least thirteen slaves in Williamsburg and
twenty-five enslaved laborers on his James City County plantation when he died in 1750. However, the widow
Shields gave up her life right to the Shields slaves when she married Wetherburn.
283

284

York County Wills and Inventories (21) 23-25, dated November 13, 17[60] and recorded December 15, 1760.

660
appraised at £ 540 on his plantation called ―Wallhills‖ in James City County. Wetherburn‘s
James City County inventory also included livestock (shoats, sheep, cattle), produce, and fodder.
The tavern keeper probably relied on his rural slaves to raise produce, fodder, and livestock to be
used at his Williamsburg tavern. It is likely that the Wetherburn‘s James City County slaves
harvested enough corn to feed the enslaved men, women, and children at Wallhills.285
George Wythe, Robert Carter Nicholas, William Hunter, and Thomas Everard assigned
Ann Wetherburn her dower on January 25, 1761. She received ―the Dwelling House Outhouses
and 2 Lotts of Land No. 21 & 22 [sic] in the City of Williamsburgh excepting the Tenement in
Possession of James Martin Barber Also 9 Slaves named Caesar, Sarah and her child Tom, Jack,
Sarah and her Child Rachel Sylvia Phillis and Judy as and for her one third part of the Land &
Slaves of her sd. late Husband.‖286 The fact that the widow Wetherburn gained possession of
eight urban slaves as part of her dower indicates that Wythe, Nicholas, Hunter, and Everard
assigned her the slaves she needed to continue to operate a tavern. Perhaps Jack, the one James
City County slave, given to Ann Wetherburn, ran errands between ―Wallhills‖ and Wetherburn‘s
Tavern. It is known that the widow Wetherburn lived on Lots 20 and 21 until August 1769 and
possibly later. Perhaps Nicholson‘s estate gained possession of the widow Wetherburn‘s slaves
after her death.
Edward Nicholson became the owner of three Williamsburg slaves—Belinda, Billy, and
Gabriel—and sixteen enslaved men, women, and children at ―Wallhills.‖ Wetherburn‘s rural
laborers included Caesar, Peter, Venus, Nanny, Jemmy, Bess and her child Peter, Hannah and
her c[torn], Lucy and her children (Ben and Robin), Durham, Stepney, Moll, and Beck.
Nicholson was dead by September 1762. Benjamin Weldon of James City County served as the
executor of Nicholson‘s estate and guardian of his son, Henry Wetherburn Nicholson, who was
born in 1762.
Benjamin Weldon kept records of the slaves whom he hired out for the benefit of Henry
Wetherburn Nicholson.287 Residents of Williamsburg and York and James City counties hired
slaves from Weldon between 1770 and 1781.
1. A tavern keeper named Gabriel Maupin paid Weldon £10 on December 25, 1770 for
the hire of a slave named Caesar. Maupin took over the tavern kept by his mother-in-law,
Mary Page, after her death in 1767. He operated a tavern in Williamsburg until 1777. It
285

York County Wills and Inventories (21) 36-43, dated December 19, 1760 and recorded March 16, 1761; ibid., pp.
43-45, dated December 13, 1760 and recorded March 16, 1761.
286

287

York County Judgments and Orders (3) 216-217, March 16, 1761.

Sarah S. Hughes provides details about the practice of hiring slaves: ―In the eighteenth century the customs
controlling the practices were already well established. The usual period of hire was fifty weeks, beginning in early
January and ending shortly before Christmas. At the outset of each new year owners who had a surplus of slave
labor met prospective hirers at the courthouses to negotiate privately or to participate in public auctions. The hirer
paid a cash rent and assumed the costs of feeding, clothing, and housing the slaves, as well as medical expenses and
slave taxes. By the beginning of the nineteenth century the courts had defined the responsibilities of lessor and
lessee in instances of death, injury, or escape of a hired slave.‖ See Sarah S. Hughes, ―Slaves for Hire: The
Allocation of Black Labor in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, 1782-1810,‖ William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser.,
XXXV (1978): 260-86.

661
is possible that Caesar waited on Maupin‘s customers and/or cared for their horses.
Maupin owned women named Nanny and Rachel who probably helped his wife, Easter,
with the cooking and the cleaning at the tavern.
2. Joseph Scrivener paid the sum of £8 for the hire of Sary on December 25, 1770.
3. Robert Gilbert spent £5 to hire Sylvia on December 25, 1771 and the same amount in
December 1779. Gilbert kept a lodging house on the Back Street near the Capitol in
1777 in addition to making boots and shoes. It is possible that Gilbert took in lodgers for
a longer period of time or that he hired Sylvia to cook and clean for him.
4. In January 1771 Robert Hyland gave Weldon £4..10 for the hire of a slave woman.
He also paid £4 to Nicholson's guardian on December 24, 1774 for the hire of a slave.
5. Cuthbert Hubbard operated a tavern near the College of William and Mary from 1771
to 1777. There is no evidence that Hubbard owned any slaves. He hired one of
Nicholson's slaves from Weldon for £7 in 1771, 1772, and 1773.
6. A Williamsburg shoemaker named James Taylor paid for the hire of a slave from
Weldon on two occasions: December 25, 1772 and December 25, 1773.
7. In 1773 Weldon hired Fiddler Billy who belonged to the estate of Edward Nicholson
to William Fearson, dancing master in Williamsburg. In September 1769 Fearson placed
the following advertisement in the Virginia Gazette: ―WANTED, to buy or to hire, AN
orderly Negro or Mulatto man, who can play well on the violin. Whoever has such a one
may have good wages, or a good price, ready money, if to be sold. Enquire of the
Printer, or apply to WILLIAM FEARSON.‖288
8. John Dewberry, a resident of James City County, hired a slave for short periods of
time in 1773. He paid six shillings and three pence for five days of a slave's work on
April 24, 1773. Four days later he gave Weldon one shilling and three pence for another
day of a slave‘s labor. One of Nicholson's slaves worked for Dewberry on the seventh
and eighth of August of the same year for two shillings and six pence.
9. Robert Anderson rented Wetherburn's Tavern from 1771 to 1779. He also gave
Weldon a bond of £10 for the hire of one of Nicholson's slaves on August 31, 1774.
10. A Williamsburg resident named Mr. Bickerton paid £5 for the hire of a slave on
January 25, 1776.
11. The printer Alexander Purdie gave Weldon the sum of £5 for the hire of a woman
named Beck on January 1, 1776.

288

Virginia Gazette, Rind, ed., September 14, 1769.

662
12. The slave Gaby worked for several men who lived in and near Williamsburg between
1776 and 1781:
a. A carpenter named John Driver paid Weldon for a month of Gaby's labor in
July 1776; from June 26 to August 1, 1777; January 2 to May 21, 1778; July 23 to
November 16, 1778; November 23 to December 5, 1778; and December 7, 1778
to March 23, 1779. Gaby also carted shingles for Driver for seven days in
October of 1779.
b. John Mead of York County hired Gaby from May 18 to June 18, 1779.
c. Philip Bullifant of Bruton Parish hired Gaby from August 9 to September 22,
1779. Gaby also worked for Bullifant for half of October 1779.
d. Charles Graves, a resident of Bruton Parish, paid Weldon for Gaby's labor
from April 24 to July 26, 1780.
e. James Shields of James City County hired Gaby between July 26 and
September 30, 1780.
f. William Pitt hired Gaby for four days in 1780.
13. Colonel John Dixon paid Nicholson for the hire of a slave for £25 in 1779, £90 in
1780, and £5 specie in 1781.289 Dixon also hired Durham for £5 for the year 1781. It is
possible that he rented Durham from 1778 to 1780.
14. Matthew Pate hired one of Nicholson's slaves from Weldon for the sum of £41 in
1780.
15. James Cocke paid Weldon £10 for the hire of a slave in 1781.
16. John Crump, a cabinetmaker, paid £11..10..0 for the hire of one of Nicholson's slaves
in January 1781. He also rented Peter and Nanny for 1781 for the sum of £16.
Weldon hired out at least fourteen of Nicholson's slaves for the year 1781:
Pompey
Betty
Robbin
Peter & Nanny
Judy
Caesar
Silvia
Rachel
Beck
289

B. Weldon
Col. James Wilson
Wm. Cole
Jno. Crump
Wm. Eggleston
Jno. Fenton
Wm. Pitt
Fitzgerarld (hatter)
Harris (taylor)

£ 7..4
8
11
16
5..3
10
6
5
4

The high price for slaves hired in 1780 was due to the inflation that Virginia experienced during the Revolution.

663
Sary (cook)
Durham
Betty
Sary

Carter
Col. John Dixon
Arch Didup [crossed out]
to Caesar
Franc. Daven(portwashing)

5
5
6 [crossed out] 5 bar Corn

Henry Wetherburn Nicholson gained possession of his slaves when he celebrated his twenty-first
birthday in 1783.
The extensive list of slaves hired out to residents of Williamsburg and the surrounding
rural area implies that Benjamin Weldon did not continue the farming operation at Wallhills that
Wetherburn began. Inhabitants of Williamsburg hired Wetherburn‘s urban slaves because of
their domestic and musical skills. Planters in York and James City counties rented the enslaved
laborers who had tended fields and raised livestock at Wallhills. It is likely Gabriel Maupin and
other residents of Williamsburg hired rural slaves because they had skills (caring for horses,
carting produce and meat) that could be used in the town as well as in the countryside.

The Wheelwright
By the 1770s, some rural slaves worked as wheelwrights. These artisans made agricultural carts
and wagons. However, there is not much evidence for enslaved wheelwrights in towns at the
same time. The majority of the men who worked as wheelwrights and chairmakers in
Williamsburg relied on the labor of white apprentices and journeymen in their businesses. John
Brown had a mulatto apprentice in 1745 and Campbell Thompson, a coach and herald painter,
noted that he would take a slave boy as an apprentice in 1774. It is possible that Charles
Taliaferro had several of his enslaved men make wheelbarrows, riding chairs, carriages, and
carts.
Both Robey Coke and William Cosby were slaveowners, but there is no evidence that their
enslaved laborers assisted them in their businesses. Elkanah Deane‘s operation included an
indentured servant named John Hunter; Obadiah Puryear, a journeyman; and John Howard, a
coach painter. Edward Roberts worked in Deane‘s shop as a saddler and a cap and harness
maker. John Sheppard had two servants—John Staunton, a wheelwright, and a blacksmith
named Andrew McGill—who worked for him in 1776. Deane and Sheppard advertised for
journeymen chairmakers and apprentices in the Virginia Gazette. Jones Allen Deane, William
Holiday, and John Lindsay did not own slaves.
John Brown
In 1745 John Brown, a wheelwright who lived near the Capitol had a mulatto apprentice
named Thomas Gilbert. Brown‘s apprentice ran away twice in that year. The March 21, 1744/5
issue of the Virginia Gazette contained an advertisement for a runaway apprentice. Brown
announced that

664
Ran away on Sunday the 9th Inst. from his Master, living near Williamsburg, an
Apprentice Lad, nam‘d Thomas Gilbert, aged about 17 years: He has a broad Face, and
full set of Teeth, is of a low Stature, pretty well-set, of a dark Complexion, being a
Mustee, and has a thick bushy Head of Hair. Had on a Virginia Cloth Jacket, Kerseywove, and the Sleeves plain, an old Pair of Duroy Breeches, an old Pair of Stockings, a
new Pair of Shoes, an Oznabrigs Shirt, almost new, and an Old Felt Hat. Whoever takes
him up, and conveys him to me, a Wheelwright, near the Capitol in Williamsburg, shall
have a Pistole Reward, besides what the Law allows.290
The wheelwright regained possession of Gilbert who decided to run away a second time in
October of the same year. Brown placed the following announcement in the Virginia Gazette on
October 10, 1745:
Ran away, last Night, from the Subscriber, living near the Capitol, an Apprentice Lad,
named Thomas Gilbird; he is a well-set Mustee Lad, with very short curl‘d Hair, a full
Face, and a good Set of Teeth; has a Scar on one Arm, occasion‘d (as he says) by his
being shot: Had on when he went away, an old Felt Hat, an old Kersey-wove Waistcoat,
with plain wove Sleeves, an Oznabrig Shirt and Trowsers, very much worn, and a Pair of
old Shoes. The last Time he ran away he was taken up on board a Vessel, and it is
suppos‘d he will endeavour the same Way to make his Escape. Whoever will take up the
said Runaway, and convey him to me, shall have a Pistole Reward, besides what the Law
allows.291
There is no evidence that Brown‘s apprentice returned to Williamsburg.

Robey Coke
Robey Coke was the son of John Coke, a goldsmith and a tavern keeper. The elder Coke
operated his tavern until the time his death in 1767 and his widow, Sarah, continued the business.
Robey Coke received all the houses and the five lots in Williamsburg where his father lived in
addition to Philip, a slave man, and woman called Sylvia. The younger Coke was a wheelwright
and a house joiner. Philip and Sylvia might have assisted Sarah Coke in her tavern since she
paid taxes on them in 1783 and 1784.
There is no evidence that Coke‘s slave named John assisted him in his work as a
wheelwright or a house joiner. John ran away in 1777 and it is possible that Coke did not regain
possession of him. In 1783 Robey Coke owned slaves named Sylvia and Will who were under
sixteen years old.

290

Virginia Gazette, March 21, 1744/5.

291

Virginia Gazette, October 10, 1745.

665
William Cosby
William Cosby was a wheelwright who also made riding chairs with Filmer Moore in
1766. Cosby sold an enslaved woman named Pat to James Anderson in November of 1766.
There is no evidence that he owned or hired another slave. Cosby had at least one apprentice—
Daniel McCarty—who ran away in late 1771.

Charles Taliaferro
Charles Taliaferro was a chairmaker who lived on the James City County side of
Williamsburg. In 1768 he had six tithes and the following year the number increased to seven.
It is possible that Taliaferro‘s tithes included both white apprentices and enslaved laborers in
1768 and 1769. Taliaferro paid taxes on the following adult male slaves in 1783, 1784, and
1786:
Caesar over sixteen in 1783
Gaby over sixteen in 1783
George over sixteen in 1783, 1784, and 1786
Godfrey over sixteen in 1783, 1784, and 1786
Heckbeck/Hekabeck over sixteen in 1784 and 1786
Jack over sixteen in 1783
Jim over sixteen in 1783
King over sixteen in 1783, 1784, and 1786
Natt over sixteen in 1783, 1784, and 1786
Sam over sixteen in 1783
Most Williamsburg residents had more enslaved women than enslaved men in their households
in the early 1780s: six out of every ten adult slaves in the town were females.292 It is possible
that Taliaferro relied on his enslaved men to make carts, wheelbarrows, and riding vehicles.

Campbell Thompson
Campbell Thomson placed the following advertisement in the April 14, 1774 issue of
Purdie and Dixon‘s Virginia Gazette:
CAMPBELL THOMSON, HERALD AND COACH PAINTER, TAKES this Method to
inform the Ladies and Gentlemen that he has opened Shop opposite the New Hospital, in
Williamsburg, where he carries on the painting business; he likewise paints all Kinds of
Landscapes with Accuracy, and repairs all kinds of painting and gilding in the most

Michael L. Nicholls, ―Aspects of the African American Experience in Williamsburg and
Norfolk,‖ (unpublished report, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1990), pp. 3-5, 12-13.
292

666
elegant Manner. Those who please to employ him may depend on a full Exertion of his
Abilities to given general Satisfaction.
N. B. He will take a Negro Boy as an Apprentice.293
There is no information about the apprentice that worked with Thomson.

The Wigmaker
There is evidence that four of the barbers/wigmakers in Williamsburg in 1775—Edward
Charlton, George Lafong, Walter Lenox, and James Nichols—had slaves in their households;
Alexander Wiley did not own or hire an enslaved laborer. Charlton, Lafong, and Nichols owned
at least one enslaved person and Lenox hired two slaves. In addition, Charlton‘s brother,
Richard, a tavern keeper who worked as a barber and wigmaker in 1776, owned enslaved men,
women, and children.

Edward Charlton and Richard Charlton
Edward Charlton had a greater number of slaves than did the other Williamsburg barbers
and wigmakers, an indication of his abilities and the success of his business. In July 1763,
Annar, the son of his slave Rachel, was baptized. Charlton‘s slave Betty (also known as
Elizabeth) had two sons who received their baptism—Joseph on September 1, 1765 and Francis
on January 10, 1768. Edward Charlton might have been the Mr. Charlton who sent two slaves—
Nancy and Davy—to the Bray School in 1765.
Charlton‘s brother, Richard, was a Williamsburg tavern keeper between 1767 and 1777.
Richard Charlton also worked as a barber and a wigmaker in 1776. In November of that year
James Nichols dissolved his partnership with Richard Charlton because he had ―not been
concerned in the shop carried on by the subscriber in this city‖ since April 1776.294 Richard
Charlton‘s estate included a mulatto fellow (valued at £ 1000) who was acquainted with shaving
and hair dressing. A man named Mr. Bretman purchased Yellow Jack for £ 2100 at the sale of
Richard Charlton‘s estate in December 1779.
Edward Charlton had two slaves in his Williamsburg household in 1783 and 1784—Ben
and Jenny who were both over the age of sixteen. In 1786 Rosemary was the only tithable slave
in Charlton‘s possession. Charlton died between late 1790 and early 1791. There is no evidence
that any of Edward Charlton‘s slaves worked as a barber or a wigmaker.

293
294

Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, eds., April 14, 1774.
Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., 22 November 1776.

667
George Lafong
In 1766 the York County grand jury presented George Lafong because he did not list his
black tithe. Lafong placed advertisements in the Virginia Gazette for a hair dresser (November
1771), a journeyman barber (December 1772), a hair dresser and a wigmaker (March 1774), and
a journeyman hair dresser (February 1777). This barber entered into a partnership with
Alexander Wiley in December 1775.295 Lafong paid taxes on two enslaved women—Bett and
Lucy—in 1786. It appears that he and Wiley relied on white journeymen to assist them in their
business.

Walter Lenox
It is likely that Sally, a slave woman who belonged to the estate of Carter Burwell, was
one of Walter Lenox‘s three tithes in September 1762. Sally was a part of the Lenox household
on May 17, 1763 when Cuffy, a slave belonging to the Reverend John Fox of Gloucester, and
Isaac, a free person of color, poisoned the family. John Norton noted that Cuffy and Isaac tried
to murder Lenox, a barber, and "his family Elizabeth Lenox John Lenox James Long William
Awbrey Judith Dunford William White John Jones Adam White & the sd negro woman Sally" in
the 28 May 1763 proceedings of the trial.296 The justices found Cuffy guilty of the felony and
decided that he should be hanged by his neck. Isaac was committed to jail and freed in July
1763. Adam White was one of Lenox's apprentices and it is possible that William White and
James Long were also bound to this barber to learn his trade. In October 1768 Lenox announced
that he wanted to find a journeyman peruke maker to work in his shop. He advertised for this
position again in March 1771 and August 1773. There is no evidence that Lenox ever owned a
slave. In addition to Sally, this barber hired an unnamed woman, the wife of Gaby, from James
Burwell in 1771. It is possible that the slave women helped Elizabeth Lenox run her household
and to provide meals for her husband's apprentices.

James Nichols
James Nichols owned an enslaved woman by December 1779 when he announced that he
had a valuable cook wench for sale. He also noted that the houses where he lived were wellsuited to the tavern business. There is no evidence that Nichols had a slave or a free black who
helped him in his barbering and wigmaking business.
****
William Marshman‘s accounts of the daily expenses at the Palace during Lord
Botetourt‘s administration indicate that he hired a barber to dress the hair of servants—white and
295

There is no evidence that Wiley owned or hired a slave during the time he lived in
Williamsburg.
296

York County Judgments and Orders (3), 504-505, 28 May 1763.

668
black—who served as waiting men and sentinels during balls. Marshman made the following
payments to a barber:
May 25, 1769
November 1, 1769
January 10, 1770
May 24, 1770
May 24, 1770

dressing the hair of ten servants on May 19, 1769
dressing the hair of ten servants on October 25, 1769
dressing the hair of seven servants on December 26, 1769
dressing the hair of five servants on May 21, 1770
dressing the hair of six servants on November 8, 1769

Unfortunately, Marshman did not identify the barber or barbers whom he hired.
****
Yorktown was the home to an enslaved barber, John Hope, also known as Barber
Caesar—see the Biography section of this resource book for information on John Hope.

The Wythe House
This examination of George Wythe and the slaves who lived and worked in his household in
Williamsburg focuses on the enslaved men, women, and children on the Wythe property in 17741776; the work that his bond laborers performed in town; the slaves Wythe had on his plantation,
Chesterville, in Elizabeth City County; the relationship among Wythe‘s Williamsburg slaves, his
Elizabeth City County slaves, and the Taliaferro slaves at Powhatan in James City County;
Wythe‘s manumissions; and possible influences on his thoughts about slavery.
George Wythe‘s Williamsburg Slaves
George Wythe married Elizabeth Taliaferro, daughter of Richard Taliaferro of Powhatan
in James City County, sometime between 1755 and 1760. Elizabeth Wythe‘s dowry included
slaves, but the number of bond laborers is unknown. It is likely that her father gave her the
enslaved woman who was her personal servant and several slaves who were accustomed to
laboring in tobacco fields. Wythe probably had a man servant who waited on him at the time of
his marriage.
Entries in the Virginia Gazette Day Book, 1764-1766 provide the first information about
the names of the Wythe slaves who lived and worked in Williamsburg. Harry purchased one
ounce of pounce for his master on January 9, 1764 and Jacob bought six packs of the best Harry
cards on March 30, 1764. Ben purchased a dozen packs of the best Harry cards for Wythe on
January 9, 1765 at the printing office. It is likely that Harry, Jacob, and Ben ran additional
errands for their master.
It is interesting to note that the name or names of Wythe slaves do not appear on the three
extant lists (1762, 1765, and 1769) of students at the Bray School. Perhaps the lawyer sent a
slave child or children to receive instruction from Ann Wager at other times during her tenure at

669
the school. Maybe he decided to educate one or more of his bond laborers at home. It is known
that Wythe taught an enslaved boy named Jimmy to write in 1791.297 Lydia Broadnax wrote a
letter to Thomas Jefferson a year after Wythe‘s death in which she asked for financial assistance.
Wythe probably hired several of his slaves to Lord Botetourt soon after the governor
arrived in the colony. On January 21, 1769 William Marshman, the governor‘s butler, noted that
he paid £ 2 to Mr. Wythe‘s servants. One of Wythe‘s slaves received one shilling and three
pence—the payment for a day of work—on March 30, 1769. Marshman gave £ 3 as a
―Christmas box‖ to Wythe‘s slaves on January 13, 1770. Perhaps they expected this gift from
Marshman because they worked for him at the Palace the previous year.298
Wythe‘s slaves also carried food to the Governor‘s Palace on several occasions. A bond
laborer delivered angelica to Marshman on August 18, 1770 and received a tip of one shilling
and three pence. William Sparrow tipped one of Wythe‘s slaves two shillings and six pence for
beef on November 16, 1769. Rosanna Wilson paid two shillings and six pence to a Wythe slave
for mutton on March 12, 1770 and April 14, 1770. Mrs. Wilson gave out the same consideration
for fruit on July 24, 1770. The tip from Mrs. Wilson for musk melon on August 23, 1770 and
peaches on September 4, 1770 was one shilling and three pence. The tips that Wythe‘s slaves
received meant that these individuals had money that they could use to purchase goods.299
Thomas Jefferson gave tips to several of his teacher‘s slaves for work between 1769 and
1779. Jefferson paid Ben one shilling and three pence for coach hire on December 13, 1769. A
297

William Munford to John Coalter, July 22, 1791, John Thompson Brown Papers, Special
Collections, Swem Library, College of William and Mary.
In the eighteenth century, a ―Christmas Box‖ was a gift of money, a tip, given during the fortyday Christmas season. Traditionally, a master gave a ―Christmas Box‖ to an inferior—a servant,
a slave, an apprentice, or a tradesman. See David DeSimone, ―The Christmas Box Tradition,‖
The Colonial Williamsburg Interpreter, Winter 1997, pp. 1-4; Journal and Letters of Philip
Vickers Fithian 1773-1774: A Plantation Tutor of the Old Dominion, ed. Hunter Dickinson
Farish, (Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg, Incorporated, 1943), pp. 40, 54.
298

299

John Cook, William Sparrow, and Rosanna Wilson paid for the various foods that they
purchased for use in Botetourt‘s household. Ann Smart Martin notes that
The town‘s most important political leaders, such as the Speaker of the House or the President of the
Council curried favor by sending special foods, usually carried by their slaves. These slaves were tipped well for
their services. The generosity of the Governor meant that the value of the tips in some cases equaled the value of the
foods themselves. This regular movement of cash into the slave economy ensured that the power of the governor to
command attention rested at the top and bottom of the Williamsburg hierarchy. The provisioning of the colony‘s
most important political leader took on special significance. One group gained or buttressed political patronage, the
other added to pocket change.

See Ann Smart Martin, ―Consumption Patterns in Individual Households,‖ in ―Provisioning
Early American Towns. The Chesapeake: A Multidisciplinary Case Study,‖ (Final Performance
Report, National Endowment for the Humanities Grant RO-22643-93, 1997), pp. 145-146.

670
similar payment to Ben in June of the following year might also have been for coach hire. Ben‘s
tip of four shillings and three pence on November 6, 1771 suggests that he drove a coach for
Jefferson on several occasions or ran several errands. The fourteen shillings that Jefferson gave
to Wythe‘s slaves on December 7, 1776 may have been for work that they performed between
October 6, 1776 and December 5, 1776 when Jefferson and his wife lived in Wythe‘s house.
Perhaps the six shillings that Jefferson gave Ben on December 28, 1777 was a holiday gift
instead of a tip for work. He also paid Hannah five shillings for a canister two days later.
Abram received twelve shillings on January 11, 1778 and six shillings thirteen days later, the
same day that Jefferson gave Ben twelve shillings. Abram gained twelve shillings on June 10,
1778. The final record of a payment from Jefferson to a slave owned by Wythe was on February
27, 1779 when he gave eighteen shillings to Abram and thirty shillings to Hannah.300 It is
possible that the first mention of Lydia Broadnax is in Martha Jefferson‘s account book. On
January 24, 1778 Martha Jefferson noted that she ―Gave Mrs. Wythe‘s cook‖ eighteen shillings.
The references to Ben in Jefferson‘s Memorandum Books indicate that he was in
Williamsburg between 1774 and 1776. During this period Fanny and Rose were among Wythe‘s
slaves. They were daughters of an enslaved woman (or women) whom Richard Taliaferro gave
to Wythe at the time of his marriage to his daughter Elizabeth. Fanny bore at least five children
and she probably had one or two sons to raise (Daniel and Paris) while she did her work at the
Wythe house between 1774 and 1776. It is likely that Abram, Charles, Hannah, and Lydia
Broadnax also lived and worked in Wythe‘s household during this time.301
The account books kept by Joseph Royle, Thomas Jefferson, and Martha Jefferson
provide some details about the work performed by Wythe‘s slaves. The lawyer sent enslaved
males on errands to the printing office. Ben drove his master‘s coach and a cook, probably
Lydia Broadnax, prepared meals for members of the household. Wythe took one or more slaves
with him when he and his wife traveled to Philadelphia in the fall of 1775. The Williamsburg
lawyer made the trip because he was one of Virginia‘s delegates to the Continental Congress.
The Wythes decided that they and their slaves would get vaccinated against the smallpox.
Purdie‘s October 6, 1775 issue of the Virginia Gazette noted that ―By a letter from another
gentleman in Philadelphia, dated Sept. 25th, we have the agreeable intelligence that mrs.
NELSON, mr. WYTHE and his lady, mr. FRANCIS L. LEE and his lady, with their several
servants, are safely through the smallpox.‖302 Perhaps Ben drove the coach that carried the
Wythes to Philadelphia and served as his waiting man. It is likely that a female slave attended
James A. Bear, Jr., and Lucia C. Stanton, eds., Jefferson‘s Memorandum Books. Accounts,
with Legal Records and Miscellany, 1767-1826, 2 vols., (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1997), I:153, 206, 263, 426, 428, 429, 455, 456, 457, 466, 476.
300

301

Wythe, like most Williamsburg residents, had more female slaves than males slaves in his
household. See Michael L. Nicholls, ―Aspects of the African American Experience in
Williamsburg and Norfolk,‖ (unpublished report, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1990), pp.
3-5, 12-13.
302

Virginia Gazette, Purdie, ed., October 6, 1775, supplement.

671
Elizabeth Wythe during the time that they were in Philadelphia. The trip to Philadelphia, the
largest city in British North America, enabled Wythe‘s slaves to meet enslaved persons who
lived and worked in each of the thirteen colonies. It is also possible that the lawyer‘s slaves
encountered members of this city‘s free black population.303
Like Peyton and Betty Randolph, George and Elizabeth Wythe had several nieces spend
time with them in their Williamsburg house. Elizabeth Taliaferro stayed with her aunt and uncle
in the early 1780s and Ann/Nancy Taliaferro was part of the Wythe household in 1783. Perhaps
each woman brought a slave from their father‘s plantation, Powhatan, with them when they
stayed in Williamsburg. Mary Taliaferro Nelson and her husband William Nelson lived with the
Wythes in 1783 and 1784. Nelson‘s slave woman Succordia and his slave boy named Paul
appeared on the Williamsburg Personal Property Tax Lists as part of Wythe‘s household in 1783
and 1784. The Nelsons were in their own house in Williamsburg by the time of the 1786
Williamsburg Personal Property Tax List.
The 1783, 1784, and 1786 Williamsburg Personal Property Tax Lists provide information
about the enslaved men, women, and children who lived in the Wythe household in these years.
In 1783 Wythe paid taxes on two adult men—Ben and Charles—and women named Betty,
Fanny, Hannah, Lydia Broadnax, and Succordia (a Nelson slave). The children under sixteen
were Daniel, Isaac, Jimmy, Paris, Paul (a Nelson slave), Little Betty, and Jenny. The following
year two females over the age of sixteen—Dinah and Rose—and a girl by the name of Polly
joined the enslaved individuals who had been in the Wythe household the previous year. Two
years later, in 1786, there were seven adult slaves who worked in the Wythe house: Ben,
Charles, Betty, Dinah, Fanny, Lydia Broadnax, and Rose. Edward, Rose‘s infant son, and Joe,
the young son born to Fanny, joined Daniel, Isaac, Jimmy, Paris, and Polly. Fanny‘s daughter,
Jenny, and Little Betty died between 1784 and 1786.
The death of Elizabeth Wythe on August 18, 1787 had a tremendous impact on the slaves
in the household. Two days after her death Wythe conveyed descendants of his wife‘s dower
slaves to members of the Taliaferro family. He
delivered unto Richard Taliaferro, of the County of James City, my negro woman slave
Cate, with her children and grandchildren, Rachel, Lydia, Lucy, Bob and Jamey, and also
my negro woman slave Fanny, with her children Paris and Isaac, to have and possess the
said slaves to the use of his the said Richard Taliaferro‘s children Anne, Rebeca, Sarah,
Lucy, Benjamin and Robert to be divided among them, so that Anne and Rebecca may
each have such of the said slaves as are equal in value to Rose and Edward, her child this

303

For information about slaves and free blacks in Philadelphia see Gary B. Nash, Forging
Freedom: The Formation of Philadelphia‘s Black Community, 1720-1840, (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1988) and Billy G. Smith and Richard Wojtowicz,
comp., Blacks Who Stole Themselves: Advertisements for Runaways in the Pennsylvania
Gazette, 1728-1790, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989).

672
day given by me to their sister Elizabeth Call; and that the slaves of the other four
children of the said Richard Taliaferro may be equal the one to the other.304
Wythe‘s deed of gift to Richard Taliaferro and his conveyance to Elizabeth Taliaferro Call
indicate that he kept slave families together—Kate and her daughters Rachel and Lydia; Rachel
and her children Lucy, Bob, and Jamey; Fanny and her children Paris and Isaac; and Rose and
her son, Edward.305 The Williamsburg Personal Property Tax Lists and the Elizabeth City
County Personal Property Tax Lists indicate that Wythe had his wife‘s dower slaves in town and
at Chesterville, his plantation in Elizabeth City County. The family ties that joined these slaves
together also connected them to the Taliaferro slaves who lived and worked at Powhatan in
James City County.
Deeds of emancipation from Wythe to three of his urban slaves survive. On September
15, 1787 he freed Lydia Broadnax and acknowledged ―the negro woman Lydia freed from
slavery by me to have been at the Time of her manumission more than forty five Years old.‖306
In February of the following year Wythe emancipated his slave girl named Polly ―when she shall
attain the age of eighteen years.‖ He noted that she was four years of age on September 13,
1787.307 Wythe freed a man named Charles who was over the age of eighteen and under the age
of forty-five on August 13, 1788. The lawyer also freed Ben, but his deed of emancipation is not
extant.
Wythe paid the assessment on two blacks over the age of sixteen between 1789 and 1791.
It is likely that Ben and Lydia Broadnax continued to live in their former master‘s Williamsburg
house after he emancipated them. Wythe paid for the medical treatment that Lydia Broadnax
received in 1788. In addition, Jimmy, the son of Rachel and grandson of Kate, was part of the
Wythe household between 1787 (when Wythe conveyed him to Richard Taliaferro) and 1791.
Doctors Galt and Barraud treated Jimmy in 1789. Two years later, on July 22, 1791, William
Munford informed his friend John Coalter ―Would you believe it that he [Wythe] has begun to
teach Jamey, his servant, to write?‖308 It is possible that Jimmy moved to the Taliaferro
plantation at Powhatan when Wythe relocated to Richmond in 1791.
304

George Wythe to Richard Taliaferro, dated August 20, 1787 and recorded October 8, 1787 in
William and Mary Quarterly, 1st ser., XII (1903-1904): 125-126.
305

Six years later, on September 14, 1793, Wythe entered into a second deed of gift with Elizabeth Call in which he
transferred Rose and her three children—Edward, Betty, and a child at her breast. It is possible that Rose, Edward,
Betty, and the unnamed child were in the possession of Elizabeth Call and that this second deed of gift made the
1787 transfer legal. Richmond Hustings Court Deed Book II, f. 116, September 14, 1793.
306

York County Deed Book 6 (1777-1791) 351, dated September 15, 1787 and recorded
September 17, 1787.
307

York County Deed Book 6 (1777-1791) 371, dated February 20, 1788 and recorded June 16,
1788.
308

Munford to Coalter, July 22, 1791, John Thompson Brown Papers.

673

Wythe‘s Slaves in Elizabeth City County
When Thomas Wythe Senior, an Elizabeth City County planter, died in 1729 he
bequeathed his wife half of Chesterville, his plantation on the Back River, and seven slaves—
Tom, Mercury, Peter, Sampson, Phillis, Tony, and Jack—during her lifetime. The elder Wythe
left Chesterville to his son and namesake. After the death of Margaret Wythe the seven slaves
and their increase were to be equally divided among Wythe‘s surviving children. This planter
wanted the remaining enslaved laborers (except those hired to Robert Ballard of Yorktown) to be
equally divided among his children when one of his children married or reached the age of
eighteen. Wythe noted that he had hired an unspecified number of slaves to Robert Ballard of
Yorktown for nine years. After the expiration of lease, these slaves were to become the property
of his nephew, Matthew Ballard, if a debt due to Colonel Digges and a debt due to Major
Lightfoot were satisfied. If the debts were not paid or Ballard died without heirs, then Wythe‘s
children were to gain possession of these enslaved individuals.309 Wythe‘s grandmother, Ann
Keith Walker Wallace, bequeathed him an enslaved girl named Bildad in her will dated March
14, 1739.310 Margaret Wythe probably died in the latter part of the decade of the 1740s and her
children—Thomas, George, and Ann—gained possession of the slaves she had for her lifetime.
George Wythe was a slave owner when he moved to Spotsylvania County to begin his
career as a lawyer. If Wythe had a male slave who served as his waiting man he would have
taken this individual with him. It is likely that he left his slaves who tended crops behind in
Elizabeth City County. The young lawyer might have gained possession of one or more slaves
when he married Ann Lewis, daughter of Zachary Lewis, a lawyer who lived in Spotsylvania
County, in December of 1747. However, there is no evidence that Wythe brought a Lewis slave
with him when he arrived in Williamsburg a short time after the death of his wife on August 8,
1748. Ann Pattison charged Wythe seven and a half pence for ―ye Man Supper‖ and one shilling
and three pence for feeding his horse on January 9, 1749.311 The entry is puzzling: why did
Wythe pay to have his man eat at Pattison‘s tavern when he himself lived in Williamsburg?
Thomas Wythe Junior followed in his father‘s footsteps and was a planter. He did not
have any heirs when he died between May 2, 1754 and January 7, 1755. According to the terms
of their father‘s will, his younger brother George gained possession of Chesterville. The second
Thomas Wythe left his slaves to his wife and to his sister, Ann Wythe Sweeney.312 The bond
309

Elizabeth City County Deeds and Wills 1704-1730, dated November 3, 172[8?] and recorded
October 15, 1729, pp. 188-189.
310

Elizabeth City County Wills, Etc., 1701-1904, dated March 14, 1739.

311

Ann Pattison Account Book, January 9, 1749, Virginia Historical Society.

312

Will of Thomas Wythe in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, Wills, 1733-1799, p. 25; see also
Alonzo Thomas Dill, George Wythe, Teacher of Liberty, (Williamsburg, Virginia: Virginia
Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), p. 14.

674
laborers whom George Wythe received as the dower of his second wife, Elizabeth Taliaferro,
joined his enslaved men, women, and children at Chesterville when they married between 1755
and 1760.
It is possible that Wythe managed Chesterville from Williamsburg for a number of years.
However, by 1773 Wythe decided to hire an overseer named Hamilton Ushur St. George who
was reputed to be the best farmer in the area.313 St. George was a native of Ireland who arrived in
Virginia in 1766. This decision caused Wythe problems because St. George was a Loyalist.
After the Revolution St. George recalled that Wythe owned 1,050 acres of land on the
Back River in Elizabeth City County. He managed the lawyer‘s slaves (a total of thirty-two in
1781) in addition to his own (a minimum of fourteen at the beginning of the Revolution). St.
George noted that Wythe
granted Claimant a Lease for his Life the agreement was late in the Spring 1775. the
Lease was not granted till the Summer. The Terms of the Lease were his paying a half of
the net profits after deducting all expences & in consideration thereof Wythe was to
Educate Claimnts Son – Occupied this from 1773 - till 1781. thinks they shared £ 300 a
year Sterling each after the end of 2 or 3 years –
Thinks there were about 250 Acres of Wood Land and all the rest cleared – Corrects
himself and says afterwards it was early in the Spring in 1775 when the agreement was
made –
Is positive the Memorandum was signed before the Battle of Lexington – the Lease not
till afterwards – Says Mr. Wythe was very desireous of the Agreement and thought the
advantage lay on his side – he sought it for a long time before – Lord Dunmore offered
his Estate on the same terms – Claimant was reckoned the best Farmer in the Country –
Claimant was to have Liberty to surrender the Lease at any time – Claimant wished to
have a clause inserted for that purpose – There was no power on the part of the Lessee to
determine the Lease –
Claimant was bound to cultivate the Land so long as he held it and it was liable he
supposes to be determined if he failed in the Conditions of Cultivating and managing the
Farm – He was not at Liberty to assign – Estimates the profits of this at £ 300 pr. Annm.
if he could have lived upon it and at 7 years purchase for his Life – Says in his Claim
before the Treasury he put no value on this article but was advised By the Committee of
Loyalists to extend a value on it If he had transacted the mannagement of the Farm
adjoining with Mr. Wythes he could not have done it for £ 300 pr. Annum –

313

Information about Hamilton Ushur St. George is from the ―Loyalist Claim of Hamilton Usher St. George,‖
P.R.O. /A.O. 12/54 , pp. 195-213.

675
Thinks a good Manager might have been got for £ 100 pr. Annum and his provisions –
Claimant for the most part resided there.
St. George ―made a Tender of his service to Lord Dunmore before he left the Palace who advised
him to remain at Home and procure Intelligence and provisions.‖ The overseer‘s neighbors
resented his actions and burned ―his House with all therein contained‖ and ―ordered your
Memorialist with his Overseer to prison with his Negroes. . . . That your Memorialist Negroes
took the goal Fever by which 14 of them died.‖ St. George did not note if any of his slaves
survived ―goal Fever.‖ It appears that the residents of Elizabeth City County knew which slaves
at Chesterville belonged to St. George and which were the property of Wythe.314
Perhaps both St. George‘s activities on behalf of the British and the rhetoric of freedom
influenced four of Wythe‘s slaves to leave Chesterville. Surviving documents indicate that two
men ran away soon after Dunmore‘s Proclamation, but chose not to join the Ethiopian Regiment.
On January 17, 1776 the proceedings of the Fourth Virginia Convention noted ―that Neptune,
belonging to George Wythe, esq; was taken up as a runaway.‖ Neptune and other runaways who
did not serve in Dunmore‘s Ethiopian Regiment were to
be delivered to their respective owners, on their paying the expenses which have accrued,
or shall accrue, from the time of their being taken, till the time of their delivery; and that
a list of the said negroes, with the names of their several owners, be inserted in the
Virginia Gazette. And if the owners do not apply within two months from the date of the
said advertisement, that such thereof as may then remain be sold at publick auction, and
the balance, after deducting the expenses aforesaid, be lodged in the hands of the
treasurer of this colony, to be paid to the owners, when demanded.
Wythe probably sold Neptune soon after the Fourth Virginia Convention‘s decision on January
17th because Neptune was not one of the nine slaves whom Peter Pelham listed as being in the
Public Goal on January 19, 1776 and there is no additional evidence that Wythe owned a man
named Neptune. 315
Charles ran from Wythe‘s Elizabeth City County plantation in the spring of 1776.
Charles was one of nineteen enslaved men held in the Public Goal in Williamsburg in July 1776.
The Council of the State of Virginia ordered John Minson Galt, Robert Nicolson, and James
Southall to examine the slaves. They estimated the yearly hire of Charles at £8. Peter Pelham,
the keeper of the Public Goal was ordered to

314

315

Ibid., pp. 202-204, 201, 195-196.

Robert L. Scribner et al., eds., Revolutionary Virginia: The Road to Independence, 7 vols.,
(Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia for the Virginia Independence Bicentennial
Commission, 1973-1983), 5:423-424, 432.

676
deliver the Negroes in his custody to Mr Peter Terrel, to be by him carried to the
Lead Mines, and there delivered to Mr James Calloway; and that Mr Terrel give his
Receipt to the Jailor for the same
Ordered, that the General be requested to order a Waggon to assist in removing
the Slaves up to the Lead Mines, and that he be informed it is expected, Mr Calloway will
have a Load of Lead ready to send down by the return of the Waggon
Ordered that Mr Terrel be empowered to hire a Guard of four Men, to assist in
removing the above slaves; and in case he shall not be able to procure the same—that he
then apply to the Lieutenants of the several Counties, through which, he is to pass, who
are requested to order a proper Guard to attend him to the next County.
There is no additional information about Charles.316
Two men who lived and worked at Chesterville ran to the enemy four years after
Dunmore issued his Proclamation. In 1783 a twenty-five year old man named George Weeks
reported that he was formerly a slave to George Wythe in Elizabeth City County and that he
departed in 1779. Perhaps he ran with another slave who left Chesterville. James Wythe,
twenty-four years old in 1783, also joined the enemy in 1779. Both George Weeks and James
Wythe were among the slaves who were evacuated with the British when they left New York in
1783. The fact that these two men had surnames suggests that each of their fathers was a free
man and that Wythe allowed their mothers to choose the name of their son.317
The Wythe slaves who remained in Elizabeth City County continued to work in the
fields. The Allies impressed provisions grown at Chesterville for the use of the army in late
1780 and 1781318:
Nov‘r ____

To 30 bush. Irish Potatoes del‘d the Comm‘rs
@ 4/

6..-..-

316

H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia, 4 vols., (Richmond:
Virginia State Library, 1931), 1:70-71. The legislators sent Wythe‘s Charles and other slaves to
the lead mines in Montgomery County in the southwestern part of the state. The mining of lead
began in 1759 by a company organized by John Robinson, Francis Fauquier, William Byrd III,
and John Chiswell. The state operated the mines during the Revolution. In Notes on the State of
Virginia Jefferson noted that the lead mines could employ thirty men per year and they could
produce up to sixty tons of lead per year. The mines became important when the fighting shifted
to the South since the Montgomery County mines were the only major source of lead in the
region. See James A. Mulholland, A History of Metals in Colonial America, pp. 137-139.
317

Graham Russell Hodges, ed., The Black Loyalist Directory: African Americans in Exile After
the American Revolution, (New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc., in association with
the New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1996), pp. 50, 178.
John L. Patterson, ―Revolutionary War Public Claim Records For Elizabeth City County,
Virginia,‖ (Hampton, Virginia: LRC Historical and Archeological Society, 1976), p. 15.
318

677
1781
Jan‘ry 1
6
Feb‘ry 8
March
Oct‘r 1st
4
7

To 22 bush. Do. Do.
4..8..To 5 bush. Pease Do. 3/
-..15..To a Cart and 6 Oxen and two Men Carting Fodder
per Order Commissioners
-..12..To 5 beaves estimated to Weigh 1200 lbs.
del‘d to Comm‘rs @ 3d
15..-..To 1 hhd. Cyder 100 Gallons
3..2..6
To 20 bush. Irish Potatoes @ 4/
4..-..To 1 ½ bush. Corn for Maj‘r Nelson‘s Troop
of horse @ 2/6
-..3..9
To 15 bush. Do. furnished Gen‘l Stevens Brigade per
per Rec‘t 2/6
3..7..6
To 52 bushels Oats furnished Do. Do. @ 1/6
3..18..£ 31..6..9

St. George stayed in Elizabeth City County until the Siege of Yorktown when he joined
Cornwallis. His claim included his losses for 1781:
Decr. 20 Every thing I possessed in Elizabeth City County was taken this day which is as
follows and in which George Wythe was to share one Moiety of the stock and Crop
To 50 Load of Oats @ £ 2..10
£ 125
62..10
To 250000 Corn hills which would yield
750 Barrels of Indian Corn @ 10/
187..10
To 104 full grown Cattle @ £ 5
260..00
To 150 sheep @ £ 1
£ 150
75..
To 130 Hogs @ £ 1
65
To 10 Acres of Land in potatoes @
£ 30 pr Acre
150
To []00 Busl. of Wheat @ £ 5
100
In addition, he claimed £ 2100 for ―a Lease for my Life on 1050 Acres of Land upon Back River
& 32 Negroes worth to me pr. Year £ 300 at 7 years purchase.‖319 On December 20, 1781 St.
George noted that his wife informed him ―that George Wythe who was a Member of Congress
and concerned with him in the Farm, turned her out of possession of the Farm and took
possession of everything upon it except the little Household Furniture she had got together.‖320
On December 31, 1781 Wythe wrote to Jefferson in order to decline an invitation to
spend time at Monticello. He noted that ―the manager who hath lately eloped‖ left Chesterville
in a state of confusion.321 The Elizabeth City County Personal Property Tax Lists provide

319

―Loyalist Claim of Hamilton Ushur St. George,‖ pp. 199-200.

320

Ibid., p. 208. See also p. 213.

678
information about the number, age, and gender of the slaves who remained at Chesterville
between 1782 and 1792:
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792

11 slaves over sixteen and 16 slaves under sixteen
13 slaves over sixteen and 15 slaves under sixteen
11 slaves over sixteen and 15 slaves under sixteen
15 slaves over sixteen and 13 slaves under sixteen
11 slaves over sixteen and 17 slaves under sixteen
14 slaves over sixteen and 14 slaves under sixteen
11 slaves over sixteen and 1 slave between twelve and sixteen
10 slaves over sixteen and 2 slaves between twelve and sixteen
9 slaves over sixteen and 2 slaves between twelve and sixteen
9 slaves over sixteen and 2 slaves between twelve and sixteen
9 slaves over sixteen

The tax lists also indicate that Wythe had two overseers in the 1780s. First, a man named John
Wills worked at Chesterville in 1784 and 1785. Next, the lawyer‘s nephew, George Wythe
Sweeney managed the plantation between 1786 and 1792. In October of that year
Wythe and George Wythe Sweeney and his wife Jane sold Chesterville to Daniel L. Hylton. It is
possible that Hylton also purchased the enslaved men, women, and children who lived on the
property because neither Wythe nor Sweeney appeared on subsequent tax lists as the owners of
slaves. Hylton defaulted on his payment for the plantation. He placed an announcement of the
sale of Chesterville in the July 8, 1795 issue of the Virginia Gazette and General Advertiser:
FOR SALE,
Or to be Exchanged for Property in New-York, New-Jersey, or Philadelphia,
A VALUABLE PLANTATION CALLED CHESTERVILLE,
ON Back-River, in Elizabeth City County; containing by a late survey 920 acres of
LAND, of which 477 are cleared, divided and ditched round in 50 acre [l]ots, 233 in
wood, and 210 in fine grazing marsh, capable of producing the best salt hay, and
supporting from 200 to 300 head of cattle through the winter. The upland is of
extraordinary quality, fitted either for corn, wheat, barley or hay—and the natural grass is
well calculated to make the latter. There is on it an orchard of about 6 acres of Hughes
Crab, and other bearing apple trees; with 500 more choice apple trees ready to set out,
near to the dwellings—They consist of a large new convenient brick house, neatly
finished, with four large rooms in it, and offices below; a large negro quarter, a kitchen,
stable, and storehouse in good repair, and a granary 60 by 22 feet, lately completed; and
at which vessels of 60 tons may load.
Besides the above, there are about 400 acres of Dry and Marsh LAND, belonging
to the Free School, adjoining and rented to Chesterville, at 15 l. a year, upon a life lease,
and may be taken or not with the place. Also about 80 head of CATTLE and HORSES,
150 SHEEP and HOGS, and some NEGROES.
321

Julian P. Boyd, ed., et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1950), 2:144-145.

679
The advantages of this Plantion for game and fish of every kind, and its adjacence
to Norfolk market by water, are recommendations which render it desirable and
profitable. For further particulars apply to Doctor FOUSHEE, DANIEL L. HYLTON,
and WM. DABNEY, Esqrs. Richmond.322
Hylton did not find a purchaser for this property and Wythe regained possession of Chesterville
in 1800. The lawyer sold the land to Holdner Hutchings of Mathews County in December
1802.323
Family Background and Possible Influences on Wythe‘s Thoughts About Slavery
It is difficult to discuss Wythe‘s thoughts about slavery because his private papers do not
survive. However, Wythe‘s family background, his friendship with Governor Francis Fauquier,
two letters written by Thomas Jefferson in the 1780s, his emancipations of his slaves, two deeds
of gift, and a court decision made by Wythe in 1806 provide some clues.
George Wythe was born in late 1726 or early 1727 at Chesterville, his family‘s plantation
in Elizabeth City County. His parents were Thomas and Margaret (nee Walker, daughter of
George and Ann Keith Walker). Chesterville was located on a neck of the Back River, about
seven miles northwest of Hampton. Wythe‘s great-grandfather, George Keith, was a prominent
Quaker who traveled from England to Pennsylvania to preach. He and his followers (who were
known as ―Keithians‖) published An Exhortation & Caution to Friends Concerning Buying or
Keeping of Negroes in 1693. The ―Keithians‖ encouraged slave owners to manumit those bond
laborers who had served a ―reasonable‖ amount of time.324
When George Keith‘s daughter, Ann, married George Walker of Elizabeth City County
she and her husband were both Quakers. Ann Walker turned to the established church after her
father became an Anglican minister and a missionary for the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel. However, George Walker remained a Quaker. Ann Walker petitioned the Council for
the right to control the religious education of their children in 1708. On April 25th of that year
the Governor and members of the Council informed Ann Walker that her husband
Desiers to have that athorety over his Childr. that properly Belongs to Every Christian
man: that is to Bring up his Childr. in whatever Christian Religion he may Be of that is
priveliged By our Christian Laws . . . y‘r husband Seems to Be very Willing to Give yo
all manner of Liberty to Injoy y‘r Religion provided yo Leave the Instruction of all his
322

Virginia Gazette and General Advertiser, July 8, 1795.

323

Elizabeth City County Land and Personal Property Tax Lists 1782 to 1804; Elizabeth City
County Deeds and Wills No.12 (1796-1806), pp. 87-88; dated June 15, 1801 and recorded July
23, 1801; ibid., pp. 232-234, dated December 6, 1802 and recorded April 28, 1803.
324

Dill, George Wythe, pp. 3, 5. See also Robert B. Kirtland, George Wythe: Lawyer,
Revolutionary, Judge, (New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1986), pp. 20-40.

680
Children to him and that yo will Not Cause them to Read any Books Exept the Scripture
but Such as he alows of and that yo forbare to Incense and persuad any of his Children
against his Religion as Long as he professes to Be a Christian . . . if y‘r husband will Give
yo Liberty to Injoy y‘r Religion without Interruption: he ought to have all the Liberty
above Desiered: But if yo Can prove that he is Not a Christian and So Consequently Not
within the virge of our Christian Laws then we are willing to heare yo on Wensday
Morning Next but wee Shuld be Glad yo Could Be Reconcilled without Such
procedings.325
Evidence suggests that Ann Walker returned to the Quaker faith after her father‘s death in 1716.
She and her husband hosted meetings of Quakers in their home. It is likely that George Wythe‘s
mother, Margaret, was raised as a Quaker.326 Margaret Walker married Thomas Wythe and they
had three children: Thomas, George, and Ann. Wythe‘s father died in 1729 and it is possible
that his mother played an important role in his education. Perhaps Margaret Wythe‘s
background influenced her decision to exchange sixteen acres of land along the Back River for a
similar size tract of land with a free black woman named Hannah Francis in March 1740.327
Wythe and Francis Fauquier became close friends during the time that Fauquier was governor of
Virginia. It is likely that Wythe, Fauquier, Thomas Jefferson, and William Small discussed and
debated the institution of slavery when they dined together at the Palace. Fauquier noted his
dislike of slavery in his will. In March 1767 the governor wrote
It is now expedient that I should dispose of my Slaves, a part of my Estate in its
nature disagreeable to me, but which my situation made necessary for me; the disposal of
which has constantly given me uneasiness whenever the thought has occurred to me. I
hope I shall be found to have been a Merciful Master to them and that no one of them
will rise up in Judgment against me in that great day when all my actions will be exposed
to Public view. For with what face can I expect Mercy from an offended God, if I have
not myself shewn Mercy to those dependent on me. But It is not sufficient that I have
been this Master in my life, I must provide for them at my death by using my utmost
Endeavours that they experience as little Misery during their lives as their very unhappy
and pitiable condition will allow. Therefore I will that they shall have liberty to choose
their own Masters and that the Women and their Children shall not be parted; that they
shall have six Months allowed them to make such Choice, during which Time they shall
be maintained out of my Estate; That my Executor shall take for them of such Masters as
they shall choose twenty five per Cent under the then Market price.

―Answer by Gov‘r & Council to Mrs. Walker‘s Petition,‖ in Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 16 (1908): 80-81.
325

326

327

Dill, George Wythe, p. 6.
Elizabeth City County Deeds and Wills (34) 118, April 25, 1793.

681
Fauquier selected Wythe, William Nelson, Robert Carter, and Peyton Randolph as the executors
of his estate. 328 It took Wythe, Nelson, Carter, and Randolph four years to settle the estate of the
deceased governor. Perhaps the time that Wythe spent handling Fauquier‘s property led him to
reflect on his friend‘s thoughts about the institution of slavery.
In late 1769 or early 1770 Wythe agreed to represent Wade Netherland in the suit brought
against him by Samuel Howell.329 Netherland believed that Howell, a mulatto man, was his
indentured servant until the age of thirty-one, not to the age of twenty-one as Howell claimed.
Howell secured Thomas Jefferson as his lawyer. In April 1770 Jefferson presented his opening
argument before the members of the General Court. As Wythe prepared to answer Jefferson‘s
statement, the General Court‘s justices interrupted him and ruled in favor of his client.
Unfortunately, Wythe did not have an opportunity to present his case before the court.
Two letters written by Thomas Jefferson, one in 1785 and one in 1786, indicate that
Wythe and his student discussed slavery and how Virginians could abolish the institution. First,
in a letter to Richard Price, a noted British abolitionist, dated August 7, 1785, Jefferson
commented on the influence that Price‘s pamphlet would have on the new nation as a whole and
on Virginia in particular. In this discussion he noted that he believed that Wythe would play an
important part in educating Virginia‘s future leaders about the need to end slavery in their state:
Southward of the Chesapeak it will find but few readers concurring with it in sentiment
on the subject of slavery. From the mouth to the head of the Chesapeak, the bulk of the
people will approve it in theory, and it will find a respectable minority ready to adopt it in
practice, a minority which for weight and worth of character preponderates against the
greater number, who have not the courage to divest their families of a property which
however keeps their consciences inquiet. Northward of the Chesapeak you may find here
and there an opponent to your doctrine as you may find here and there a robber and a
murderer, but in no greater number. In that part of America, there being but few slaves,
they can easily disencumber themselves of them, and emancipation is put into such a
train that in a few years there will be no slaves Northward of Maryland. In Maryland I do
not find such a disposition to begin the redress of this enormity as in Virginia. This is the
next state to which we may turn our eyes for the interesting spectacle of justice in conflict
with avarice and oppression: a conflict wherein the sacred side is gaining daily recruits
from the influx into office of young men grown and growing up. These have suckled in
the principles of liberty as it were with their mother‘s milk, and it is to them I look with
anxiety to turn the fate of this question. Be not therefore discouraged. What you have
written will do a great deal of good: and could you still trouble yourself with our welfare,
no man is more able to give aid to the labouring side. The college of William and Mary
in Wiliamsburg, since the remodelling of it‘s plan, is the place where are collected
328

York County Wills and Inventories (21) 396-404, dated March 26, 1767 and recorded March
21, 1768.
329

See the section on the Capitol in this resource book for the details of the Howell v. Netherland
case.

682
together all the young men of Virginia under preparation for public life. They are there
under the direction (most of them) of a Mr. Wythe one of the most virtuous characters,
and whose sentiments on the subject of slavery are unequivocal. I am satisfied if you
could resolve to address an exhortation to those young men, with all that eloquence of
which you are master, that it‘s influence on the future decision of this important question
would be great, perhaps decisive.330
In June of the following year Jefferson addressed some of the criticism that he and Wythe
received for not abolishing slavery when they revised Virginia‘s laws between 1777 and 1779,
when he wrote Jean Nicolas Demeunier:
M. de Meusnier, where he mentions that the slave-law has been passed in
Virginia, without the clause of emancipation, is pleased to mention that neither Mr.
Wythe nor Mr. Jefferson were present to make the proposition they had meditated; from
which people, who do not give themselves the trouble to reflect or enquire, might
conclude hastily that their absence was the cause why the proposition was not made; and
of course that there were not in the assembly persons of virtue and firmness enough to
propose the clause for emancipation. This supposition would not be true. There were
persons there who wanted neither the virtue to propose, nor talents to enforce the
proposition had they seen that the disposition of the legislature was ripe for it. These
worthy characters would feel themselves wounded, degraded, and discouraged by this
idea. Mr. Jefferson would therefore be obliged to M. de Meusnier to mention it in some
such manner as this. ‗Of the two commissioners who had concerted the amendatory
clause for the gradual emancipation of slaves Mr. Wythe could not be present as being a
member of the judiciary department, and Mr. Jefferson was absent on the legation to
France. But there wanted not in that assembly men of virtue enough to propose, and
talents to vindicate this clause. But they say that the moment of doing it with success was
not yet arrived, and that an unsuccesful effort, as too often happens, would only rivet still
closer the chains of bondage, and retard the moment of delivery to this oppressed
description of men. What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man!
Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment or death itself in vindication of his
own liberty, and the next moment be deaf to all those motives whose power supported
him thro‘ his trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught
with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose. But we must
await with patience the workings of an overruling providence, and hope that that is
preparing the deliverance of these our suffering brethern. When the measure of their
tears shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven itself in darkness,
doubtless a god of justice will awaken to their distress, and by diffusing light and
liberality among their oppressors, or at length by his exterminating thunder, manifest his
attention to the things of this world, and that they are not left to the guidance of a blind
fatality.331
330

Boyd, et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 8:356-357.

331

Ibid., 10:62-63.

683

Two deeds of gift from Wythe to members of the Taliaferro family indicate his concern
to keep slave families together. The lawyer transferred Kate, her daughters Rachel and Lydia,
and Rachel‘s children Lucy, Bob, and Jimmy; and Fanny and her sons Paris and Isaac to the
minor children of his brother-in-law, Richard Taliaferro. Rose and her son Edward became the
property of another Taliaferro daughter, Elizabeth Call. Extant documents indicate that Wythe
emancipated at least four of his Williamsburg slaves: Lydia Broadnax on September 15, 1787;
Polly on February 20, 1788; Charles on August 13, 1788; and Ben sometime before April 20,
1803.
Wythe‘s decision in Hudgins v. Wrights in 1806 indicates his belief that all persons,
regardless of race, deserved to be free. The following selection is a summary of the Hudgins v.
Wrights case:
Hudgins, being about to send the appellees out of the state, ―a writ of ne exeat332 was
obtained from the Chancellor, on the ground that they were entitled to freedom . . . The
time of the birth of the youngest was established by the testimony; and the characteristic
features, the complexion, the hair and eyes were proven to have been the same with those
of whites. Their genealogy was traced back by the evidence taken in the cause . . .
through female ancestors, to an old Indian called Butterwood Nan [who was 60 years, or
upwards, in 1755] . . . her daughter Hannah had long black hair, was of the right Indian
copper colour, and was generally called an Indian by her neighbours, who said she might
recover her freedom; if she would sue for it; . . . John, (a brother of Hannah,) brought a
suit to recover his freedom; and that Hannah herself made an almost continual claim as to
her right of freedom, insomuch that she was threatened to be whipped by her master for
mention the subject.‖ On the hearing, ―the late Chancellor perceiving from his own view,
that the youngest of the appellees was perfectly white, and that there were gradual shades
of difference in colour between the grand-mother, mother, and grand-daughter, (all of
whom were before the Court,) and considering the evidence in the cause, determined that
the appellees were entitled to their freedom; and, moreover, on the ground that freedom is
the birth-right of every human being, which sentiment is strongly inculcated by the first
article of our ‗political catechism,‘ the bill of rights—he laid it down as a general
position, that whenever one person claims to hold another in slavery, the onus probandi333
lies on the claimant.
St. George Tucker upheld Wythe‘s decree that the Wrights were entitled to their freedom.
However, Tucker noted
I do not concur with the chancellor in his reasoning or in the operation of the first clause
of the Bill of Rights, which was notoriously framed with a cautious eye to this subject,
and was meant to embrace the case of free citizens, or aliens only; and not by a side wind
332

A writ of ne exeat is a writ that forbids the person to whom it is addressed from leaving the
jurisdiction of the court or removing any property from the jurisdiction of the court.
The term onus probandi means the burden of proof.

333

684
to overturn the rights of property, and give freedom to those very people whom we have
been compelled from imperious circumstances to retain, generally, in the same state of
bondage that they were in at the revolution, in which they had no concern, agency or
interest . . . . I heartily concur with him in pronouncing the appellees absolutely free.‖
In Tucker‘s opinion, the basis of the Wrights‘ freedom could be found in the fact that the
freedom of Native Americans had been guaranteed since April 1691 when the General Assembly
passed an act entitled ―An Act for a free trade with Indians.‖334

AMERICAN PARADOX: FREEDOM AND SLAVERY

Table of Contents
Part I—Introduction
Selection from Ira Berlin‘s Many Thousands Gone
Selection from Edmund Morgan‘s American Slavery, American Freedom

Part II—Virginia Slavery During The Revolution
1776 to 1781—The Experiences of Black Women During the Revolutionary War
1776 to 1782—Slave Laborers Work for Virginia During the Revolutionary War
October 1776—ACT XXVI. An act declaring tenants of lands or slaves in taille to hold
the same in fee simple
May 1777—ACT I. An act for regulating and disciplining the Militia
May 1777—ACT II. An act for the more speedily completeing the Quota of Troops to be
raised in this commonwealth for the continental army, and for other purposes
May 1777—ACT XXII. An act for confirming a codicil annexed to the last will and
Helen Tunnicliff Catterall, ed., Judicial Cases Concerning
American Slavery and the Negro, 5 vols., (Washington, [D.C.]:
Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 374, 19261937; reprint, New York: Octagon Books, Inc., 1968), I:112-113.
334

685
testament of John Barr, deceased, respecting certain slaves
January 29, 1778—General Washington Suggests the Use of Free Blacks as Wagoners
October 1778—ACT I. An act for preventing the farther importation of Slaves
May 1779—ACT XLIV. An act for the manumission of a certain Slave
October 1779—ACT XLVII. An act for the manumission of certain Slaves
May 1780—ACT XXXIII. An act to authorize the citizens of South Carolina and
Georgia to remove their slaves into this state
July 11, 1781—St. George Tucker to Fanny Tucker
1781—Slaves Attempt to Gain Their Freedom After the Battle of Yorktown
1781 to 1782—Thomas Jefferson‘s Notes on the State of Virginia
May 1782—ACT VIII. An act for the recovery of slaves, horses, and other property, lost
during the war
May 1782—ACT XXI. An act to authorize the manumission of slaves
May 1782—ACT XXXII. An act concerning Slaves
1782—The French Army Conceals Slaves in Yorktown and Williamsburg
August 15, 1782—John Blair to his sister, Mary Blair Burwell
1782 to 1810—Slaves For Hire in Elizabeth City County
1783—Slaves Who Served as Substitutes Gain Their Freedom
October 1783—ACT III. An act directing the emancipation of certain slaves who have
served as soldiers in this state, and for the emancipation of the slave Aberdeen
1783—Virginia Slaves and Free Blacks Leave New York With the British

Part III—Virginia Questions Slavery in the Years After the Revolution
1784 and 1785—Proslavery Petitons

686
November 21, 1784—Lafayette Asks that the Slave James be Rewarded for his Service
as
a Spy
1785—Observations on Slavery Addressed to the Citizens of Virginia
October 1785—ACT LXI. An act concerning wills; the distribution of intestates estates;
and duty of executors and administrators
October 1785—ACT LXXVII. An act concerning slaves
October 1785—ACT LXXVIII. An act declaring what persons shall be deemed
mulattoes
1785—Virginia Abolitionist Leader Robert Pleasants Urges George Washington to Free
His Slaves
1786—George Washington Expresses Qualified Support for Abolition
1786—George Washington Shares his Views on Abolition with the Marquis de
Lafayette
1786—Fugitive Slave Advertisement Posted by George Mason and his Son
October 1786—ACT LVIII. An act directing the method of trying Slaves charged with
treason or felony
1787—The Northwest Ordinance
1787—George Mason Urges the National Government to Eliminate the Slave Trade
1787—The United States Constitution
1788—George Mason Opposes the Constitution‘s Provisions Regarding the Slave Trade
October 1788—ACT XXIII. An act to repeal part of an act, directing the trial of slaves
committing capital crimes, and for the more effectual punishing conspiracies and
insurrections of them, and for the better government of negroes, mulattoes, or
indians, bond or free
October 1788—ACT LIV. An act concerning the importation of slaves, into the district
of Kentucky
October 1789—ACT XXII. An act concerning the Benefit of Clergy
October 1789—ACT XLV. An act to amend the act for preventing the farther

687
importation of slaves
October 1790—ACT LXIV. An act to grant certain privileges to the cities of Richmond
and Williamsburg, and to the borough of Norfolk
1791—President George Washington Offers United States Assistance to Put Down the
Slave Revolt in Saint Domingue

1792—Reverend David Rice‘s Slavery Inconsistent with Justice and Good Policy

February 12, 1793—The First Fugitive Slave Act
December 1793—ACT XXIII. An ACT to prevent the migration of free negroes and
mulattoes into this commonwealth
1795—The Constitution of the Virginia Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery
1796—St. George Tucker‘s A Dissertation on Slavery with A Proposal for the Gradual
Abolition of It in the State of Virginia
January 1796—H[enry?] Lee to St. George Tucker

1796—A Young Runaway Slave Woman Bedevils George Washington
December 1796—ACT XI. An ACT to amend the act, intituled, ―An act to amend and
reduce into one, the several acts concerning slaves, free negroes and mulattoes‖
1797—George Washington Predicts Further Escapes by Slaves
December 1797—ACT IV. An ACT to amend the act, intituled, ―An act to amend
the act, intituled, ‗An act to reduce into one, the several acts concerning slaves,
free negroes and mulattoes‘‖
1798 to 1831—Excerpts from the York County Free Black Register
1799—Death of George Washington

1800—The Slave Gabriel Plans a Rebellion

688

December 1800—ACT 70. An ACT to amend the act, intituled, ―An act to reduce into
one the several acts concerning slaves, free negroes, and mulattoes‖
December 1802—ACT 21. An ACT more effectually to restrain the practice of negroes
going at large
December 1804—ACT XII. An ACT to amend and explain an act further declaring what
shall be deemed unlawful meetings of slaves
December 1805—ACT LXIII. An ACT to amend the several laws concerning slaves

Part IV—The Defense of Slavery and The Growth of the Antislavery Movement
1820—The Missouri Compromise
1820 to 1850—The Era of Reform, the Antislavery Movement, and the Defense
of Slavery
1821—Thomas Jefferson Predicts Freedom for Slaves
1829—Justice Thomas Ruffin of the North Carolina Supreme Court on the Master‘s
Absolute Dominion Over a Slave
1829—David Walker‘s Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World
1831—Nat Turner‘s Insurrection
1832—Thomas R. Dew Argues Against the Abolition of Slavery
1850—The Compromise of 1850
1852—Frederick Douglass on ―The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro‖
1857—The Dred Scott Decision

Part V—Emancipation and Amendments to the Constitution
January 1, 1863—The Emancipation Proclamation
1865 to 1870—The Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution

689
AMERICAN PARADOX:
FREEDOM AND SLAVERY

Part I—Introduction

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness.
At the moment the North American colonies declared their independence from British
rule, one out of every five Americans was enslaved and the institution itself was legal in each of
the newly established United States. The incongruity of maintaining slavery in a society founded
upon freedom and liberty was quickly recognized, harshly criticized, and ultimately justified by
the founders of this new nation.
When Thomas Jefferson penned the above words in the Declaration of Independence, he
was fully aware of the paradox created by a slaveholding society demanding its freedom. As
early as 1764 James Otis noted in The Rights of the British Colonies that ―the Colonists are by
law of nature free born, as indeed all men are, white or black.‖ In May 1774, several enslaved
men from Boston brought a petition to Governor Gage and the General Court that stated ―your
petitioners apprehend we have in common with all other men a natural right to our freedoms
without being deprived of them by our fellow men….We therefore beg your Excellency and
Honors will….cause an act of the legislation to be passed that we may obtain our natural right,
our freedoms, and our children to be set at liberty.‖335
Justifying the American paradox was a difficult, but not impossible, task. Revolutionary
leaders used the ubiquity of enslavement in America to bolster their demands for independence.
―The crisis is arrived,‖ wrote George Washington in August, 1774, ―when we must assert our
rights or submit to every imposition that can be heaped upon us till custom and use make us tame
and abject slaves, as the blacks we rule over with such arbitrary sway.‖336 Some quickly
recognized the slippery slope of this argument. In 1775, Thomas Paine asked how Americans
can ―complain so loudly of attempts to enslave them while they hold so many hundreds of
thousands in slavery.‖337 Most, however, realized that to define freedom (and gain grassroots
support for independence) one needed to have a readily available and universally understood
concept of un-freedom. The moral and ideological conundrum of maintaining a system of
oppression in a free country was less important than the motivational factor that symbolized
enslavement as the end result of continued British rule.

335 Jordan, White Over Black, p. 292; Kaplan and Kaplan, The Black Presence in the Era of the
American Revolution, pp. 13-15.
336 Jordan, White Over Black, p. 292.
337 Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, p. 220.

690
The years immediately following American independence showed a marked increase in
manumissions. The formation of an independent Republic caused some to reexamine slavery‘s
position in the new nation. Gradual emancipation took root in northern states where enslaved
populations were relatively small. Southern states simply relaxed restrictions on individual
manumissions, allowing slaveholders to decide the fate—freedom or enslavement—of their
human property. According to the 1790 census, Virginia‘s free black population grew six fold in
8 years with nearly 13,000 free persons of color residing in the Old Dominion. Nevertheless, ten
thousand or so manumissions in eight years could not keep pace with the fifty thousand new
slaves either born or brought to Virginia during the same time.338
Almost as soon as the number of manumissions began to rise in Virginia, several local,
national and international factors converged to reassert the perceived necessity of enslavement.
Fueled by the people‘s revolution in France and the publication of the Declaration of the Rights
of Man, the enslaved population of Saint Domingue (later Haiti) also demanded liberty, equality,
and fraternity. Since there were some similarities with the American Revolution, the United
States could have supported the revolution in Saint Domingue. It didn‘t. The turmoil in Saint
Domingue was seen as insurrectionary and the United States did what it could to keep word of a
slave rebellion in Saint Domingue from the African American population on the mainland.
News did spread, however, in port towns like Baltimore, and cities like Richmond where Gabriel
Prosser and perhaps as many as one thousand other enslaved Americans plotted their own
revolution.
By the turn of the century, the development of the cotton gin and further westward
expansion had once again placed slave labor at a premium. Virginia had a surplus of enslaved
Americans and exporting slaves to Kentucky, Tennessee and points south was more profitable
and efficient for owners than manumission or African colonization. Justification for
enslavement also shifted. With national independence obtained, enslavement as a synecdoche
for remaining under British rule was unnecessary. As the demand for enslaved labor increased
with the large-scale production of cotton, scientific and philanthropic justifications for
maintaining the institution also increased.
In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson concluded that the inferiority of
African descended peoples was due to physical rather than environmental factors. When
confronted with the mathematical and scientific mind of free black Benjamin Banneker,
Jefferson eventually concluded that, based on ―a long letter from Banneker, [it] shows him to
have a mind of very common stature indeed.‖ Dr. Samuel Cartwright, a professor at the
University of Louisiana, noted that slaves suffer from many natural diseases ―peculiar to
Africans,‖ such as ―Draptomania, or the Disease of Causing Negroes to Run Away,‖ and
―Dysthesia Aethiopica,‖ which seems to cause both laziness and rebelliousness.339
The perceived natural inferiority of African peoples also led some to believe that
American enslavement was a ―positive good‖ for the enslaved. It was considered far better to be
a slave exposed to the civilizing influences of Western thought and Christianity than remain
primitive and unenlightened (but free) in Africa. This theory was not new or unique to the
338 Ibid., pp. 370-373.
339 Jordan, White Over Black, p. 454; Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll, pp. 308, 650; Katz,
Breaking the Chains, p. x.

691
nineteenth century; it simply became more popular as earlier justifications faded. As early as
1773, Dr. Theodore Parsons noted ―It is evident beyond all controversy, that the removal of the
Africans from the state of brutality, wretchedness, and misery in which they are at home so
deeply involved, to this land of light, humanity, and christian knowledge, is to them so great a
blessing.‖340
The union of democracy and tyranny continued in the United States for more than ―four
score and seven years.‖ It took years of bloodshed, the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives,
and the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments before four million African Americans
obtained American citizenship. Although the paradox of slavery in a land founded on freedom
and liberty was finally resolved, the legacy of enslavement—racism and mistrust—continued in
the form of Jim Crow segregation, brutal violence, disfranchisement, and second-class
citizenship. Poet Langston Hughes recognized the paradox and the legacy when he wrote:
I am the American heartbreak—
Rock on which Freedom
Stumps its toe—
The great mistake
That Jamestown
Made long ago.341

Ira Berlin provides an overview of the growth of freedom and slavery in the Upper South in the
years after the American Revolution in his book, Many Thousands Gone: The First Two
Centuries of Slavery in North America (1998).
The revolutionary crisis transformed African-American life in the Chesapeake, or, as it
was called when Marylanders, North Carolinians, and Virginians moved west into
Kentucky and Tennessee, the Upper South. As in the northern colonies, the struggle for
political independence—both the war itself and the changes that accompanied the
establishment of an independent republic—challenged slavery, as slaves and their allies
hammered at chattel bondage with the mallets of revolutionary republicanism and
evangelical egalitarianism. But unlike in the North, slavery in the Upper South did not
crack. The slave society that had emerged in the wake of the plantation revolution of the
late seventeenth century hardly faltered, even as the region’s periphery—mostly
prominently the area surrounding Baltimore—developed into a society with slaves.
Thousands of slaves gained their freedom in the Upper South, and the greatly enlarged free
black population began to reconstruct black life in freedom. But the expansion of slavery
and with it a host of new forms of racial dependencies more than counterbalanced the
growth of freedom.
The simultaneous expansion of freedom and of slavery defined black life in the Upper
South and united free and slave as in no other region of the United States. The nascent class
340 Tise, Proslavery, p. 101.
341 Hughes, Selected Poems, p. 9.

692
lines—informed more by notions of propriety and respectability than by material standing—that
divided black people in the free states did not materialize in the Upper South; freedom and
slavery evolved in a parallel course that entwined free and slave blacks in the same families,
workplaces, churches, and communities. A two-caste system with rigid divisions between black
and white came to exemplify the Upper South following the Age of Revolution.
…
But the continued existence of slavery muted the differences within black society. Many free
people of color—men and women—married slaves and live, worked, and prayed together.
Independent African churches were usually joint ventures of free and slave. If the ability of free
people to hold property propelled them into positions of leadership in these organizations, slaves
participated fully and often took leadership roles as deacons and ministers. Everyday experience
reinforced the ties between free and slave peoples. Measured by church membership, family
formation, wealth distribution, and aspirations and ideas, black society was much more of one
piece in the Upper South—despite the formal divisions of freed and slave—than in the North.
The shadow of slavery assured continued African-American unity. As perhaps nowhere else in
mainland North America, the fate of free and slave blacks was entwined. Slavery defined
freedom, and freedom defined slavery, in the Upper South during the Age of Revolution.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, pp. 256, 288-289.

Edmund Morgan's American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia
(1975) remains one of the most influential treatments of the simultaneous development of an
economy based on slave labor and a political system based on the ideal of liberty. In the
following excerpts, Morgan hypothesizes that the existence of slavery created a healthy respect
for freedom among Virginia's founding fathers.
The men who built the great houses [in the second quarter of the eighteenth century] and
lived in them still thought of themselves as Englishmen and aped the style of the English country
gentleman. They read English newspapers and imported the latest English fashions; but with a
few exceptions like [William] Byrd they were content to be Englishmen in Virginia, without
continually sighing for the security of the mother country. The commitment to Virginia that they
expressed in bricks and mortar grew with the change in labor that made Virginia forever unlike
England. The safe investment that a William Fitzhugh hoped for in an English estate would have
come from the rents that other Englishmen would pay for land. Virginia's great planters too
could count on getting some rent from their immense quantities of land, but their fortunes rested
less on extracting rents from tenants or taxes from freemen than on the labor they extracted from
African men and women permanently enslaved to them. They no longer needed to exploit other
Englishmen in the ways their fathers had.
Thus by the second quarter of the eighteenth century Virginians had established the
conditions for the mixture of slavery and freedom that was to prevail for at least another century:
a slave labor force isolated from the rest of society by race and racism; a body of large planters,
firmly committed to the country, who had become practiced in politics and political
maneuvering; and a larger body of small planters who had been persuaded that their interests

693
were well served by the leadership of their big neighbors. The way was now prepared for the
final ingredient that locked these elements together in a vital combination that enabled
Virginians large and small to join with other Americans in devotion to freedom and equality, in
abhorrence of slavery--and in the preservation of slaveholding.
That ingredient was a conglomeration of republican ideas that had gained popularity in
England at the time of the Commonwealth. In England the ideas had not in the end prevailed,
but they continued to be studied and refined and proclaimed by men who have come to be known
as the eighteenth-century commonwealthmen. The commonwealthmen were not conspirators,
hoping to overthrow the monarch and restore the republic of the 1650s. But they were admirers
of the Roman republic if not the English one, and caustic critics of the English monarchy. Along
with other Englishmen they paid tribute to John Locke and the Revolution of 1688; but their
favorite political philosophers were James Harrington and Algernon Sydney, who had
championed the cause of republican government and suffered (the one imprisoned, the other
executed) at the hands of Charles II.
The commonwealthmen believed that a monarch, if not curbed, would inevitably turn
tyrant and reduce his subjects to slavery. In eighteenth-century England they saw in every
exercise of executive power the signs of a drift toward tyranny and slavery, which they called on
their countrymen to arrest. They suspected the army. They despised the churchmen who
unflaggingly supported every infringement of liberty. They wanted to extend the suffrage and
make representatives more responsive to the people. Above all, they wanted a wide distribution
of property to create an enlarged enfranchised yeomanry who would see to it that government
stuck to its proper business of protecting liberty and property. Their countrymen paid them little
heed, and their names have not survived in fame: John Trenchard, Thomas Gordon, Robert
Molesworth, Francis Hutcheson, James Burgh--these are scarcely household names today. But
in the American colonies they were known and admired. In Virginia their ideas gradually
gathered strength in a movement whose beginnings are difficult to discern but which became
more and more palpable as the century advanced, until Virginians spoke in a language that would
have astonished and disgusted William Berkeley.
...
It may be coincidence that so many Virginians who grew up after the advent of slavery
turned out to be ardent republicans. And it may be coincidence that among their predecessors
who lived before slavery became prevalent, so many were unrepublican, unattractive, and
unscrupulous, not to say depraved. On the other hand, there may have been more than
coincidence involved. Although it seems unlikely that slavery had any tendency to improve the
character of masters, it may have had affinities with republicanism that escaped Jefferson's
analysis. The presence of men and women who were, in law at least, almost totally subject to the
will of other men gave to those in control of them an immediate experience of what it could
mean to be at the mercy of a tyrant. Virginians may have had a special appreciation of the
freedom dear to republicans, because they saw every day what life without it could be like.
...
Virginia's republicans had the decency to be disturbed by the apparent inconsistency of
what they were doing. But they were far more disturbed by the prospect of turning 200,000

694
slaves loose to find a place in their free society. "If you free the slaves," wrote Landon Carter,
two days after the Declaration of Independence, "you must send them out of the country or they
must steal for their support." They would be, after all, what they were, poor, and they would
exhibit the congenital laziness and immorality of the poor. Jefferson himself thought that slaves
could not safely be freed unless they were exiled. And the only serious plan for their
emancipation, proposed by St. George Tucker in 1796, would have transformed their slavery into
a kind of serfdom, under which they would still be compelled to labor, lest they become "idle,
dissipated, and finally a numerous banditti." But even Tucker's plan seemed too dangerous to
receive serious consideration.
One wonders if it might not have been taken more seriously if Virginia's slaves had
belonged to the same race as their masters. The fact that they did not made it easier for
Virginians to use slavery as a flying buttress to freedom. The English had come to view their
poor almost as an alien race, with inbred traits of character that justified plans for their
enslavement or incarceration in workhouses. Almost, but not quite. It required continual
denunciations from a battery of philosophers and reformers; it even required special badges, to
proclaim the differentness of the poor to the undiscerning, who might otherwise mistake them for
ordinary men.
In Virginia neither badges nor philosophers were needed. It was not necessary to pretend
or to prove that the enslaved were a different race, because they were. Anyone could tell black
from white, even if black was actually brown or red. And as the number of poor white
Virginians diminished, the vicious traits of character attributed by Englishmen to their poor
could in Virginia increasingly appear to be the exclusive character of blacks. They were
ungrateful, irresponsible, lazy, and dishonest. "A Negroe can't be honest," said Landon Carter
and filled his diary with complaints of the congenital laziness and ingratitude of black men.
Racism thus absorbed in Virginia the fear and contempt that men in England, whether
Whig or Tory, monarchist or republican, felt for the inarticulate lower classes. Racism made it
possible for white Virginians to develop a devotion to the equality that English republicans had
declared to be the soul of liberty. There were too few free poor on hand to matter. And by
lumping Indians, mulattoes, and Negroes in a single pariah class, Virginians had paved the way
for a similar lumping of small and large planters in a single master class.
Virginians knew that the members of this class were not in fact equal, either in property
or in virtue, just as they knew that Negroes, mulattoes, and Indians were not one and the same.
But the forces which dictated that Virginians see Negroes, mulattoes, and Indians as one also
dictated that they see large and small planters as one. Racism became an essential, if
unacknowledged, ingredient of the republican ideology that enabled Virginians to lead the
nation.
How Virginian, then, was America? How heavily did American economic opportunity
and political freedom rest on Virginia's slaves? If Virginia had continued to rely on the
importation of white servants, would they have headed north when they turned free and brought
insoluble problems of poverty with them? Would they have threatened the peace and prosperity
of Philadelphia and New York and Boston, where the poor were steadily growing in numbers
anyhow? Would Northerners have embraced republican ideas of equality so readily if they had
been surrounded by men in "a certain degree of misery?" And could the new United States have
made a go of it in the world of nations without Virginia and without the products of slave labor?
Northern republicans apparently thought not. Some could not condone slavery and talked of
breaking loose from the South in their own independent confederation. But the fact is that they

695
did not. They allowed Virginians to compose the documents that founded their republic, and
they chose Virginians to chart its course for a generation.
Eventually, to be sure, the course the Virginians charted for the United States proved the
undoing of slavery. And a Virginia general gave up at Appomattox the attempt to support
freedom with slavery. But were the two more closely linked than his conquerors could admit?
Was the vision of a nation of equals flawed at the source by contempt for both the poor and the
black? Is America still colonial Virginia writ large? More than a century after Appomattox the
questions linger.
Source: Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, pp. 368-370, 376, 385-387.

Part II—Virginia Slavery During The Revolution

1776 to 1781—The Experiences of Black Women During the Revolutionary War
In many ways, slave and free black women experienced the war differently than their male
counterparts. Most significantly, women were much less likely to play a role in the war‘s
military campaigns. The war profoundly affected women‘s lives, however, especially in their
capacities as laborers on the home front and as members of families broken up by the war. And,
although slave women were not as likely as men to find new opportunities for escape during the
war, many did take advantage of wartime dislocation and increasing antislavery sentiment
among whites to gain their freedom.
In the following selections from her essay ―Race, Sex, and Self-Evident Truths: The Status of
Slave Women during the Era of the American Revolution,‖ Jacqueline Jones traces some of the
trials and possibilities encountered by black women during the war. While many women
suffered as a result of physical deprivation, new work demands, and separation from family and
kin, others were able to translate the high demand for manual labor and the general upheaval of
war into greater autonomy for themselves.
The political unrest and wartime devastation that marked the Revolutionary era brought
into focus all the contradictions implicit in the emerging democratic republic of slaveholders and
their allies. Masters found themselves confronted by their own demands for liberty and reacted
accordingly, either by manumitting their slaves or by fighting ever more tenaciously to enforce
black subordination. These conflicting impulses among the white elite helped to shape the
experiences of black women during this period of upheaval, but so too did the economic
transformations wrought by armed conflict and incipient nation-building. For their part, slaves
seized the initiative whenever an opportune moment presented itself and fought their own battles
for self-determination as field hands, refugees, and liberators of their own kin. Finally, black
women‘s family responsibilities as wives and mothers remained constant even as the Revolution
gave their productive abilities a new political significance.
Fears of organized slave revolts dogged the colonists throughout their War for
Independence; at one time or another most whites regardless of class status must have agreed
with Abigail Adams when she said she regretted that there existed ―a slave in the province.‖

696
Resistance to bondage during the war assumed a number of highly publicized forms—from the
South Carolina maroon uprisings in the late 1760s to the general ―restiveness‖ of Boston blacks
in the mid-1770s, massive defections of slaves to the British, and petitions for freedom submitted
to new state legislatures in the 1780s. Try as they would to maintain a semblance of routine
within their households, slaveholders could hardly ignore the enemies that waited on and
surrounded them each day.
For the bulk of slave women located on southern plantations, the war entailed both
physical suffering and greater latitude for personal action. Forced to make do with less in the
way of food, clothing, and other basic supplies, white southerners considered the daily needs of
their slaves to be a low priority (especially after 1778, when fighting engulfed the region). At
least some whites fulfilled the prediction of the patriot who railed against runaway slave men
seeking protection from the British: ―The aged, the infirm, the women and children, are still to
remain the property of their masters, masters who will be provoked to severity, should part of
their slaves desert them.‖ Untold numbers of slave women felt the wrath of ―an enraged and
injured people‖ desperate to keep the upper hand at home as well as on the battlefield.
The women who remained with their masters gave whites cause enough for alarm.
Thomas Pinckney‘s depleted South Carolina plantation consisted primarily of mothers and
children in 1779, but they proved no more tractable than the male slaves who had already
deserted; according to the white man, the slave women ―pay no attention‖ to the overseer.
Residing on another estate, Pinckney‘s mother commiserated with him, noting that she had lost
control over her servants, ―for they all do now as they please everywhere.‖ As the war raged
near her North Carolina estate in 1781, another mistress complained bitterly about the insolent
Sarah: ―She never came near me till after repeated messages yesterday to come and Iron a few
clothes. . . . She made shift to creep here and then was very impudent.‖ Such recalcitrance could
provoke some whites to violence, others to reluctant indulgence. A Baltimore slaveholder urged
his overseer not to upset the slave Ruth, or ―she will run off, for she is an arch bitch.‖
Slaveholders might try to brutalize, cajole, or bribe black women into submission, but
they could not escape the fact that they needed every available worker. The estimated 55,000
slaves who absconded, and many others pressed into service by the colonists and British alike,
left some areas of the South bereft of field hands and thus devastated by food shortages. Planters
who sought to institute a system of household cloth production reserved the positions of spinners
and weavers for black women and girls, a sexual division of labor shaped in part by the now
critical lack of male laborers. The rebels were not about to let gender considerations interfere
with their exploitation of black labor in this time of crisis, and southern states often sought to
buy, hire, or impress slaves of both sexes for use on public works projects. For example, in 1780
the Board of Trade of Virginia purchased twenty-six blacks (among them three women) to work
in its tanneries, ironworks, boatyards, and army hospitals. The intense demand for unskilled
labor during the war, exacerbated by a temporary halt in the foreign slave trade, endangered the
well-being of free blacks, as well as slave women. In 1778 Ann Driggus of North Carolina
suffered a beating at the hands of two men who then kidnapped four of her children in order to
sell them.
Increased demands on their productive energies, combined with the confusion produced
by wartime, prompted slave women to seek safety with the enemies of their master, whether
rebel or loyalist. According to Gerald W. Mullin and other historians, family ties assumed even
greater significance as a source of motivation among runaways, compared to the colonial period,
perhaps reflecting more favorable conditions for flight and for beginning a new life elsewhere

697
with kinfolk. Mary Beth Norton has suggested that ―although a majority of runaways were male,
women apparently sought freedom in greater numbers [that is, proportion] during the war than in
peacetime.‖ Evidence from scattered sources reveals that up to a third of all wartime refugees
were female, compared to the 10 percent or so of runaways listed in colonial newspapers who
were female. Panic-stricken, patriot law-enforcement officials condemned to hard labor,
executed, or sold to the West Indies those women and men who failed in their bid for freedom.
...
Thus the black fight for independence proceeded apace, whenever formerly compliant
slave women suddenly turned ―sassy‖ and defiant or abandoned their master‘s household, either
to cast their lot with the British or slip as self-freed persons into the anonymity of urban life. A
more formal (though no less difficult) route to freedom lay through the state courts and
legislatures and through the efforts of free blacks to buy and then emancipate their own kin. For
example, among the many individual petitions submitted to legislative and judicial bodies was
that of the Connecticut slave Belinda, who argued that her four decades of toil for a white man
had availed her nothing: ―My labors have not procured me any comfort,‖ she wrote. ―I have not
yet enjoyed the benefits of creation. With my poor daughter, I fear I shall pass the remainder of
my days in slavery and misery. For her and myself, I beg freedom.‖ Soon after the Revolution,
a Petersburg, Virginia, black woman named Lucy Arbuckle paid the owner of her slave daughter
over £30, and once she had secured the girl‘s release, freed her (although the mother had to make
an additional final payment three weeks later). Some women managed to buy their own
freedom, while others relied on relatives (frequently artisan husbands) to escape slavery through
legal means. As Ira Berlin notes, these instances of legal support transcended differences in the
legal status of individuals and testified to the ―solidarity and common purpose‖ that informed
Afro-American life during the Revolutionary era.
The war unleashed unprecedented antislavery sentiment among whites, but that sentiment
manifested itself in uneven ways. In the mid-1700s all but a few thousand black women and
men in the colonies were slaves; by the first decade of the next century the free black population
had swelled to nearly a quarter million. . . . Two points are relevant to [the issue of
manumission]: first, the most far-reaching antislavery legislation was enacted by northerners,
who had the least to lose financially from their altruism; and second, the burden of transition
from a slave to free black population fell most heavily on mothers, whose offspring perpetuated
the system of bondage.
The upper South reached a middle ground between the changes overtaking its economy
and the Revolutionary principles espoused so fervently by its planter elite. As Virginia turned
from tobacco to a more diversified agricultural base, it facilitated the process of individual
manumission and at the same time strengthened existing slave-code legislation. In contrast, the
lower South, poised on the verge of a new era of cotton production and eager to revitalize its rice
economy, eschewed all emancipation efforts. South Carolina reopened its slave trade with
Africa in 1803 and expanded its market for Chesapeake slaves.
Regardless of how they obtained their freedom, black women shared common goals: to
consolidate family members, keep their households intact, and provide for the material welfare
of dependents.
Source: Jones, ―Race, Sex, and Self-Evident Truths,‖ pp. 324-327, 329-331, 337.

698

1776 to 1782—Slave Laborers Work for Virginia During the Revolutionary War
During the Revolution, Virginia authorities sought to employ slaves as military laborers in the
campaign against the British. The officials faced several obstacles, including the escape of ablebodied male slaves to Lord Dunmore and the unwillingness of slaveowners to sell or hire out
their slaves to assist in the war effort. (State and Confederate authorities would face similar
difficulties almost a century later.) Virginia slaves who did contribute to the patriot cause as
military laborers found themselves performing dangerous and dirty work, from toiling in lead
mines to erecting fortifications. After the war, few were set free in return for their service.
Below, Benjamin Quarles reviews Virginia‘s use of slave laborers during the war.
Another labor procurement device was state purchase of slaves, a practice most common
in Virginia. Most masters were reluctant to sell their slaves for the depreciated currency offered
by the state; hence many of the purchased slaves were runaways who had been recaptured from
the British or caught trying to reach them. By purchasing such a slave the state did three things
at once: it punished the runaway, recognized the property stake of a loyal master, and gained a
badly needed military laborer.
Late in August 1777 the state employed Duncan Rose to buy slaves to work the lead
mines at Chiswells, agreeing to pay him a commission of 5 per cent. Six weeks later Rose had
rounded up five slaves. Later that year the state purchased five additional slaves, two of whom
had been taken from the British and ordered sold by a decree of the Admiralty Court. These, too,
were sent to the lead mines.
On April 5, 1780, the Board of Trade purchased twenty-six Negroes, including three
women and a boy. Six state-owned Negroes were employed at the Warwick tannery in October
1781; they ranged in age from twenty to thirty-five, and varied in color from ‗yellow and slim‘
Charles to ‗black and well made‘ Ambrose. Fifteen other Negro men belonging to the public
tannery had been taken by the British or had gone over to them. At the state-owned Westham
iron works ‗Negroes were depended upon‘ in molding and casting cannon. In December 1779,
when the commissioners of the Virginia navy asked the Board of War for twelve carpenters and
axemen, twelve laborers, ten sawyers, and five blacksmiths, the Board recommended to the
governor that slaves be purchased for these jobs. In the spring of 1780 six purchased Negroes
were working as armorers under the supervision of the Board of Trade, and in the summer of
1782, ten state-owned slaves were working as wagoners in the quartermaster‘s department.
The Virginia Board of Trade preferred to buy slaves outright whenever possible, rather
than hire them, because it was ultimately less expensive; however, the more common practice
was to hire slaves for war service. It required less money at the outset, and permitted a much
greater degree of flexibility in dovetailing supply with demand. As early as January 1778,
Washington had broached the idea that free Negroes from Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas
be employed as wagoners.
...
In Virginia slaves were hired during the first year of the war, for service with military
units such as the Lancaster District Minute Men and the Second Regiment. Late in 1777, upon

699
the request of the quartermaster of the York garrison, the state council authorized an agent to
obtain eight slaves for work at the garrison and its hospital. He was instructed to contract for
them by the year ―upon the best terms he can.‖ Hired slaves were employed in 1781 at the
Fredericksburg gun factory, and in 1782 as wagoners in the quartermaster‘s department. The
Hospital Department signed on a Negro woman in July 1780 but six months after the hiring her
master had received not a shilling. In Virginia‘s domain west of the Alleghanies, the estate of
James Robinson received payment for 945 days of skilled labor performed by Caesar, perhaps a
record in long-term hired service.
When Lafayette was dealing with Cornwallis in Virginia during the summer of 1781, he
sent an urgent letter to Governor Jefferson asking for 250 Negro laborers to march with the
army, plus a corps of 150 Negro wagoners. Lafayette‘s request was beyond the Governor‘s
reach. Jefferson had just had a sobering experience in trying to procure Negroes for a
fortification requested by Steuben. On February 11, 1781, the Prussian-born General had told
Jefferson of the importance of erecting a small work at Hood‘s, in Prince George County.
Anxious to cooperate with a hard working professional soldier of Steuben‘s rank and reputation,
Jefferson immediately directed the state quartermaster, Granville Smith, to ―go out yourself‖ and
hire forty slaves. Smith was advised to apply first to those masters who lived in the vicinity of
Hood‘s, inasmuch as they would be more ―immediately‖ interested in its defense. Five days
later thirteen Negroes, one of them a bricklayer, had been hired.
The number never went much higher. On March 12 Captain John Allen reported that a
total of nineteen Negroes, procured from nine different masters, were working at the garrison;
but it was too small a group to do the job. Not a single Negro had been gotten from Dinwiddie
or Prince George counties. Ten days later another disappointed agent reported that in Charles
City County he had been able to raise only five Negroes, and that he despaired of raising a single
additional one, even at a high rate of pay. Early in April, as if to compound the woes of the
military officers in charge, the Negroes at Hood‘s went home ―to hold their Holydays.‖ Not
enough soldiers were present to prevent this walkout, but by April 19 all but four of the workers
had returned.
It was hard to hire able-bodied slaves because so many had joined the British that masters
did not care to part with those who remained. This reluctance of the master was an
insurmountable barrier to Jefferson, for, as he informed General Steuben, Virginia officials had
no power to call a slave to labor without first obtaining the master‘s consent.
Finally, with the British in Chesapeake waters, Jefferson made one last desperate appeal.
In a message to the legislature on May 10, 1781, he asked whether slaves might not be taken into
the army solely for labor service. Such non-arms-bearing slave soldiers would permit Virginia to
throw up batteries on every river and thus protect her commerce and property. Nothing came of
Jefferson‘s proposal, and the state authorities, civilian and military, resumed the dreary task of
trying to cajole masters to lease out their black retainers.
Source: Quarles, The Negro in the American Revolution, pp. 98-102.

October 1776—ACT XXVI. An act declaring tenants of lands or slaves in taille to hold the
same in fee simple

700
This statute ended the practice of entail by which planters had passed their property—land and
slaves—onto a specified heir, often the eldest son who in turn had to pass the property to his
eldest son.
I. WHEREAS the perpetuation of property in certain families, by means of gifts made to
them in fee taille, is contrary to good policy, tends to deceive fair traders, who give a credit on
the visible possession of such estates, discourages the holder thereof from taking care and
improving the same, and sometimes does injury to the morals of youth, by rendering them
independent of and disobedient to their parents; and whereas the former method of docking such
estates taille by special act of assembly, formed for every particular case, employed very much
of the time of the legislature, and the same, as well as the method of defeating such estates, when
of small value, was burthensome to the publick, and also to individuals:
II. Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia, and
it is hereby enacted by authority of the same, That any person who now hath, or hereafter may
have, any estate in fee taille, general or special, in any lands or slaves in possession, or in the use
or trust of any lands or slaves in possession, or who now is or hereafter may be entitled to any
such estate taille in reversion or remainder, after the determination of any estate for life or lives,
or of any lesser estate, whether such estate taille hath been or shall be created by deed, will, act
of assembly, or by any other ways or means, shall from henceforth, or from the commencement
of such estate taille, stand ipso facto seized, possessed, or entitled of, in, or to such lands or
slaves, or use in lands or slaves, so held or to be held as aforesaid, in possession, reversion, or
remainder, in full and absolute fee simple, in like manner as if such deed, will, act or assembly,
or other instrument, had conveyed the same to him in fee simple; any words, limitation, or
conditions, in the said deed, will act of assembly, or other instrument, to the contrary
notwithstanding.
III. Saving to all and every person and persons, bodies politick and corporate, other than
the issue in taille, and those in reversion and remainder, all such right, title, interest, and estate,
claim, and demand, as they, every, or any of them, could or might claim if this act had never
been made; and saving also to such issue in taille, and to those in reversion and remainder, any
right or title which they may have acquired by their own contract for good and valuable
consideration actually and bona fide paid or performed.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 9:226-227.

May 1777—ACT I. An act for regulating and disciplining the Militia
This statute continued to restrict free black men from carrying and using guns in the militia.
The free mulattoes in the said companies or battalions shall be employed as drummers,
fifers, or pioneers.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 9:267-268.

701
May 1777—ACT II. An act for the more speedily completeing the Quota of Troops to be raised
in this commonwealth for the continental army, and for other purposes
Legislators decided to require recruiting officers to enlist only blacks or mulattoes who could
prove their freedom in order to quell a rumor that slaves could win their freedom by fighting in
the war. This law also indicates that free men of color were being accepted for full military
service by this date.
And whereas several negro slaves have deserted from their masters, and under pretence of being
free men have enlisted as soldiers: For prevention whereof, Be it enacted, that it shall not be
lawful for any recruiting officer within this commonwealth to enlist any negro or mulatto into the
service of this or either of the United States, until such negro or mulatto shall produce a
certificate from some justice of the peace for the county wherein he resides that he is a free man.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 9:275, 280; see also May 1779—ACT VI. An act
concerning officers, soldiers, sailors, and marines, ibid., 10:23-27; and October 1780—ACT III.
An act for recruiting this state‘s quota of troops to serve in the continental army, ibid., 10:326337.

May 1777—ACT XXII. An act for confirming a codicil annexed to the last will and testament of
John Barr, deceased, respecting certain slaves
The legislators passed this act to recognize the freedom that John Barr tried to secure for an
enslaved woman and her child during his lifetime.
WHEREAS a certain John Barr, late of Northumberland county, being possessed
of a negro woman named Rachel and her child also named Rachel, in his own right, was
desirous to manumit them, but the consent of the governour and council could not be
procured, as required by the laws then and still in force, occasioned by lord Dunmore (the
then governour) withdrawing from his government; and the said Barr, to carry his
intention into execution, as far as was then in his power, made his last will and testament
in writing, duly published, and in a codicil annexed to, and part of that will, ordered and
devised as followeth: ―I claim no right, title, or interest, of, in, or to my negro woman
Rachel and her child Rachel, and hereby order that the same shall in no wise for ever
hereafter be considered as part of my estate; and I do hereby give and bequeath unto my
brother Zachariah twenty five acres of my land joining Jameson‘s, Palmer‘s, and Hurst‘s
lands, with as much of my estate as will build a house thereon, in trust, to and for the
benefit, sole use, and profit, of the said negro woman Rachel and her child Rachael, and
their heirs and assigns for ever.‖ And the said John Barr, soon afterwards departed this
life, and his will, with the codicil aforesaid, was duly proved at Northumberland county
court, and disputes have arisen touching the validity of the said will:
For remedy herein, and for securing to the said negro woman and her child their freedom,
and the benefit of the said devise, Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That the said negro
woman Rachel, and her child named Rachel, shall, and are hereby declared to be free, and may
enjoy all such rights, privileges, and immunities, as free negroes or mulattoes by the laws of this

702
country do enjoy; and, moreover, shall, and are hereby declared to be capable of taking, holding,
and disposing of all such estate as the said John Barr, by the will and codicil aforesaid, hath
devised or bequeathed to them, of for their use.
Saving to all and every other person, his or their heirs, executors, and administrators
(except the vestrymen or churchwardens of the parish of Wicomico, in the county of
Northumberland, and those claiming under the said John Barr) any right, title, or claim, they may
have to the said negroes, as if this act had never been made. And it is declared, that this act shall
not be drawn into precedent, except in cases where the circumstances may be precisely similar to
those of the present case.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 9:320-321; see also ibid., 12:611-616.

January 29, 1778—General Washington Suggests the Use of Free Blacks as Wagoners
On January 29, 1778, from his headquarters at Valley Forge, Washington suggested to the
committee of conference that free blacks from Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina be hired
as wagoners for the army. Wagoners were in short supply, and those available commanded large
wages. Washington did not want to use slaves because he feared they would escape to the
British.
The difficulty of getting waggoners and the enormous wages given them, would tempt
one to try any expedient to answer the end on easier and cheaper terms. Among others, it has
occurred to me, whether it would not be eligible to hire Negroes in Carolina, Virginia and
Maryland for the purpose. They ought however to be freemen, for slaves could not be
sufficiently depended on. It is to be apprehended they would too frequently desert to the enemy
to obtain their liberty; and for the profit of it, or to conciliate a more favorable reception, would
carry off their waggon-horses with them.
Source: The Writings of George Washington, ed. Fitzpatrick, 10:401.

October 1778—ACT I. An act for preventing the farther importation of Slaves
Virginians ceased to import slaves in 1774, and this statute gave the ban a legal basis. The
statute banned the importation of slaves whether they arrived by ship or by land. However, a
master who moved to Virginia from one of the other states and who registered slaves within ten
days of arrival was not in violation of this law. Travelers were also allowed to bring enslaved
persons with them. If a master violated the provisions of this statute, his or her slaves were
entitled to their freedom. In 1795 the legislators simplified the procedures by which a slave
could bring a suit for freedom.
I. FOR preventing the farther importation of slaves into this commonwealth, Be it
enacted by the General Assembly, That from and after the passing of this act no slave or slaves
shall hereafter be imported into this commonwealth by sea or land, nor shall any slaves so
imported be sold or bought by any person whatsoever.

703
II. Every person hereafter importing slaves into this commonwealth contrary to this act
shall forfeit and pay the sum of one thousand pounds for every slave so imported, and every
person selling or buying any such slaves shall in like manner forfeit and pay the sum of five
hundred pounds for every slave sold or bought, one moiety of which forfeitures shall be to the
use of the commonwealth, and the other moiety to him or them that will sue for the same, to be
recovered by action of debt or information in any court of record.
III. And be it farther enacted, That every slave imported into this commonwealth,
contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, shall, upon such importation become free.
IV. Provided always, That this act shall not be construed to extend to those who may
incline to remove from any of the United States, and become citizens of this, provided, that
within ten days after their removal into the same they take the following oath before some
magistrate of this commonwealth: ―I, A.B. do swear, that my removal to the state of Virginia
was with no intention to evade the act for preventing the farther importation of slaves within this
commonwealth, nor have I brought with me, or will cause to be brought, any slaves, with an
intent of selling them, nor have any of the slaves now in my possession been imported from
Africa, or any of the West India islands, since the first day of November, 1778. So help me
God.‖ Or to travellers and others, making a transient stay in this commonwealth, bringing slaves
with them for necessary attendance, and carrying them out again.
V. Provided also, and be it farther enacted, That this act shall not be construed to extend
to persons claiming slaves by descent, devise, or marriage, or to any citizens of this
commonwealth being now the actual owners and proprietors of slaves residing or being in any of
the United States and removing such slaves into this commonwealth.
VI. And it is farther enacted, That so much of an act of assembly made in the year 1753,
intituled ―An act for the better government of servants and slaves,‖ as comes within the purview
of this act, shall be, and the same if hereby repealed.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 9:471-472.

May 1779—ACT XLIV. An act for the manumission of a certain Slave
Late in 1778, a slave named Kitt fingered a counterfeiting ring in Brunswick County, leading to
the arrest of two men and the recovery of a significant amount of fake continental money. The
Virginia General Assembly rewarded Kitt for his loyalty, first by providing him with protection
and then by manumitting him. George Mason apparently penned both the resolutions that led to
Kitt's emancipation and the final act passed by the General Assembly.
WHEREAS a negro man slave named Kitt, the property of a certain Hinchia Mabry of
the county of Brunswick, hath lately rendered meritorious service to this commonwealth, in
making the first information and discovery against several persons concerned in counterfeiting
money, whereby so dangerous a confederacy has been in some measure broke, and some of the
offenders have been discovered and brought to trial; and it is judged expedient to manumit him
for such service; Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That the said Kitt be, and he is
hereby declared to be emancipated and set free; any law or usage to the contrary
notwithstanding. And it is farther enacted, That the treasurer of this commonwealth may, and
he is hereby required to pay to the said Hinchia Mabry, on producing the auditors warrant, which

704
they are hereby directed to grant, the sum of one thousand pounds out of the publick treasury, as
a full compensation for the said slave.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 10:115; The Papers of George Mason, ed. Rutland,
2:521-522.

October 1779—ACT XLVII. An act for the manumission of certain Slaves
This statute enabled Susannah Riddell, Thomas Walker the younger, and Lewis Dunn to
emancipate a slave.
WHEREAS application hath been made to this present general assembly, that John Hope,
otherwise called Barber Caesar, a negro man slave the property of Susanna Riddle of York town;
that William Beck, a mulatto slave the property of Thomas Walker, the younger, of the county of
Albemarle, and that a mulatto girl named Pegg, the property of Lewis Dunn, of the county of
Sussex, may be severally emancipated; Be it therefore enacted, That the said negroes, John Hope
otherwise called Barber Caesar, William Beck, and Pegg, shall, and they are hereby respectively
declared to be free, and may enjoy all such rights, privileges, and immunities, as free negroes or
mulattoes by the laws of this country do enjoy; saving to all and every other person, his or their
heirs, executors, and administrators, (except the said Susanna Riddle, Thomas Walker, the
younger, and Lewis Dunn, and those claiming under them) any right, title, or claim they may
have to the said negroes, as if this act had never been made.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 10:211; see also ibid., 10:372.

May 1780—ACT XXXIII. An act to authorize the citizens of South Carolina and Georgia to
remove their slaves into this state
This law made it clear that residents of South Carolina and Georgia who were forced to flee their
homes during the Revolution could legally move their slaves to Virginia.
WHEREAS many of the good and faithful citizens of Georgia and South Carolina, have
been, and may be compelled by the common enemy to fly their country, and seek shelter and
protection in this commonwealth, but are prevented bringing their slaves hither by an act of the
assembly entitled ―An act for preventing the farther importation of slaves,‖ and it is incumbent
upon the good people of Virginia to afford all possible relief to such our brethren in their present
distressed situation; Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That it shall and may be
lawful (the said recited act notwithstanding) for any citizen of either of the said states, who hath
been or shall be expelled therefrom by the enemy, to remove, or cause to be removed, his or her
slaves into this commonwealth, until one year next after the expulsion of the enemy from, or the
restoration of civil government in the state from which such slaves were respectively removed,
and no longer. And all and every such slave or slaves, or any of their increase, which shall be
suffered to remain here after the expiration of the said term of one year, to be computed as
aforesaid, shall become free; except only such of the said slaves as may be sold by the owner for

705
his or her necessary support and maintenance, in manner hereafter directed: Provided always,
That every person removing any slave or slaves from either of the said states, and desiring to
take the benefit of this act, shall deliver to the clerk of the first county within this commonwealth
into which any such slave or slaves shall be brought, within one month after their arrival therein,
an exact list or schedule of each and every slave so removed, distinguishing the name, sex, and
as near as may be the age of such slaves respectively, and the state from whence they were
removed; and such persons as have already removed any such slave or slaves into this
commonwealth since the twentieth day of May last, shall within one month after the passing of
this act, deliver to the clerk of the county into which such slave or slaves were first brought, a list
or schedule as aforesaid; which in either case, such clerk is hereby required to enter of record,
giving to the person a certificate thereof, upon his or her paying down the fee of one dollar for
each slave, and also to transmit to the clerk of the council within one month thereafter, an
attested copy of such list or schedule. And to give farther relief to the suffering citizens of the
said states; Be it enacted, That all and every slave or slaves removed into this state under the
regulations of this act, shall be exempted from any assessment or tax, for the space of one year
from the date of their having been registered in the clerk‘s office as aforesaid: And be it farther
enacted, That the governour with the advice of the council, may from time to time, grant to any
citizen of either of the said states, a permit in writing, to dispose of or sell, any or so many of
such slaves as shall appear necessary for the comfortable support and maintenance of such
citizen, and his or her family; causing all such permits to be entered by the clerk of the council,
in a book to be kept for that purpose.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 10:307-308.

July 11, 1781—St. George Tucker to Fanny Tucker
In this letter Tucker describes the impact that the British army had on the city of Williamsburg.
Tucker also tells his wife that a number of Williamsburg slaves decided to join Cornwallis in the
summer of 1781.
Williamsburg July 11th 1781
My ever dear Fanny: Could I have entertained a doubt of the propriety of my conduct in
endeavouring to remove you beyond the reach of the British army, the sight of this unhappy spot
must immediately have removed it. The traces of British cruelty were faint as they marched
through the country. Here they remained for some days, and with them pestilence and famine
took root, and poverty brought up the rear. Instead of attempting a florid description of the
horrors of this place, I will endeavour to give you an account of the situations of a few
individuals with whom you are acquainted. Our friend Madison and his lady (they have lost
their son) were turned out of their house to make room for Lord Cornwallis. Happily the College
afforded them an asylum. They were refused the small privilege of drawing water from their
own well. A contemptuous treatment, with the danger of starving were the only evils which he
recounted, as none of his servants left him. The case was otherwise with Mr. McClurg. He has
one small servant left, and but two girls. He feeds and saddles his own horse and is philosopher
enough to enjoy the good that springs from the absence of the British without repining at what he

706
lost by them. Poor Mr. Cocke was deserted by his favorite man Clem: and Mrs. Cocke by the
loss of her cook was obliged to have recourse to her neighbours to dress her dinner for her. They
have but one little boy—who is smaller than Tom—left to wait on them within doors. I believe
they are as badly off without. The old gentleman talks of going to Cumberland, as he says he is
entirely ruined. But this is not all. The small-pox, which the hellish polling of these infamous
wretches has spread in every place through which they have passed has now obtained a crisis
throughout the place so that there is scarcely a person to be found to nurse those who are most
afflicted by it. Your old friend Aunt Betty is in that situation. A child of Sir Peyton Skipwith's
who is with her, was deserted by its nurse, and the good lady was left without a human being to
assist her in any respect for some days. As the British plundered all that they could, you will
conceive how great an appearance of wretchedness this place must exhibit. To add to the
catalogue of mortifications, they constrained all the inhabitants of the town to take paroles. After
tyranizing ten days here, they went to James Town where they were attacked by our advanced
parties....The British have since crossed at Cobham, and their ships have gone down the river.
Our army is in motion. I am told we cross at Hoods....Among the plagues the British left in
Williamsburg, that of flies is inconceivable. It is impossible to eat, drink, sleep, write, sit still or
even walk about in peace on account of their confounded stings. Their numbers exceed
description, unless you look into the eighth chapter of Exodus for it.
Source: Coleman, St. George Tucker: Citizen of No Mean City, pp. 66-67.

1781—Slaves Attempt to Gain Their Freedom After the Battle of Yorktown
Slaves took part in the Battle of Yorktown as soldiers, laborers, and servants. After the
American victory, some hoped to use the confusion of the scene to their own advantage by
passing themselves off as free. On October 25, 1781, General George Washington issued orders
to try to prevent that from happening by setting up checkpoints to sort out the slaves from the
free blacks.
It having been represented that many Negroes and Mulattoes the property of Citizens of
these States have concealed themselves on board the Ships in the harbor; that some still continue
to attach themselves to British Officers and that others have attempted to impose themselves
upon the officers of the French and American Armies as Freemen and to make their escapes in
that manner, In order to prevent their succeeding in such practices All Officers of the Allied
Army and other persons of every denomination concerned are directed not to suffer any such
negroes or mulattoes to be retained in their Service but on the contrary to cause them to be
delivered to the Guards which will be establish‘d for their reception at one of the Redoubts in
York and another in Gloucester. Mr. David Ross will have the superintendency and will give
passes to enable them to return to their Masters or where that is not practicable will have
directions to make other provision for them. Any Negroes or mulattoes who are free upon
proving the same will be left to their own disposal.
The Gentlemen of the American Army who have made return to the Orderly Office of
negroes in their possession agreeably to the Order of the 9th. instant are desired to deliver them to
the above mentioned Mr. David Ross this day or tomorrow.

707
The General Officer of the day is requested to establish a Guard in York and the
Commandant of Gloucester another at that post for the reception of negroes agreeably to the
above order.
Source: The Writings of George Washington, ed. Fitzpatrick, 23:264-265.
1781 to 1782—Thomas Jefferson‘s Notes on the State of Virginia
Jefferson wrote Notes on the State of Virginia not for publication but in response to a set of
queries about the new republic posed by a French nobleman, the Marquis de Barbe-Marbois. In
Notes Jefferson expresses both antislavery and antiblack sentiments. He makes clear his belief
that race resulted in significant behavioral differences among black and white Virginians. He
uses his ideal of the gentry class to assess the lives of slaves.
In Query XIV—Laws, Jefferson refers to a three-man committee appointed by the General
Assembly to revise the legal code. The committee, consisting of Jefferson, Edmund Pendleton,
and George Wythe, submitted their report to the legislature on June 18, 1779. By 1786, fifty of
the 126 bills had become law. The provision recommending emancipation, obviously, was not
one of them.
The following excerpts are from the edition published by London bookseller John Stockdale in
1787.
Query VIII—Population
Under the mild treatment our slaves experience, and their wholesome, though coarse, food, this
blot in our country increases as fast, or faster, than the whites. During the regal government, we
had at one time obtained a law, which imposed such a duty on the importation of slaves, as
amounted nearly to a prohibition, when one inconsiderate assembly, placed under a peculiarity of
circumstance, repealed the law. This repeal met a joyful sanction from the then sovereign, and
no devices, no expedients, which could ever after be attempted by subsequent assemblies, and
they seldom met without attempting them, could succeed in getting the royal assent to a renewal
of the duty. In the very first session held under the republican government, the assembly passed
a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation of slaves. This will in some measure stop
the increase of this great political and moral evil, while the minds of our citizens may be ripening
for a complete emancipation of human nature.

Query XIV—Laws
Many of the laws which were in force during the monarchy being relative merely to that
form of government, or inculcating principles inconsistent with republicanism, the first assembly
which met after the establishment of the commonwealth appointed a committee to revise the
whole code, to reduce it into proper form and volume, and report it to the assembly. This work

708
has been executed by three gentlemen, and reported; but probably will not be taken up till a
restoration of peace shall leave to the legislature leisure to go through such a work.
The plan of the revisal was this. The common law of England, by which is meant, that
part of the English law which was anterior to the date of the oldest statutes extant, is made the
basis of the work. It was thought dangerous to attempt to reduce it to a text: it was therefore left
to be collected from the usual monuments of it. Necessary alterations in that, and so much of the
whole body of the British statutes, and of acts of assembly, as were thought proper to be retained,
were digested into 126 new acts, in which simplicity of stile was aimed at, as far as was safe.
The following are the most remarkable alterations proposed:
...
To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does
not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to
the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should
continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage,
arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males
twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the
time should render most proper, sending them with arms, implements of household and of the
handicraft arts, seeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and
independent people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired
strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of
white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be
proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and
thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will
leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections by the
blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature
has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions
which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.—To these
objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral.
The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro
resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from
the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference
is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this
difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the
two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by
greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns
in the countenances, that immovable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other
race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in
favour of the white, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the
Oran-ootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior
beauty, is thought worthy of attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic
animals; why not in that of man? Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other
physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body.
They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a strong
and disagreeable odor. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat,

709
and less so of cold, than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the pulmonary
apparatus, which a late ingenious experimentalist has discovered to be the principal regulator of
animal heat, may have disabled them from extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that
fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part with more of it. They seem to
require less sleep. A black, after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest
amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of
the morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed
from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present,
they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent
after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate
mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions,
which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt,
and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of
sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted
from diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not
reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory,
reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason
much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the
investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.
It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation. We will consider them
here, on the same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not apocryphal on which a
judgment is to be found. It will be right to make great allowances for the difference of condition,
of education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they move. Many millions of them have
been brought to, and born in America. Most of them indeed have been confined to tillage, to
their own homes, and their own society; yet many have been so situated, that they might have
availed themselves of the conversation of their masters; many have been brought up in the
handicraft arts, and from that circumstance have always been associated with the whites. Some
have been liberally educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are
cultivated to a considerable degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works
from abroad. The Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will often carve figures on their pipes
not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country, so as to
prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants cultivation. They astonish you
with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, their
imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought
above the level of plain narration; never seen even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture.
In music they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time, and
they have been found capable of imagining a small catch. Whether they will be equal to the
composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved.
Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry.—Among the blacks is misery
enough, God knows, but no poetry. . . . The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the
first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves their
inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition in life.
We know that among the Romans, about the Augustan age especially, the condition of
their slaves was much more deplorable than that of the blacks on the continent of America. . . .
With the Romans, the regular method of taking the evidence of their slaves was under torture.
Here it has been thought better never to resort to their evidence. When a master was murdered,

710
all his slaves, in the same house, or within hearing, were condemned to death. Here punishment
falls on the guilty only, and as precise proof is required against him as against a freeman. Yet
notwithstanding these and other discouraging circumstances among the Romans, their slaves
were often their rarest artists. They excelled too in science, insomuch as to be employed as
tutors to their master's children. Epictetus, (Diogenes, Phaedon), Terence, and Phaedrus were
slaves. But they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition, then, but nature, which has
produced the distinction.—Whether further observation will or will not verify the conjecture, that
nature has been less bountiful to them in the endowments of the head, I believe that in those of
the heart she will be found to have done them justice. That disposition to theft with which they
have been branded, must be ascribed to their situation, and not to any depravity of the moral
sense. The man, in whose favour no laws of property exist, probably feels himself less bound to
respect those made in favour of others. While arguing for ourselves, we lay it down as a
fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right: that, without this, they are
mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience: and it is a problem
which I give to the master to solve, whether the religious precepts against the violation of
property were not framed for him as well as his slave? And whether the slave may not as
justifiably take a little from one, who has taken all from him, as he may slay one who would slay
him? That a change in the relations in which a man is placed should change his ideas of moral
right and wrong, is neither new, nor peculiar to the color of the blacks. Homer tells us it was so
2600 years ago.
Jove fix'd it certain, that whatever day
Makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.
But the slaves of which Homer speaks were whites. Notwithstanding these
considerations which must weaken their respect for the laws of property, we find among them
numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better instructed
masters, of benevolence, gratitude, and unshaken fidelity.—The opinion, that they are inferior in
the faculties of reason and imagination, must be hazarded with great diffidence. . . . To our
reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the
races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural
history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct
race, were made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments
both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same
genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of
natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of
philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has
formed them? This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful
obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to
vindicate the liberty of human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some
of these, embarrassed by the question "What further is to be done with them?" join themselves in
opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans
emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without
staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When
freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.

Query XVIII—Manners

711

The particular customs and manners that may happen to be received in that state?
It is difficult to determine on the standard by which the manners of a nation may be tried,
whether catholic, or particular. It is more difficult for a native to bring to that standard the
manners of his own nation, familiarized to him by habit. There must doubtless be an unhappy
influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The
whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous
passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the
other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality
is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees
others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self love, for
restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one
that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on,
catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a
loose to his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot
but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his
manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execration should the
statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the
other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part,
and the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any
other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labour for another: in which he must
lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavours to
the evanishment of the human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless
generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, there industry also is
destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour
for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever
seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their
only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?
That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I
reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature
and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among
possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has
no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.—But it is impossible to be temperate
and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history
natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind.
I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the
master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope
preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the
order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.
Source: Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. Peden, pp. 87, 136-143, 162-163.

712
May 1782—ACT VIII. An act for the recovery of slaves, horses, and other property, lost during
the war
This statute made it easier for masters to regain possession of enslaved persons who ran away or
were captured by the British during the Revolution.
I. WHEREAS great numbers of slaves, horses, and other property belonging to the
citizens of this commonwealth and of the neighbouring states, have, during the war, been carried
off, or have gone from their owners and been concealed by wicked and evil disposed persons;
and it is reasonable that the owners should be enabled to recover their property in an easy and
expeditious manner: Be it therefore enacted, That any person or persons who have any such
slave or slaves, horses or other property in his or her possession, and who shall not before the
first day of October next deliver such slave or slaves, horses or other property in his or her
possession, and who shall not before the first day of October next deliver such slave or slaves,
horses or other property to the owner or owners thereof, if known, and if not known, publish a
particular description of such slave or slaves, horses or other property three times in the Virginia
gazette, shall forfeit and pay the sum of fifty pounds. And if any person or persons possessed of
such slave or slaves, horses or other property as aforesaid, shall delay to deliver or publish the
same as above directed, within the time hereby limited, he or she shall forfeit and pay the sum of
five pounds, for every month he or she shall so delay after the said first day of October next, and
shall moreover be liable to the action of the party grieved at the common law, in which the
plaintiff shall recover double damages. And if the defendant in any such action shall not
immediately pay and satisfy the damages, he or she shall be imprisoned six months, without bail
or mainprize, unless the damages are sooner discharged; the act of insolvency, or any other law
to the contrary notwithstanding; and the act of limitation shall be no bar to such action.
II. And be it further enacted, That all and every person and persons from whom any such
slave or slaves, horses or other property have gone or been taken as aforesaid, on application to
any two justices of the peace for the county where such slave or slaves, horses or other property
may be, and making proof, to the satisfaction of such justices, of his or her right to such slaves,
horses, or other property, and that the same were taken or went off from him or her in
consequence of the invasion of this or any of the neighbouring states, shall be entitled to a
warrant from such justices, under their hands and seals, directed to the sheriff or any constable of
the said county, commanding them and each and every of them, to take such slave or slaves,
horse or horses, or other property, and deliver the same to the owners thereof. Provided, That
before granting such warrant, the person or persons demanding the same shall give bond, with
sufficient security, in such sum as the justices shall direct, payable to the person or persons in
whose possession the slave or slaves, horse or horses, or other property claimed as aforesaid may
be, to return the same to the possessors in case he or she so claiming shall fail to prove his or her
right to such slaves, horses or other property, at the trial of any suit to be brought for the same.
III. And be if further enacted, That where any person or persons shall be possessed of any
slaves, horses or other property suspected to have gone or to have been taken from their owners,
in consequence of any invasion as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for any two justices of the peace
for the county where such persons reside, on information to them made, to cause such person or
persons to come before them, and if such suspicion shall appear to them to be well founded, after
hearing the parties, to cause such person or persons to enter into a recognizance to the governor
or chief magistrate of this commonwealth, in such sum as the said justices shall judge

713
reasonable, and with sufficient security, on condition that he or she shall not sell, dispose of or
secrete any such slave or slaves, horses or other property, for such time as the said justices shall
think proper, not exceeding one year. And when any slave or slaves shall be found wandering
about, it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace to commit such slave or slaves to the gaol of
his county, by warrant under his hand and seal, and the sheriff or gaoler is hereby required to
receive such slave or slaves, and to confine him, her or them in close gaol for three months,
unless the owner or owner of such slave or slaves shall sooner appear. And such sheriff or
gaoler shall, within three weeks after such commitment, cause such slave or slaves to be
advertised in the Virginia gazette, which advertisement shall be inserted in three successive
papers, and if no owner shall appear within the time limited for the confinement of such slave or
slaves, the sheriff or gaoler may hire out such slave or slaves for the payment of his prison fees
and the expences of advertising. And if the owner shall apply within the time aforesaid, he shall
pay the said fees and expences of advertising, and the further sum of twenty shillings for each
slave so confined and advertised as aforesaid.
IV. And it is further enacted, That the penalties by this act imposed may be recovered in
any court of record in this commonwealth, by action of debt, indictment or information, and shall
be applied, the one half thereof to the use of the commonwealth, and the other half to the use of
the informer. Provided always, That this act, so far as it respects the penalties to be incurred for
not delivering to the owner, or not publishing any such slaves, horses or other property, shall not
extend to bona fide purchasers of such slaves, horses or other property, or to such as may have
pursued the method directed by the laws now in force for taking up of strays. Provided also,
That this act shall not extend to slaves, horses or other property taken by the enemy and retaken
in action by any soldier or citizen of this state, or any of the United States, except where the
same were the capitulation or agreement to be returned to their owners.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 11:23-25.

May 1782—ACT XXI. An act to authorize the manumission of slaves
The General Assembly decided to allow slave owners to manumit their enslaved men, women,
and children. The law required a former master to be financially responsible for a slave who was
either too old or too young to support him or herself.
Ira Berlin notes that ―The spectacular increase in manumission, self-purchase, freedom
suits, flight, and immigration altered the size and character of the free black population in
the Upper South. Maryland, which was fast being transformed from a slave society into a
society with slaves, best exemplified the change. Between 1755 and 1790, the state‘s
free black population grew 300 percent to about 8,000, and in the following ten years it
more than doubled. By 1810 nearly 34,000 black Marylanders were free, giving the state
the largest free black population in the nation. The gains registered by free blacks
elsewhere in the Upper South never equaled that of Maryland, but they were substantial.
In 1782, the year Virginia legalized private manumission, St. George Tucker estimated
the presence of about 2,000 free blacks in the state. By 1790, when the first federal
census was taken, the free black population had grown to 12,000. Ten years later, it
numbered 20,000, and in another ten years it stood at over 30,000. During the twenty

714
years between 1790 and 1810, the free black population of Virginia had more than
doubled. In all, the number of free black people in the states of the Upper South grew
almost 90 percent between 1790 and 1800 and another 65 percent the following decade,
so that they made up more than 10 percent of the region‘s black population. By the end
of the first decade of the nineteenth century, there were over 108,000 free black people in
the Upper South, and better than 10 percent of the black population enjoyed freedom . . .
.
As in the North, freedom arrived burdened with the heavy weight of slavery‘s
continuing presence. New forms of dependency emerged even more quickly than the old
ones could be liquidated. In the countryside, many free blacks continued to reside with
their former masters, suffering the oversight of an owner even after they no longer were
owned. Planters appreciated the advantages of power without responsibility. They held
tight to the spouses and children of former slaves, seeing them as a lever to access the
labor of free blacks. Some planters sold or rented small plots of land to former slaves to
secure the benefit of their labor during planting and harvest. In the cities, term slavery
provided a means for owners to exact the labor of energetic young men and women and
make them responsible for themselves in old age. Much like gradual emancipation and
apprenticeship in the northern states, contingent manumission and term slavery delayed
the arrival of freedom and strengthened the masters‘ hand.
But if the continued presence of slavery burdened black people, so did freedom.
As slaves, black men and women were fully integrated into the economy and society of
the Upper South. As free people, they faced ostracism and discrimination. To the new
forms of subordination that equated free blacks with slaves, lawmakers added the new
proscriptions that distinguished free blacks from white people. Free black men were
barred from voting, sitting on juries, testifying in court, and attending the militia, and all
free blacks, women as well as men, were barred from owning dogs and guns and trading
without a permit. A pass system prevented free blacks from traveling freely and required
them to register themselves annually with county authorities. Many of these restrictions
had long existed, but the new legislation reinforced them, reminding all that freedom
would not mean equality.‖
I. WHEREAS application hath been made to this present general assembly, that those
persons who are disposed to emancipate their slaves may be empowered so to do, and the same
hath been judged expedient under certain restrictions: Be it therefore enacted, That it shall
hereafter be lawful for any person, by his or her last will and testament, or by any other
instrument in writing, under his or her hand and seal, attested and proved in the county court by
two witnesses, or acknowledged by the party in the court of the county where he or she resides,
to emancipate and set free, his or her slaves, or any of them, who shall thereupon be entirely and
fully discharged from the performance of any contract entered into during servitude, and enjoy as
full freedom as if they had been particularly named and freed by this act.
II. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That all slaves so set free, not being in the
judgment of the court, of sound mind and body, or being above the age of forty-five years, or
being males under the age of twenty-one, or females under the age of eighteen years, shall
respectively be supported and maintained by the person so liberating them, or by his or her
estate; and upon neglect or refusal so to do, the court of the county where such neglect or refusal
may be, is hereby empowered and required, upon application to them made, to order the sheriff

715
to distrain and sell so much of the person‘s estate as shall be sufficient for that purpose.
Provided also, That every person by written instrument in his life time, or if by last will and
testament, the executors of every person freeing any slave, shall cause to be delivered to him or
her, a copy of the instrument of emancipation, attested by the clerk of the court of the county,
who shall be paid therefor, by the person emancipating, five shillings, to be collected in the
manner of other clerk‘s fees. Every person neglecting or refusing to deliver to any slave by him
or her set free, such copy, shall forfeit and pay ten pounds, to be recovered with costs in any
court of record, one half thereof to the person suing for the same, and the other to the person to
whom such copy ought to have been delivered. It shall be lawful for any justice of the peace to
commit to the gaol of his county, any emancipated slave travelling out of the county of his or her
residence without a copy of the instrument of his or her emancipation, there to remain till such
copy is produced and the gaoler‘s fees paid.
III. And be it further enacted, That in case any slave so liberated shall neglect in any year
to pay all taxes and levies imposed or to be imposed by law, the court of the county shall order
the sheriff to hire out him or her for so long time as will raise the said taxes and levies. Provided
sufficient distress cannot be made upon his or her estate. Saving nevertheless to all and every
person and persons, bodies politic or corporate, and their heirs and successors, other than the
person or persons claiming under those so emancipating their slaves, all such right and title as
they or any of them could or might claim if this act had never been made.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, pp. 283-285; Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 11:3940.

May 1782—ACT XXXII. An act concerning Slaves
Legislators passed this law to prevent masters from allowing their slaves to hire themselves out
to others in their community. This statute did not keep slaves from participating in the economy.
Ira Berlin observes that ―Entering the marketplace, slaves sold items of handicraft and produce
from their gardens, along with their labor, and thereby accumulated property of their own.
Although the economy of Chesapeake slaves rarely advanced beyond the ―ground…allowed
them for gardening, and privilege given them to raise dung-hill fowls,‖ farming and handicraft
provided new outlets for the slaves‘ entrepreneurial energies. Slaveholders raised few objections
to these practices or challenged the slaves‘ right to market goods produced on his or her own
time. In fact, petitioners from the Virginia piedmont complained that many slaveholders
permitted their slaves to ―own, possess and raise stock of horses and hogs‖ and allowed them to
exercise ―all the rights of ownership in such stock.‖ Writing at the turn of the century, one
observer declared that the right to produce and market such crops was ―permitted (and greatly
confirmed by custom).‖ Indeed, some slaveholders regularly purchased produce from their
slaves. The reinvigoration of the slaves‘ economy entangled masters in endless negotiations with
their slaves, who tenaciously protected what they believed was rightfully theirs.‖
I. WHEREAS great inconveniences hath arisen from persons permitting their slaves to go
at large and hire themselves out, under a promise of paying their masters or owners a certain sum
of money in lieu of their services: For remedy whereof, Be it enacted, That if any person shall,
after the tenth day of August next, permit or suffer his or her slave to go at large and hire him or

716
herself out, it shall be lawful for any person to apprehend and carry every such slave before a
justice of the peace in the county where apprehended, and if it shall appear to the justice that
such slave comes within the purview of this act, he shall order him or her to the gaol of the
county, there to be safely kept until the next court, when, if it shall be made appear to the court
that the slave so ordered to gaol hath been permitted or suffered to hire him or herself out,
contrary to the meaning of this act, it shall be lawful for the court, and they are hereby required
to order the sheriff of the county to sell and dispose of every such slave for ready money, at the
next court held for the said county, notice being given by the sheriff at the court-house door at
least twenty days before the said sale.
II. And be if further enacted, That twenty five per centum upon the amount of the sale of
every slave made under this act, shall be applied by the court ordering such sale, towards
lessening the county levy, and the residue shall be paid by the sheriff, after deducting five per
centum for his trouble and the gaoler‘s fees, to the owner of such slave.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, p. 270; Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 11:59.

1782—The French Army Conceals Slaves in Yorktown and Williamsburg
On June 26, 1782, Governor Benjamin Harrison wrote to Count Rochambeau to request his
assistance in returning slaves to their owners.
Complaints are made every day to me of Negroes being concealed in York and
Williamsburg amongst the Troops. I am certain it must be without your knowledge and am
therefore unhappy to be again obliged to trouble you on that subject, but as their [there] is no
other way by which the unhappy sufferers in this and the Neighbouring States can recover their
property by thro your Justice your goodness will excuse the application the pretence that some
make of their being free and of their being the property of the British is without foundation and is
inculcated into them to serve the purposes of detention. However convenient their services may
be yet that rule of right that we ought to observe to each other will not suffer us to avail ourselves
unnecessary to You who have at all Times manifested the most generous and upright principle,
but they may not be amiss to those concern‘d in the detention of the Negroes.
I have to request ye favour of your Excellency to give immediate orders for the securing
all the Negroes without distinction that are amongst your Troops and for their being deliver‘d to
officers that will be appointed to receive them. Those belonging to this State will soon be
reclaim‘d and those from North and South Carolina I will make it my Business to have them sent
back; this piece of Justice will do Honor to the French Troops and will silence every clamour
that has been rais‘d on this disagreeable subject. The legion has also some Negroes with it that
were deliver‘d once to me but being press‘d and wearied out by frequent applications I order‘d
them to be return‘d there are five of them all of which belonged to South Carolina but three of
them say they are free.
The letter that Harrison penned to General Washington on July 11, 1782 indicates that he did not
receive a favorable response from Rochambeau.

717
Many of the Negroes belonging to this State and the two Carolinas are carried off by the French.
I have written on the subject till I am wearied out without being able to procure them. Some
indeed have been sent me and it appears to me that most of the Officers of distinction wish that
all that do not really belong to the Army shou‘d be returned however by one Means or other they
are detain‘d either for want of the owners having proof at hand or the negroes declaring
themselves free &c. Our People are much disturbed at this conduct and it will have a bad
effect[.] And what makes the matters worse is that the French will loose their services if ever
they get so near the Enemy as to desert to them. You saw the French Army when it came here
when You see it again You will be able to determine whether the Charge is just or not.
Source: McIlwaine, ed., Official Letters of the Governors of the State of Virginia, 3:257-258,
266.

August 15, 1782—John Blair to his sister, Mary Blair Burwell
Blair tells his sister about the losses he experienced at the hands of the British during the last
months of the Revolution. He also notes that he regained possession of some slaves who ran to
the British and that he lost others to disease.
The British too had before plundered my stocks of all sorts in a great degree; I recovered back all
the negroes I had lost except two who died with the enemy & 3 more who have I believe got off,
but many of those I recovered on the surrender of York; are since dead, of diseases they brot.
home with them, & wch. they fatally communicated to several others—My loss upon the whole
has been very great—I hope however we shall not want the necessaries of life, if we can but
[scuffle?] thro this & the next year, which will pinch us much, for want of those helps the
plantation used to afford.
Source: Blair, Banister, Braxton, Horner, and Whiting Papers, 1765-1890, Swem Library,
College of William and Mary.

1782 to 1810—Slaves For Hire in Elizabeth City County
Sarah S. Hughes analyzes the practice of slave hiring in Elizabeth City County (present day
Hampton) between 1782 and 1810. She examines the reasons that owners hired enslaved
laborers to others and the impact that hiring had on the relationships between masters and slaves.
Few of the county‘s slaves escaped being hired out. Before their childhood ended, most blacks
spent at least a year working as hired servants outside their home household, and such uprootings
continued periodically throughout their lives. This practice made slave labor available to nearly
all of the free whites. Even tenants and owners of farms as small as 25 acres or less could
employ slaves. Residents of the village of Hampton also hired domestic servants from among
the women and children on the county‘s larger farms, while the local shipyards, artisans, and
merchants rented the labor of more expensive skilled adult male slaves. Although large farms

718
were a principal source of such labor, nearly anyone who owned one or two slaves might
occasionally hire them out.
Rather than being an incidental or peripheral aspect of the slave labor market, such
arrangements were the key to the survival of slavery in the county. Hiring was a means of
adjusting a labor system initiated when tobacco was the profitable staple crop to the needs of the
smaller grain-livestock farms of the late eighteenth century. The hire of slaves introduced
flexibility in allocating workers in a diversified rural economy with low profit margins. It also
allied the large class of poor white farmers with the wealthy against the enslaved blacks, who
composed the majority of the people of the county. The result was a form of slavery different
from that associated with plantation agriculture. These differences were not simply economic,
for their impact was felt by whites and blacks alike and affected relationships between the two
groups.
Historians have long known that slaves throughout the South were often temporarily
transferred from owners to other employers by hiring. In the eighteenth century the customs
controlling the practices were already well established. The usual period of hire was fifty weeks,
beginning in early January and ending shortly before Christmas. At the outset of each new year
owners who had a surplus of slave labor met prospective hirers at the courthouses to negotiate
privately or to participate in public auctions. The hirer paid a cash rent and assumed the costs of
feeding, clothing, and housing the slaves, as well as medical expenses and slave taxes. By the
beginning of the nineteenth century the courts had defined the responsibilities of lessor and
lessee in instances of death, injury, or escape of a hired slave . . . .
During the period under consideration Elizabeth City County, now incorporated as the
city of Hampton, was a small rural district on the western shore of Chesapeake Bay. At the end
of the Revolution it had 2,450 inhabitants, of whom 1,298 were slaves; in 1810, of the county‘s
3,600 people, 1,734 were slaves. The number of free blacks was very small: eighteen in 1790
and eighty-five in 1810. Three-fourths of the population lived on farms, the remainder in the
village of Hampton. The county‘s location at the tip of a peninsula, jutting into Chesapeake Bay
and bounded on the south by the James River, gave its farmers access to the West Indies trade, to
ships provisioning for voyages, and to the markets of the growing city of Norfolk across the
roadstead. This advantageous position seems to have been the principal factor in the commercial
success of farms of remarkably small size. Sixty-two percent of the farms of Elizabeth City
County were under 100 acres, 33 percent were 101-500 acres, and only 6 percent contained more
than 500 acres. It is especially striking that 21 percent were smaller than 26 acres and 42 percent
were under 51. Despite the distribution of land into small parcels, the county was no model of a
Jeffersonian society of independent yeomen. Tenancy was widespread; by 1810 about one-third
of the land was held by absentee owners and one-half was farmed by tenants. The presence of
adult sons and daughters in farm households indicates a surplus of farm labor—yet one-half of
the population was held in slavery.
All farms of one hundred or more acres were worked by slaves. Ninety-two percent of
the farmers owning from 51 to 100 acres used slave labor, as did 76 percent of those owning 50
acres or less. Over one-half (54 percent) of the farms using no slaves were 25 acres or less. By
the time of the Revolution tobacco was no longer a crop of commercial importance in Elizabeth
City County. Cattle and corn had become the principal products on farms of all sizes. The
county had nearly four times as many cattle per hundred persons (including slaves) as did ten
counties of southeastern Pennsylvania where livestock was fattened for the Philadelphia market.
Cattle were more numerous than swine on most farms. Barreled beef and pork, along with corn,

719
were sold to the ship provisions of Hampton Roads or exported to the West Indies. Secondary
products such as lamb, butter, poultry, cider, oats, wheat and tobacco were marketed in Norfolk.
The hiring of slaves had become well-established in the county before the Revolution.
By the 1780s it was pervasive, and its continuance to 1810 is indicated by several sorts of
records. Although no contracts specifying terms of hire have been found, the common practice
of renting slaves is well documented in personal property tax lists, probate records, and papers
relating to the sale or mortgage of personal property or the manumission of slaves.
…
Flexibility was the key to the viability of slavery in Elizabeth City County, and the hire of
slaves was essential to that flexibility. The pervasive and complex system of hiring offset the
inherent rigidity of slavery in several ways. For the owner of slaves, hiring permitted a more
efficient allocation of workers of various ages, sexes, and skills. Mature male workers could be
shifted from job to job in response to market conditions, skilled men brought premium earnings
to their owners as shipyard workers and seamen. In addition, hiring helped cut the costs of
maintaining slaves, even if only room, board, and clothing could be obtained for the services of a
pregnant woman, or a nominal fee for a child‘s work. By these means the underemployment of
slaves was minimized, and profits even from the labor of children were maximized. Hiring also
provided the slaveowner with a form of insurance to protect widows or orphans. And it was in
itself very profitable.
Hiring so broadened access to slave labor that it was used even by a large part of the
propertyless tenant class. Those who hired slaves benefited in several ways. Labor was obtained
at minimal expense - without the capital investment or risk of loss from death or injury that
owning a slave incurred, and at substantially less cost than the wages of a free worker.
Counterbalancing this enormous advantage was always the possibility of being outbid or unable
to hire slaves when crop prices were highest and peak production was needed. Though in an
abstract sense the job opportunities and access to land of young white people, tenants, and small
farmers might have been greater had there been no slaves in Virginia, this was not the practical
context in which slavery was viewed. Slaves were seen as potential employees, rather than as
potential competitors. They were prevented by their legal status from competing for the small
number of places in the county as owners of farm land, as tenants, or as farm managers. Only
male slaves who were skilled workers in the maritime trades attained even limited privileges in
this system.
It must be assumed that slavery in Elizabeth City County was profitable to the whites
who, whether rich or poor, deliberately spent income to hire slaves or retained ownership in
order to hire them out. In 1810 the percentages of county households that used slave labor were
82.5 among farm owners, 65 among farm tenants, and 81 in the village of Hampton. Although
many blacks born in the county were forced to follow their owner‘s migration or live outside the
area, the institution of slavery remained secure until the Civil War. Slaves were never less than
41 percent of the total population before 1860.
How did hiring affect relationships between masters and slaves? One may reasonably
speculate that the practice minimized patriarchal control over the lives of black people and
encouraged them to take responsibility for their own welfare. Yet greater autonomy had social

720
costs for black people: Harsh exploitation of adults and children, separations from family and
friends, low standards of living, and infrequent manumissions.
Hiring was foremost among the factors that weakened ties between slaves and masters.
The discontinuity of work experience was extreme among slaves of taxpayers surveyed between
1784 and 1786, for only 39 percent of those slaves lived and worked in the same household for
three successive years. By 1810 the practice of hiring out children separately from their families
had become so widespread that about one of eight slave children that year began early in their
working lives to adapt to different masters without the buffer of their parents. Two-thirds of the
slaves lived in groups of eight to fifty on farms of over 100 acres, and in any year less than 10
percent of all slaves were living alone or with only one other slave in a free household, but
because hiring was so common, the life experience of many slaves must have encompassed both
situations. Blacks thus knew the cultural and personal autonomy of group life and also had the
familiarity with the dominant culture and class that came from the close associations of
individual service.
With a substantial number of slaves moving about among the farms, the shipyards, and
the homes of Hampton each year, there were ample opportunities for slaves to learn that working
conditions varied, that free people were paid wages for the same work, that there were many
other slaves in the county. News of the successful revolution in Haiti in 1793 spread quickly
among the slaves, and the fear of county leaders that their slaves were conspiring with
counterparts in Norfolk and on the Eastern Shore implies much about their freedom of
movement. The problem of controlling and disciplining slaves who must have gained a sense of
independence under such conditions was intensified by the fact that during most of these years
slaves composed more than one-half of the county‘s population. Most threatening were the few
slaves left behind to hire out their own time by owners who migrated from the county. Grand
jury charges against absentee owners for letting their slaves ―go at large‖ were an ineffectual
means of control. Evidently more effective were the increased slave patrols, which by the end of
the period constituted a major expense of local government. Undoubtedly the economic
dependence of both landowning and tenant farmers on slave labor was crucial to maintaining the
dominance of the white minority, for the situation left little possibility for an alliance of the poor
free people and slaves that would have been requisite to a successful revolt. But fear of slave
rebellion was constant, and the slave patrol a consequential duty and expense.
The system had other disadvantages for the slaves. As the patriarchal authority of a
master was diminished when slaves were hired out, so also was the sense of responsibility that
may have accompanied it. If hiring made slavery a more profitable institution for owners, it did
so by making blacks work harder. It also seems likely that the low profit margins of the major
county crops and the widespread distribution of slaves among owners of varying degrees of
wealth led to more systematic and earlier exploitation of children, both those hired out and those
retained on their home farms. The owner who calculated which men, women, and children were
more profitably hired out was more capitalist than patriarch.
Few material goods were furnished to slaves in return for their labor. There is no
evidence of separate slave quarters in either Hampton or the countryside. Black families with a
kitchen, a storehouse, or a shed in which to live were fortunate; the only furnishing they could
expect to receive were a mattress covering and a blanket. Scant clothing was provided. For
instance, shoes were never bought for any slave of the Mallory estate, and blankets were issued
only at four-year intervals. In this wealthy house the average cash expenditure for clothing,
pallets, and blankets per slave each year was well under one pound. No record exists of a hired

721
slave being provided with a full set of clothes in any year by owner or hirer. More usual are such
ledger entries as ―to one shirt and stockings for negro I hired, six shillings, 9 ½ pence.‖ When
the richest farmers and merchants spent so little on their slaves it is unlikely that poorer people
provided more. Sixty percent of the free farm families lived in poverty in crowded quarters that
seldom had more furnishings than the houses of their early seventeenth-century predecessors.
Periodic removal from farms of wealthy people to those of poorer families, whose standard of
living was harsh in itself and who had less to cast off or share with people even more oppressed,
must have been a hardship for some slaves. Such conditions must have been especially hard for
children already lonely and vulnerable because of their separation from family and friends.
County slaves may, by their own efforts, have made shoes, woven material for clothing,
and supplemented their diet from gardens, fishing, and hunting small game. They had little
control over gaining freedom. Manumission was rare: only thirty-four slaves were freed between
1782 and 1810. Despite the opportunities for slaves to work closely with free families and to
know them well under the intimate conditions that prevailed in the smaller households,
emancipation seldom resulted. Nor did hiring provide the means for more than a handful of
county slaves to acquire freedom by self purchase.
That hiring seldom eventuated in manumission points to differences between the rural
hire of slaves in Elizabeth City County and the better-known urban hire of southern cities. Most
of the hired slaves in the county were farm laborers. Few had the opportunities of artisans to
purchase their freedom. There was no flow of new slaves into the area that might have benefited
native acculturated blacks. The closing of the external slave trade cut off the supply of Africans
in the late eighteenth century, and the relatively stagnant agricultural economy of the county did
not pull slaves into its orbit as did growing cities or new cotton plantations. The county‘s small
number of free blacks provided no base for formation of black-controlled institutions such as the
churches of Williamsburg, Norfolk, or Charles City County.
Source: Hughes, ―Slaves for Hire,‖ pp. 260-263, 282-286.

1783—Slaves Who Served as Substitutes Gain Their Freedom
Throughout the former colonies, slaves who served as substitutes in the Continental Army gained
their freedom at the end of the war. Some owners in Virginia who had sent their slaves to the
front as substitutes sought to prevent such emancipations, but the governor and legislature
rebuffed their attempts, as Benjamin Quarles recounts below.
One indubitable fact was that many slaves became free men from taking part in the struggle for
independence. Those who joined the army upon the promise of freedom usually obtained it.
The one notable attempt to repudiate this pledge and return Negro soldiers to slavery
occurred in Virginia. Since only free men could enlist in the state forces, some masters had
entered slaves as their substitutes, passing them off to the authorities as free men and privately
promising them their freedom, but when the term of enlistment expired, they tried to repossess
their former chattels. One such incident came to public attention in the last days of the war. In
November 1782 the Virginia Council ordered five counties to furnish 3,500 men to level the
works at Yorktown. Anyone summoned to duty was permitted to ―send an able bodied [free]
Negro Man in his stead.‖ Consequently, the force contained a goodly number of Negroes.

722
When the time came for the black substitutes to be discharged, their former masters in numerous
instances tried to re-enslave them.
Governor Harrison, like many other Virginians, was indignant at this violation of
the ―common principles of justice and humanity,‖ and was determined to ―Lay the matter
before the Assembly, not doubting but they will pass an act giving to those unhappy
creatures that liberty which they have been in some measure instrumental in securing to
us.‖ Harrison quickly got what he wanted. Declaring that the slaves who enlisted had
contributed to American liberty and independence, and that their former masters were
acting ―contrary to the principles of justice, and to their own solemn promise,‖ the
legislature decreed that each slave who had served as a substitute was henceforth fully
and completely emancipated. The attorney general was charged with acting on behalf of
any former slave who was being detained in servitude.
Source: Quarles, The Negro in the American Revolution, p. 183.

October 1783—ACT III. An act directing the emancipation of certain slaves who have served as
soldiers in this state, and for the emancipation of the slave Aberdeen
Governor Benjamin Harrison secured the following legislation that guaranteed the freedom of
slaves who served as substitutes for free persons during the Revolution.
I. WHEREAS it hath been represented to the present general assembly, that during the
course of the war, many persons in this state had caused their slaves to enlist in certain regiments
or corps raised within the same, having tendered such slaves to the officers appointed to recruit
forces within the state, as substitutes for free persons, whose lot or duty it was to serve in such
regiments or corps, at the same time representing to such recruiting officers that the slaves so
enlisted by their direction and concurrence were freeman; and it appearing further to this
assembly, that on the expiration of the term of enlistment of such slaves that the former owners
have attempted again to force them to return to a state of servitude, contrary to the principles of
justice, and to their own solemn promise.
II. And whereas it appears just and reasonable that all persons enlisted as aforesaid, who
have faithfully served agreeable to the terms of their enlistment, and have thereby of course
contributed towards the establishment of American liberty and independence, should enjoy the
blessings of freedom as a reward for their toils and labours; Be it therefore enacted, That each
and every slave, who by the appointment and direction of his owner, hath enlisted in any
regiment or corps raised within this state, either on continental or state establishment, and hath
been received as a substitute for any free person whose duty or lot it was to serve in such
regiment or corps, and hath served faithfully during the term of such enlistment, or hath been
discharged from such service by some officer duly authorized to grant such discharge, shall from
after the passing of this act, be fully and COMPLETELY emancipated, and shall be held and
deemed free in as full and ample a manner as if each and every of them were specially named in
this act; and the attorney-general for the commonwealth, is hereby required to commence an
action, in forma pauperis, in behalf of any of the persons above described who shall after the
passing of this act be detained in servitude by any person whatsoever; and if upon such

723
prosecution it shall appear that the pauper is entitled to his freedom in consequence of this act, a
jury shall be empannelled to assess the damages for his detention.
III. And whereas it has been represented to this general assembly, that Aberdeen, a negro
man slave, hath laboured a number of years in the public service at the lead mines, and for his
meritorious services is entitled to freedom; Be it therefore enacted, That the said slave Aberdeen
shall be, and he is hereby emancipated and declared free in as full and ample a manner as if he
had been born free.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 11:308-309.

1783—Virginia Slaves and Free Blacks Leave New York With the British
It is often forgotten that Lord Dunmore fulfilled his promise of freedom to slaves who joined the British during the Revolution. In the
fall of 1783, approximately 3,000 African Americans from Virginia were among the men, women, and children evacuated from New
York with the British. The following list includes persons who lived in Williamsburg, Yorktown, and Jamestown before the
Revolution. Two of George Wythe‘s slaves who ran from his plantation in Elizabeth City County are also on the list.

NAME
Daniel Barber
Isaac
Peter Prentis
John Gray
John Jones
Thomas Plumb
Charlotte Plumb
Jupiter King
George Weeks
Jack
Sally Dennis
John
Dick Richard
John Gustus
Samuel Tompkin
Lewis Kirby
Jacob Adams
Mary Tompkins
Hannah Jackson
Hannah Jackson
Nancy Moody
Daniel Archer
Nancy Dixon &

AGE
70
21
32
28
40
42
13
24
25
15
20
19mon
30
19
23
29
26
23
12
33
14
32
30

RESIDENCE
Yorktown
Williamsburg
Williamsburg
Williamsburg
Williamsburg
Yorktown
Yorktown
Williamsburg
Elizabeth City
King‘s Creek
Williamsburg

OWNER
James Moore
John Henderson
John Southern
Howard Harrand
Richard Jones

Yorktown
Williamsburg
Yorktown
Yorktown
Yorktown
Yorktown
Williamsburg
Williamsburg
Williamsburg
Yorktown
Williamsburg

Peter Willis
John Tazewell
Richard Tompkin
John Kirby

Colonel King
George Wythe
Captain Pearson
Lewis Burwell

Captain Tompkins
William Holt
William Holt
Henry Moody
Thomas Archer
John Dixon

WHEN RAN
Freed by A. Moore 20 years ago
Brought off by parents 5 yrs ago by Proclamation
3 years ago
Put in army by master – deserted
Left with Dunmore in 1776
Born Free
Daughter and Property of Thomas Plumb
3 years ago
4 years ago
Brought away 2 years ago by Capt. Kid, N.Y.
2 years ago
Sally‘s son – Born within British lines
5 years ago
4 years ago
7 years ago
3 years ago
Born Free – Left 6 years ago
7 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
5 years ago
4 years ago
3 years ago

SHIP
Aurora
London
Esther
Blacket
Elizabeth
Mary
Mary
Delight
Greg
Little Dale
L‘Abondance
L‘Abondance
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
Clinton
L‘Abondance
L‘Abondance
L‘Abondance
L‘Abondance
Nautilus

725
Daughter
Simon Johnson
Joe Freeman
Sarah
Roger Scott
James Rea
Robert Holt
Peggy Minton
Catherine Scott
James Wythe
Sally Stewart
Robert Bowland

6
16
35
42
57
24
24
42
40
24
26
35

Williamsburg
Williamsburg
Yorktown
Williamsburg
Williamsburg
Williamsburg
Williamsburg
Williamsburg
Williamsburg
Hampton
Williamsburg
Jamestown

John Dixon
John Cooper
Joseph Freeman
Lord Dunmore
Lord Dunmore
George Wilk
William Holt
William Black
Lord Dunmore
George Wythe
John Tazewell
Edward C. Travis

3 years ago
Joined the army in 1781
4 years ago
Left him in 1776
Claimed freed by Dunmore
1779
1779
1779
?
1779
7 ½ years ago
About 3 ½ years ago

Nautilus
Elizabeth
Cato
Lehigh
Elijah
Elijah
Elijah
Elijah
Elijah
Joseph
Danger
L‘Abondance

Source: Hodges, ed., The Black Loyalist Directory, pp. 5, 18, 28, 32, 41, 43, 45, 50, 59, 86, 89, 92, 93, 96, 97, 99, 109, 111, 117, 125,
134, 162, 167, 170, 171, 173, 178, 201, 208.

726
Part III—Virginia Questions Slavery in the Years After the Revolution

In the following selections from his book Many Thousands Gone Ira Berlin examines the
changes that took in Virginia during the Revolution. Virginia‘s slave population
increased between 1776 and 1781 as did the number of people who owned enslaved
laborers. The growth in the slave population made it possible for some Virginians to
oppose the slave trade since they did not need to add to their labor force. Several planters
profited from the sale of enslaved men, women, and children to residents of the Lower
South. Other slaveholders—including members of the Burwell family—moved their
laborers to plantations in the Shenandoah Valley, Kentucky, Tennessee, and the
Mississippi Valley.
In addition, there were economic changes in Virginia after the end of the war. Mixed
farming—grains, vegetables, and other produce—replaced the focus on tobacco
cultivation. Slaves performed a variety of new tasks to produce a greater number of
crops. Planters (and their overseers) introduced new management techniques to increase
the production and profit of their plantations. From the perspective of the slaves, these
techniques required them to work longer and harder. As a result, enslaved laborers
created new forms of resistance to the demands placed upon them.
More significantly, over the course of the war the number of slaves in the
Upper South increased by natural means. In Maryland the slave population
inched up from 80,000 at the beginning of the war to 83,000 in 1783, as did
Virginia‘s—from about 210,000 at the commencement of the war to 236,000 at its
end. Despite all of the wartime turbulence that increased mortality and allowed
some slaves to escape, the Chesapeake‘s slave population continued to increase at
an annual rate of about 2 percent. In the last quarter of the century, the slave
population of the Chesapeake had nearly doubled. As more children were born to
slaves on plantations and as some states, following the North, banned importation,
the Chesapeake became a net exporter of slaves.
The steady expansion of the slave population in the Upper South during
the wartime years allowed many nonslaveholders to enter the slaveholders‘ ranks.
Between 1782 and 1790 the proportion of property-holders owning slaves
increased from 47 to 60 percent in Charles County, Maryland, and it followed a
similar path in other rural jurisdictions, so that two-thirds of white householders
held slaves. But the greatest growth in slaveholding came not among new entries
to the owning class but among the grandees, whose expanding holdings swelled
the population of the great plantation towns. On many estates, the number of
slaves soon exceeded the number of workers needed. George Washington spoke
for his class when he observed that it was ―demonstratively clear that…I have
more working Negros by a full moiety, than can be employed to any advantage in
the farming system.
Enjoying a surfeit of bound labor, Chesapeake planters became the great
opponents of the African trade, smugly condemning both Lower South planters
who were eager to repopulate their plantations after the disruptions of the war and

727
the northern merchants who were equally eager to supply them. In condemning
the international slave trade while embracing the interstate trade, Upper South
planters could lament slavery as an evil that had been foisted upon them by their
former British overlords while reaffirming their commitment to chattel bondage.
Indeed, the internal slave trade proved to be a source of enormous profit,
what one Maryland newspaper called ―an almost universal resource to raise
money.‖ Planters not only collected quick cash from the sale of ―excess‖ slaves,
much of which was promptly invested in the region‘s expanding industrial
economy, but it also provided them an opportunity to reconfigure their labor force
in ways that improved productivity. Edward Lloyd, the largest slaveowner on
Maryland‘s eastern shore, regularly sold a portion of his holdings—generally
teenaged children—to keep his plantation workforce at what he believed to be the
appropriate level. The practice was adopted by many others, as even the most
conscientious masters found it necessary to reduce the size of their holdings
periodically. Smaller planters followed suit, although some of them migrated
with their slaves to seek new opportunities in the West. Yet others migrated
cityward.
The migration to the Virginia piedmont, begun before the war, continued
in its aftermath, But the Blue Ridge could not contain the ambitions of
Chesapeake planters and farmers, who spilled into the Great Valley of the
Shenandoah and up to the edge of the Alleghenies. Before long they had vaulted
into Kentucky and Tennessee, and some were headed down the Mississippi with
slaves in tow. By century‘s end, slaves whose ancestors had worked the tobacco
fields of the Chesapeake for a hundred years or more were growing hemp in
Kentucky and Tennessee, cotton in the Lower South, and sugar in the lower
Mississippi Valley. In 1790 Kentucky counted 13,000 slaves, almost all of them
from the Chesapeake region. Ten years later the total was nearly 40,000. Other
slaves could be found in Tennessee, Missouri, and Louisiana. The exodus
accelerated in the first decade of the nineteenth century. In all, an estimated
115,000 slaves left the tidewater region between 1780 and 1810. The longdistance migrations from the tidewater to the piedmont and from the seaboard
states to Kentucky and Tennessee created havoc as thousands of slave families
were dismembered and communities set adrift.
…
Yet wartime changes continued to resonate on the region‘s plantations and
farms. The Upper South‘s economy never returned to the pre-revolutionary
preoccupation with tobacco production; and with the advent of European war in
the 1790s and the subsequent collapse of tobacco prices due to the loss of the
French market, mixed farming—corn, wheat, dairying, and in some cases
vegetables and other produce—permanently unseated tobacco monoculture.
During the final decade of the eighteenth century, tobacco—for the first time—
made up less than half of Maryland‘s exports. A similar pattern could be found in
nearby portions of Virginia. Even in the region‘s richest tobacco areas, farmers
raised corn, small grains, livestock, and vegetables. In some parts of the Upper

728
South, little tobacco was grown. Although the transition was nowhere easy,
agricultural changes a half century in the making relentlessly transformed the
nature of the slaves‘ work, life, and life chances in the Upper South.
…
Slaves moved with relative ease from single-minded cultivation of tobacco
to the complex multifaceted division of labor of the new mixed economy. On the
plantations and farms, they sowed, mowed, plowed, broke flax, pressed cider,
sheared sheep, and did dozens of other chores. Off the estates, they drove
wagons, sailed boats, serviced inns and taverns, and labored in a variety of
nonagricultural enterprises, increasing the proportion of slaves employed in
manufacturing. Planters established flour mills and invested profits derived from
cereal cultivation into ironworks and other enterprises. As millers, blacksmith,
machinists, and coopers, some slaves became highly skilled craftsmen. Yet, if
there were many specialties in the new economy, there were few specialists
among the slaves. Most slaves moved from job to job over the course of the year
to meet the demands of an increasingly diverse and complex economy.
…
As they adjusted their labor force, slaveholders also tried to reclaim
prerogatives that had been lost during the tumult of war. Styling themselves
―improving farmers,‖ planters introduced new managerial techniques to
rationalize production and increase the profitability of their estates—all in the
name of the genius of the new enlightened age. From the slaves‘ perspective,
such enlightened agriculture doubtless looked like much of the same, and
―improvement‖ was the master‘s euphemism for their slaves‘ working harder and
longer. According to a historian of the Chesapeake‘s agriculture, planters ―scaled
up to the old prewar standard.‖ At Mount Vernon, Washington set a pace that left
slaves little time but to work, ordering his overseers to have his slaves ―at their
work as soon as it is light – work ‗till it is dark – and be diligent while they are at
it…The presumption,‖ he emphasized, ―being, that, every Labourer (male or
female) does as much in the 24 hours as their strength, without endangering their
health, or constitution, will allow of.‖ While Washington disdained the lash and
offered a variety of incentives to encourage his slaves to meet his imposing
standard of industry, he also implemented a system of close supervision. ―If the
Negroes will not do their duty by fair means, they must be compelled to do it,‖
declared the leader of the new republic.
Slaves resisted this intensification of labor under the new order as they had
resisted it under the old, frustrating and infuriating those who had been charged with
implementing the new regimen. If masters like Washington contrived to speed the pace
of work, slaves conspired to maintain what they had come to understand as the traditional
stint. More than one overseer felt like James Eagle, who supervised slaves on a
Maryland plantation, when he complained that the slaves under his direction ―Get much
more Dissatisfied Every year & troublesome for they say that they ought all to be at there

729
liberty & they think that I am the Cause that they are not.‖ Eventually, Eagle quit,
muttering about being unable to ―Conduct my business as I ought to do.‖
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, pp. 264-269.

1784 and 1785—Proslavery Petitions
In 1784 and 1785, eight Virginia counties (Amelia, Brunswick, Halifax, Hanover,
Henrico, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, and Pittsylvania) submitted proslavery petitions to
the General Assembly in response to the 1782 private manumission act and increasing
agitation by the state's Methodists in favor of general emancipation. Although
manumission remained infrequent, the number of free blacks in Virginia had doubled
between 1782 and 1784. And, in the summer and fall of 1785, Virginia Methodists
circulated petitions in support of emancipation, which they then submitted to the
legislature.
The proslavery petitions, which are housed in the Library of Virginia, consist of five
separate texts, two of which were presented by more than one county. The similarities
between them suggest that the counties collaborated or at least shared information with
each other. The petitioners made use of Revolutionary rhetoric to stress the inviolability
of property rights. They also invoked scripture in defense of slavery and presented free
blacks as a dangerous element in society. The petition submitted by Amelia,
Mecklenburg, and Pittsylvania Counties is given here.
To the honourable the General Assembly of Virginia, the Remonstrance and
Petition of the Inhabitants of Amelia County.
Gentlemen,
When the British Parliament usurped a Right to dispose of our Property without
our Consent, we dissolved the Union with our Parent Country, and established a
Constitution and Form of Government of our own, that our Property might be secure, in
Future. In Order to effect this we risked our Lives and Fortunes, and waded through Seas
of Blood. By the favourable Interposition of Providence our Attempt was crowned with
Success. We were put in Possession of our Rights of Liberty and Property: And these
Rights as well secured, as they can be by an human Constitution or Form of Government.
But notwithstanding this, we understand a very subtle and daring Attempt is made to
dispossess us of a very important Part of our Property. An Attempt set on Foot, we are
informed, by the Enemies of our Country, Tools of the British Administration, and
supported by certain Men among us of considerable Weight, to WREST FROM US OUR
SLAVES, by an Act of the Legislature for a general Emancipation of them. An Attempt
unsupported by Scripture or sound Policy.
It is unsupported by Scripture. For we find that under the Old Testament
Dispensation, Slavery was permitted by the Deity himself. Thus, Leviticus Ch. 25, Ver.
44, 45, 46. "Both thy Bond Men and Bond Maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the
Heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy Bond Men and Bond Maids.

730
Moreover, of the Children of the Strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye
buy, and of their Families that are with you, which they begat in your Inheritance, for
your Children after you, to inherit them for a Possession; they shall be your Bond-men
forever." This Permission to buy and inherit Bond-men and Bond-maids, we have
Reason to conclude, continued through all the Revolutions of the Jewish Government,
down to the Advent of our Lord. And we do not find, that either he or his Apostles
abridged it. The Freedom promised to his Followers, is a Freedom from the Bondage of
Sin and Satan, and from the Dominion of Mens Lusts and Passions; but as to their
Outward Condition, whatever that was before they embraced the Religion of Jesus,
whether Bond or Free, it remained the same afterwards. This St. Paul expressly asserts I
Cor. Chap. 7. Ver. 20. where he is speaking directly to this very Point, ―Let every Man
abide in the same Calling, wherein he is called‖; and Ver. 24. ―Let every Man wherein
he is called, therein abide with God.‖ Thus it is evident the said Attempt is unsupported
by Scripture.
It is also exceedingly impolitic. For it involves in it, and is productive of Want,
Poverty, Distress, and Ruin to the Free Citizen; Neglect, Famine and Death to the black
Infant and superannuated Parent; The Horrors of all the Rapes, Murders, and Outrages,
which a vast Multitude of unprincipled, unpropertied, revengeful, and remorseless
Banditti are capable of perpetrating; inevitable Bankruptcy to the Revenue, and
consequently Breach of public Faith, and Loss of Credit with foreign Nations; and, lastly,
sure and final Ruin to this now flourishing free and happy Country.
We therefore, your Petitioners and Remonstrants, do solemnly adjure and humbly
pray you that you will discountenance and utterly reject every Motion and Proposal for
emancipating our Slaves; that as the Act lately made, empowering the Owners of Slaves
to liberate them, hath produced, and is still productive of, very bad Effects, you will
immediately and totally repeal it; and that as many of the Slaves, liberated by this Act,
have been guilty of Thefts and Outrages, Insolences and Violences, destructive to the
Peace, Safety, and Happiness of Society, you will make effectual Provision for the due
Government of them.
And your Petitioners shall ever pray, etc., etc.
[Amelia County, November 10, 1785, with 22 signatures. Also submitted by
Mecklenburg County, November 8, 1785, with 223 signatures, and by Pittsylvania
County, November 10, 1785, with 54 signatures.]
Source: Schmidt and Wilhelm, eds., ―Early Proslavery Petitions in Virginia,‖ pp. 133146.

November 21, 1784—Lafayette Asks that the Slave James be Rewarded for his Service
as a Spy
During the Revolutionary War, a slave named James distinguished himself as a spy for
Marie Joseph, Marquis de Lafayette, who served the American cause as a major-general.
Because of his daring forays into British camps, James became known as James Lafayette
after the war. He successfully petitioned the legislature for his freedom on November 30,

731
1786. In 1819, he applied for a pension from the state of Virginia, which granted him a
one-time payment of sixty dollars for relief and an annual pension of forty dollars. Five
years later, James met with Lafayette during the latter‘s famous tour of the United States.
At that time James owned forty acres of land in New Kent County.
Lafayette had became strongly antislavery after the Revolutionary War. In 1783, he
unsuccessfully sought to enlist George Washington in a plan to settle former slaves on an
estate as free laborers. He freed his own slaves and bought them a plantation in the
French colony of Cayenne. He joined the Society for the Friends of the Blacks in 1788.
Lafayette wrote the letter below while in Richmond in 1784, no doubt to assist James in
his quest to be emancipated in return for his service in the war.
This is to Certify that the Bearer By the Name of James Has done Essential
Services to me While I Had the Honour to Command in this State His Intelligence from
the Enemy‘s Camps Were Industriously Collected and Most faithfully delivered He
perfectly Acquitted Himself With Some Important Commissions I gave Him and Appears
to Me Entitled to Every Reward his Situation Can Admit of. done Under My Hand,
Richmond November 21st 1784
Lafayette
Source: Lafayette, Letter, in Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 39 (April
1931): between pp. 106-107.

1785—Observations on Slavery Addressed to the Citizens of Virginia
In his address, Juvenis (the pseudonym of an unidentified author) sought to demonstrate
that the principles which underlay the American republic were incompatible with chattel
slavery. He urged Americans to follow the laws of nature, which gave all men the right
to liberty, rather than the laws of civil society, which dictated that some men could be
enslaved. By comparing the situation of slaves in relation to free men to that of the
colonists in relation to Great Britain before the Revolution, he pointed out that the
oppression experienced by slaves was much worse than anything the colonists had ever
suffered. He chastised legislators in particular for violating the precept that liberty was
an inherent right. Finally, he called for the abolition of slavery, so that liberty would
reign in the United States and that those who had died in the Revolution would not have
died in vain. There is no information about where Juvenis delivered his address; his text
was published in New York City.
THE Slavery of the unfortunate Africans ... is a practice of the most shameful and
inhuman nature, and demands the attention of every citizen who would wish to be
esteemed either virtuous or honest; for honesty does not always consist in a strict
adherence to the laws, which are frequently defective in their nature, and in many
instances give sanction to the most fraudulent dealings. In order to avoid error, and the
commission of injustice, we need only to consult our own bosoms; where the virtuous

732
and honest man will meet with an approbation of his conduct; and the vicious and
dishonest man, although patronized and protected by the laws, will meet with
reprehension, for his dishonesty and baseness. It is to this tribunal, and not to that of the
laws, that I wish to submit the propriety of the practice at present in debate. For although
by the laws of our country we may be licensed in the enslaving of the Negroes, and in
treating them in what manner we please, nevertheless, as those laws are of our own
creation, and may consequently be replete with error and injustice, it becomes those who
are the authors thereof, to inspect into the nature of them, and to abrogate whatever part
of them may be improper, or inconsistent with those superior laws of nature; on which all
laws, if either rightful or just, must indubitably be founded.
THAT all men have naturally a right to Liberty, and that to deprive them of it, is
the most arbitrary and unauthorized extension of power (even if there were no other laws
in existence which respected it, and if our own reason did not very evidently point it out
to us) must most manifestly appear from the repeated declarations of our Congress, and
the Constitutions of the different States; all of which, in the most positive manner assert,
that all men are possessed of certain natural, inherent rights, of which they cannot be
divested, but by the most arbitrary and unjustifiable measures.
IT is an invariable and an undoubted maxim, that wherever there is a right
existing on the one part, there must necessarily be an obligation on the other; that is, if
the Negroes are rightfully entitled to their liberty, there is a consequent obligation on us,
not to injure or molest them in the peaceable enjoyment of it, since it would be the height
of absurdity to suppose that they could possess a just and unalienable title to their
freedom, and that we could at the same time be possessed of an equal right of depriving
them of it.
THE only question therefore which can arise on a mature consideration of the
subject, is in my opinion this, Are the Negroes men? For if they be men, and if all men
have a right to liberty, as is universally acknowledged, and as you also most particularly
assert, they must indubitably, as men, be entitled to a participation of that right; and you,
consequently, nor no other nation in the world, can rightfully deprive them of it.
UNDER what pretext then do we retain them; or rather, with what justice did we
at first reduce them from a state of liberty, to that of the most abject servitude? For since
we cannot possibly discover in the laws of nature, which are the basis of all rightful laws,
any rightful power which we can have, to exercise the smallest degree of authority over
the Africans, more than over any other nation in the world, those persons who can
persuade themselves that the enslaving them is not one of the most unwarrantable and
inhuman practices that ever characterized the people of any country, or time, must either
be entirely devested of every sentiment of humanity,—or must be so extremely ignorant
as to suppose that the Creator of the universe made a discrimination between the White
People and the Negroes, with respect to their privileges, and that he gave the preeminence
to the White People; to whom it became the Negroes, either on account of their
unbecoming colour, or as M. Montescue very ironically observes, of their short and curly
hair, to be obedient and submissive;—a supposition which however ridiculous it may be,
is nevertheless not more so than many others which are used by the proprietors of
Negroes, in vindication of their conduct.
...

733

IF we would but consider for a moment, the origin of the contest between GreatBritain and ourselves, and would but condescend to compare their situation with respect
to us, to our then situation with respect to what was at that time called the Mother
Country, we shall be able to discover the injustice of our conduct towards the Africans, in
a plainer and more conspicuous light. What, in the first place, was the cause which
induced us into that war?—a war, which although justifiable, was as cruel and unnatural
as that between a parent and a child. Was it not the apprehension which we entertained,
of a disposition in the Mother Country to incroach upon our natural Liberties, and to
divest us of those privileges to which all mankind are entitled, and which we considered
our birth-right? We were not in a situation similar to that of the Negroes, nor could we
apprehend that the British crown ever had it in contemplation to reduce us to such an one;
yet notwithstanding, possest of a just and lively sense of our rights, we contemned the
idea of being subject to the insolence and caprice of a Parliament; and were led on to
break every tye of relationship, of friendship and affection, rather than to suffer tamely,
what we considered as an unwarrantable exercise of power. But how much more
deplorable than ours could have been, must be the situation of the Negroes in our
country. They do not enjoy any of those privileges which we esteemed so essential to our
existence, as to hazard our lives in order to obtain them. In point of liberty, they are by
no means to be considered as superior to the Brutes in our fields, and are inferior to those
who range the forests, and partake of nature‘s gifts. The world has at all times afforded
us examples of licentiousness and vice; but if we can reflect on all these circumstances
which respect our fellow creatures, without commiserating their fate, or making a single
effort, in order to relieve them of it, we may assure ourselves that the history of our time
will equal that of our most barbarous predecessors, in the number of examples which it
will furnish both of licentiousness and depravity.
THE United States of America, have, by one of the most vigorous exertions that
ever adorned the page of ancient or of modern history, established to themselves that
Liberty and Independence which they so ardently desired; and to which, as men, they
conceived they had a claim.—Their Legislators are the guardians of that Liberty; but how
inconsistently with the sacred nature of their trust, and the dignity of their station, do they
conduct themselves! Whilst with one hand they are vigorously supporting the standard of
Liberty, they are exercising with the other, the rod of Slavery and Despotism;—whilst
engaged in preserving their constitutions from violation or infraction, they violate one of
its most essential articles, and subvert the very basis on which it is constructed. By their
constitutions it is declared, that Liberty is inherently the property of all; and nevertheless,
in open violation of that principle, (to which one would suppose they are not only bound
by every tye of justice, but also of honor, to comply) they deprive more than two-thirds of
their inhabitants of their freedom, without being able to assign a single reason for which
they do it, or offering a single argument in vindication of the measure.
...
CONSIDERING every circumstance therefore which relates both to policy and
right, we are bound by the duty which we owe to humanity and ourselves, to adopt the
most immediate and effectual mode of abolishing a practice, in its nature so tyrannical,

734
and so unworthy of mankind.—Let Liberty, of whom we have so rapturously spoken, and
in whose cause we have so obstinately fought, preside universally over our country, and
be the directress of our steps.—Let that patriotic spirit, of which we so greatly boast,
display itself in our conduct in the present instance; and then, and not till then, shall we
be a virtuous and an honest people.—Let our conduct be always uniformly just as well
towards our own citizens, as towards those of other nations.—Let this rising country be
forever an example of virtuous patriotism and unblemished faith.—Expel from its shores
the advocates of despotism and cruelty; and as we have obtained our Liberty, so let us
watch over and protect it.
WHEN nations or individuals, act inconsistently with those principles by which
they have professed themselves to be led and actuated, they render themselves
contemptible in the eyes of all who are spectators of their conduct; and destroy all the
confidence and faith which might have been previously reposed in them.
AFTER the effusion of so much blood in the defence of our rights (which we did
not consider as peculiarly belonging to ourselves, but as the unalienable property of all
mankind) let us evince to the world that our sentiments are equally noble with our
declarations; that we are in reality guided by that love of Liberty which induced us into
the field of battle, and that hatred of usurpation with which our minds have apparently
been fraught.
THE memory of those who have fallen in our cause, who have bled in the support
of our honor and our rights, requires that we should be vigilant of what we have obtained,
so that they may not have bled for us in vain; that a remembrance of the ransom which
they have given for our Liberty, may not be effaced from our minds; but that its benefits
may be equally imparted to all our countrymen, and impartially diffused throughout all
the States.
THE subject is plain, and I should conceive that it would be to doubt both your
understanding and humanity, to expatiate longer on it, or to offer more arguments, in
order to prove what in its nature is self-evident and simple. What I have laid down for
your perusal, has been dictated by the highest zeal for your prosperity and welfare.—It
has been dictated by those principles of humanity which I shall always esteem it as the
greatest Happiness to possess; and although it should be of no effect, and should pass
away entirely disregarded, I shall console myself with this agreeable reflection.—―That
my motives were commendable and good.‖ On the contrary, should it contribute in the
least to call up your consideration on the subject, which is all I conceive to be necessary
to the acquiring so desirable an end, I shall deem myself inimitably happy and
sufficiently rewarded, in the abolition of a practice which involves consequences of so
important a nature to the inhabitants of this Continent.
JUVENIS.
Source: Juvenis, Observations on the Slavery of the Negroes, pp. 6-9, 14-17, 20-23.

October 1785—ACT LXI. An act concerning wills; the distribution of intestates estates;
and the duty of executors and administrators

735
This statute prohibited a widow who held a dower right to slaves from her husband‘s
estate from moving the enslaved persons out of Virginia. In addition, a legatee could not
gain possession of a slave who worked in the fields between March 1st and December
31st so that the decedent‘s slave could tend and harvest the crops.
XXII. And that if any widow possessed of a slave or slaves as of the dower of her
husband, shall remove, or voluntarily permit to be removed out of this commonwealth,
such slave or slaves, or any of their increase, without the consent of him or her in
reversion, such widow shall forfeit all and every such slave or slaves, and all other the
dower which she holds of the endowment of her husband‘s estate, unto the person or
persons that shall have the reversion thereof; any law, custom, or usage to the contrary,
notwithstanding.
XXIII. And if any widow possessed as aforesaid, shall be married to a husband
who shall remove, or voluntarily permit to be removed of this commonwealth, any such
slave or slaves, or any of their increase, without the consent of him or her in reversion; in
such case it shall be lawful for him or her in reversion to enter into, possess, and enjoy all
the estate which such husband holdeth in right of his wife‘s dower for and during the life
of the said husband.
XXXIX. If such perishing goods be not sufficient for paying the debts and
expences, the executor or administrator shall proceed in the next place to sell the other
personal estate, disposing of the slaves last, until the debts and expences be all paid,
having regard to the privilege of specific legacies.
XLIII. If any person shall die after the first day of March, the servants and slaves
of which he was possessed, whether held for life or for other interest, and which were
employed in making a crop, shall be continued on the plantations in the occupation of the
decedent, until the last day of December following, and then delivered to those who shall
have a right to demand the same, and their crops shall be assets in the hands of the
executors and administrators, subject to debts, legacies, and distribution; the levies and
taxes, their tools, the expence of feeding them and their families to that time, and
delivering them well clothed, being first deducted. And if such servants of slaves be held
by the testator or intestate for his life only, in that case the executor or administrator shall
be obliged to deliver to those who are entitled in remainder or reversion, three barrels of
Indian corn for every such servant or slave, old and young, to be allowed in their
accounts of administration.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 12:145, 150-151.

October 1785—ACT LXXVII. An act concerning slaves
The members of the General Assembly continued the practice of the colonial legislators
when they passed a statute that contained legal restrictions on slaves.

736
I. BE it enacted by the General Assembly, That no person shall henceforth be
slaves within this commonwealth, except such as were so on the first day of this present
session of assembly, and the descendants of the females of them. Slaves which shall
hereafter be brought into this commonwealth, and kept therein one whole year together,
or so long at different times as shall amount to one year, shall be free.
II. No negro or mulatto shall be a witness, except in pleas of the commonwealth
against negroes or mulattoes, or in civil pleas wherein negroes or mulattoes alone shall be
parties.
III. No slave shall go from the tenements of his master or other person with whom
he lives, without a pass, or some letter or token whereby it may appear that he is
proceeding by authority from his master, employer, or overseer: If he does, it shall be
lawful for any person to apprehend and carry him before a justice of the peace, to be by
his order punished with stripes or not, in his discretion.
IV. No slave shall keep any arms whatever, nor pass unless with written orders
from his master or employer, or in his company with arms, from one place to another.
Arms in possession of a slave contrary to this prohibition, shall be forfeited to him who
will seize them. Riots, routs, unlawful assemblies, trespasses, and seditious speeches, by
a slave or slaves, shall be punished with stripes, at the discretion of a justice of the peace,
and he who will may apprehend and carry him, her, or them, before such justice.
V. Provided, That nothing in this act contained, shall be construed to extend to
those who may incline to remove from any of the United States and become citizens of
this; if within ten days after such removal he or she shall take the following oath before
some justice of the peace of this commonwealth: ―I A. B. do swear that my removal into
the state of Virginia, was with no intent of evading the laws for preventing the further
importation of slaves, nor have I brought with me any slaves with an intention of selling
them, nor have any of the slaves which I have brought with me been imported from
Africa, or any of the West India islands, since the first day of November, 1778. So help
me God.‖ Nor to any persons claiming slaves by descent, marriage, or devise; or to any
citizens of this commonwealth, being now the actual owners of slaves within any of the
United States and removing such hither; nor to travellers and others making a transient
stay, and bringing slaves for necessary attendance, and carrying them out again.
VI. And be it further enacted, That no person whatsoever shall buy, sell, or
receive of, to or from a slave, any commodity whatsoever without the leave or consent of
the master, owner, or overseer of such slave. And if any person shall presume to deal
with any slave without such leave or consent, he or she so offending, shall forfeit and pay
to the master or owner of such slave four times the value of the thing so bought, sold, or
received, to be recovered with costs, by action upon the case, in any court of record
within this commonwealth; and shall also forfeit and pay the further sum of five pounds,
to any person who will sue for the same, to be recovered with costs, by summons and
petition, in the same manner as other debts not exceeding five pounds, nor under twentyfive shillings are, or receive on his or her bare back thirty-nine lashes well laid on at the
public whipping-post, but shall nevertheless be liable to pay the costs of such summons
and petition.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 12:182-183; see also CHAP. 11—An ACT
further to amend the act, entitled, ―An act to reduce into one the several acts concerning

737
slaves, free negroes and mulattoes,‖ in Shepherd, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:123-124
and CHAP. 3—An ACT to amend the several laws concerning slavery, in ibid., 3:251253.

October 1785—ACT LXXVIII. An act declaring what persons shall be deemed
mulattoes
This definition of who was a mulatto differed from that included in the October 1705
statute entitled An act declaring who shall not bear office in this country. The 1705 law
defined a mulatto as someone who was a child, a grandchild, or a great-grandchild of a
negro or as the child of an Indian.
I. BE it enacted by the General Assembly, That every person of whose
grandfathers or grandmothers any one is, or shall have been a negro, although all his
other progenitors, except that descending from the negro, shall have been white persons,
shall be deemed a mulatto; and so every person who shall have one-fourth part or more of
negro blood, shall, in like manner, be deemed a mulatto.
II. This act shall commence and be in force from and after the first day of January,
one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 12:184.

1785—Virginia Abolitionist Leader Robert Pleasants Urges George Washington to Free
His Slaves
Robert Pleasants (1722-1801), a Quaker who lived in Henrico County, emancipated his
eighty slaves under Virginia‘s 1782 manumission law. During the Revolution, he had
begun establishing some of them on land of their own. A leader of the abolition
movement in Virginia, he believed that both slaves and freedmen should be educated. In
the following letter, he urges George Washington to apply the principle of liberty he had
fought for on the battlefield to his private life by freeing his slaves. He hopes to convince
Washington to translate his great military and political success into moral influence on
the issue of slavery. Pleasants also sent Washington John Dickinson‘s ―Sentiments on
What Is Freedom, and What Is Slavery, by a Farmer,‖ which appeared in Illuminations
for Legislators, and for Sentimentalists (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1784).
Honour‘d General.

Curles 12th mo. 11th 1785

Seeing the Lord has done great things for thee, not only in ―covering thy head in
the day of Battle,‖ but making thee instrumental in brining about an extraordinary
Revolution (a revolution which has given thee great reputation among men, and Calls for
reverent thankfulness to him, who ―Rules in the Kingdoms of men,‖ and declared by his
Prophet that, ―he will not give his Glory to another, or his praise to graven Images,‖) a
strong desire attends my mind, that thou may not in any respect Sully in thy private

738
retirement, the honours thou hast acquired in the Field. Remember the cause for which
thou wert call‘d to the Command of the American Army, was the cause of Liberty and
the Rights of Mankind: How strange then must it appear to impartial thinking men, to be
informed, that many who were warm advocates for that noble cause during the War, are
now siting down in a state of ease, dissipation and extravagance on the labour of Slaves?
And more especially that thou, who could forego all the Sweets of domestic felicity for a
number of years, & expose thy person to the greatest fatigue & dangers in that cause,
should now withhold that enestimable blessing from any who are absolutely in thy power,
& after the Right of freedom, is acknowledg‘d to be the natural & unalienable Right of all
mankind.
I cannot suppose from the uncommon generosity of thy conduct in other respects,
that this can proceed altogether from interested motives; but rather, that it is the effect of
long custom, the prejudices of education towards a black skin, or that some other
important concerns may have hitherto diverted thy attention from a Subject so Noble and
interesting, as well to thy own Peace & reputation, as the general good of that People, and
the community at large. But whatever may have been the Cause, I sincerely wish thou
may not longer delay a matter of such importance. It is a Sacrifise which I fully believe
the Lord is requiring of this Generation; and should we not submit to it, Is there not
reason to fear, he will deal with us as he did with Pharaoh on a similar occasion? For as
he is declared to be, ―no respecter of persons,‖ how can we expect to do such Violence to
human Nature in this enlighten‘d age with impunity? We Read, ―where much is given,
the more will be requird[‖] and as thou hast acquired much fame, in being the Successful
Champion of American Liberty; It seems highly probably to me, that thy example &
influence at this time, towards a general emancipation, would be as productive of real
happiness to mankind, as thy Sword may have been: I can but wish therefore, that thou
may not loose the opertunity of Crowning the great Actions of thy Life, with the
sattisfaction of ―doing to Others as thou would (in the like Situation) be done by,‖ and
finally transmit to the ages a Character, equally famous for thy Christian Virtues, as thy
worldly achievements: For notwithstanding thou art now receiving the tribute of praise
from a grateful people, the time is coming when all actions will be weighed in an equal
ballance, and undergo an impartial examination; how inconsistant then will it appear to
posterity, should it be recorded, that the Great General Washington, without fee or
reward, had commanded the united forces of America, and at the expence of much Blood
& treasure been instrumental in relieving those States from Tyranny & oppression: Yet
after all had so far countinanced those Evils, as to keep a number of People in absolute
Slavery, who were by nature equally entitled to freedom as himself. O Remember I
beseech thee that ―God will not be mocked,‖ and is still requiring from each of us, to, ―do
justly, love mercy and walk humbly before him.‖
Perhaps General Washington may think it presumptious in me, who cannot boast
a perticular acquaintance, to address him in this manner, but I hope when he considers the
Nature of the Subject, and that I can have no selfish views in offering these hints to his
serious consideration, than what may arise from the pleasure of hearing he had done
those things—which belong to his present, & future happiness, and the good of those
over whom Providence hath placed him, he will at least excuse the freedom; & believe
that I am with great sincerity & Respect, his Real Friend,
Robert Pleasants

739
P.S. I herewith send thee a small Pamphlet on the subject of Slavery, said to be wrote by
John Dickinson, which if thou hast not before seen, I doubt not will afford pleasure in the
perusal and am as above &c. R.P.
Source: The Papers of George Washington, eds. Abbot and Twohig, Confederation
Series, 3:449-451.

1786—George Washington Expresses Qualified Support for Abolition
In a 1778 letter to his cousin Lund Washington, who managed Mount Vernon,
Washington had written that he every day longed ―more and more to get clear of‖ his
slaves. By 1779, he had concluded that plantation agriculture was a poor investment of
capital, and considered selling the Mount Vernon slaves. Washington was concerned,
however, about the possible harm to his public reputation that might result from his
selling his ‗people‘ on the open market, and firmly refused to consider breaking up slave
families. After the end of the war, his rejection of slavery progressed further, and he
moved on to support gradual abolition. In a April 12, 1786 letter to Robert Morris
excerpted below, Washington declared that he favored abolition if effected by the
legislature. Yet his constant belief in the sanctity of property rights, as well as a deep
concern with the necessity of maintaining civic order, led Washington earnestly to
oppose outside interference with slavery. Later in 1786, Washington stated that he hoped
never to purchase another slave. By the early 1790s, he was privately working out the
means by which he might be able to free his slaves. Washington eventually manumitted
his slaves through his will, penned in July 1799.
I hope it will not be conceived from these observations, that it is my wish to hold
the unhappy people, who are the subject of this letter, in slavery. I can only say that there
is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the
abolition of it; but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be
accomplished, and that is by Legislative authority; and this, as far as my suffrage will go,
shall never be wanting. But when slaves who are happy and contented with their present
masters, are tampered with and seduced to leave them; when masters are taken unawares
by these practices; when a conduct of this sort begets discontent on one side and
resentment on the other, and when it happens to fall on a man, whose purse will not
measure with that of the Society, and he looses his property for want of means to defend
it; it is oppression in the latter case, and not humanity in any; because it introduces more
evils than it can cure.
Source: The Writings of George Washington, ed. Fitzpatrick, 28:408.

1786—George Washington Shares his Views on Abolition with the Marquis de Lafayette
In a May 10, 1786 letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, Washington declared his approval
of Lafayette‘s plan to emancipate his slaves on an estate in the colony of Cayenne.

740
Washington also expressed his view that the Virginia legislature should adopt a plan for
gradual emancipation, and he worried that few shared his opinion. In the previous
legislative session, efforts on behalf of a general emancipation had failed in the House of
Delegates, as had attempts to put a stop to individual manumissions altogether.
The benevolence of your heart my Dr. Marqs. is so conspicuous upon all
occasions, that I never wonder at any fresh proofs of it; but your late purchase of an estate
in the colony of Cayenne, with a view of emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and
noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally
into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it. Some petitions
were presented to the Assembly, at its last Session, for the abolition of slavery, but they
could scarcely obtain a reading. To set them afloat at once would, I really believe, be
productive of much inconvenience and mischief; but by degrees it certainly might, and
assuredly ought to be effected; and that too by Legislative authority.
Source: The Writings of George Washington, ed. Fitzpatrick, 28:424.

1786—Fugitive Slave Advertisement Posted by George Mason and his Son
Mason and his son took out the following advertisement in the Virginia Journal &
Alexandria Advertiser on September 30, 1786.
TEN POUNDS REWARD
Ran away a few days ago from the Subscribers living in Fairfax County, Virginia, viz.
DICK a very lusty well made Mulatto fellow, about 25 years of age, has bushy hair or
wool, which he generally combs back, large teeth and eyes, a grum down look when
spoken to, is a subtle artful fellow, well acquainted both with Virginia and Maryland,
beats a drum pretty well, and formerly a waiting-man: He took with him a light lead
coloured country cloth coat, with white metal buttons, a short green ditto, a white cloth
waistcoat, a red ditto faced with black velvet, a round hat half worn, and common shoes
and stockings. He ran away some time ago, when he worked on board a bay craft by the
name of Thomas Webster.—WATT, a stout Negro fellow, remarkably black, about 35
years of age, has lost some of his foreteeth, which in some measure affects his voice, has
had cross paths lately shaved on his head, to conceal which he will probably shave or cut
close the rest of his hair. He is an artful fellow, has a down look, and seems confused
when examined: He took with him a brown cloth coat, a pair of black breeches, and a
variety of clothes not known. They will perhaps change their names and pass for
freemen: and it is probable they may have a forged pass.—They will probably make for
the Eastern-Shore, or for the State of Delaware or Pennsylvania. The above reward, or
five pounds, for either of them will be paid for delivering them to the subscribers, or for
securing them in any gaol and giving us notice, so that we get them again, and if brought
home all reasonable charges paid.
GEORGE MASON,
GEORGE MASON, junr.

741

N.B. All Captains or Skippers of vessels and others are hereby forewarned, at their peril,
from taking them on board, or employing them.
Source: The Papers of George Mason, ed. Rutland, 2:855-856.

October 1786—ACT LVIII. An act directing the method of trying Slaves charged with
treason or felony
The legislators decided to continue the practice of holding an oyer and terminer trial to
try a slave charged with treason or felony.
I. BE it enacted by the General Assembly, That the justices of every county shall
be justices of oyer and terminer for trying slaves charged with treason or felony: Which
trials shall be by five at the least without juries upon legal evidence at such times as the
sheriffs shall appoint, not being less than five nor more than ten days after the offenders
shall have been committed to jail. No slave shall be condemned in any such case unless
all of the justices sitting upon his or her trial shall agree in opinion that the prisoner is
guilty. Provided always, That when judgment of death shall be passed upon any such
offender there shall be thirty days at least between the time of passing judgment and the
day of execution, except in cases of conspiracy, insurrection, or rebellion. The value of a
slave condemned to die, who shall suffer accordingly, or before execution of the sentence
perish, to be estimated by the justices triers, shall be paid by the public to the owner. One
being detained in slavery, and having commenced an action to assert his freedom, shall
be prosecuted and tried for any such crime in the same manner as a free man ought to be
prosecuted and tried. No person having interest in a slave shall sit upon the trial of such
slave.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 12:345.

1787—The Northwest Ordinance
Congress drafted the Northwest Ordinance to have a new and more specific frame of
territorial government to replace Jefferson‘s ordinance of 1784. The Northwest
Ordinance excluded slavery permanently from the Northwest—a provision that Jefferson
did not get accepted in his ordinance. This was an important decision. As northern states
gradually guaranteed freedom to all blacks who lived north of the Mason-Dixon line, the
Ohio River boundary of the Old Northwest territory extended the line between freedom
and slavery west to the Mississippi River.
ARTICLE 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said
territory, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted: Provided, always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor
or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original states, such fugitive may be

742
lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or services as
aforesaid.
Source: Morris, ed., Basic Documents in American History, p. 49.

1787—George Mason Urges the National Government to Eliminate the Slave Trade
As a member of the Virginia delegation at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of
1787, Mason argued that the national government should be given the power to regulate
the slave trade. Like other slaveholders concerned about the spread of slavery, Mason
focused on the detrimental consequences of slavery for the country as a whole and its
white inhabitants rather than the effect of the institution on slaves themselves. He
blamed the British for establishing the slave trade to the colonies, expressed concern over
the possibility of insurrection, criticized slavery for limiting arts and manufactures and
discouraging white immigration, and worried about divine retribution. The following
excerpt from his participation in the debate over the importation of slaves comes from
James Madison's notes on the Convention proceedings.
22 August 1787
Col. Mason. This infernal trafic originated in the avarice of British Merchants. The
British Govt. constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present
question concerns not the importing States alone but the whole Union. The evil of having
slaves was experienced in the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might have been
by the Enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands. But their
folly dealt by the slaves, as it did by the Tories. He mentioned the dangerous
insurrections of the slaves in Greece and Sicily; and the instructions given by Cromwell
to the Commissioners sent to Virginia, to arm the servants & slaves, in case other means
of obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland & Virginia he said had already
prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. N. Carolina had done the same in
substance. All this would be in vain if S. Carolina & Georgia be at liberty to import. The
Western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands, and will fill that
Country with slaves if they can be got thro' S. Carolina & Georgia. Slavery discourages
arts & manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent
the immigration of Whites, who really enrich & strengthen a Country. They produce the
most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They
bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not be rewarded or punished
in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects
providence punishes national sins, by national calamities. He lamented that some of our
Eastern brethren had from a lust of gain embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to the
States being in possession of the Right to import, this was the case with many other
rights, now to be properly given up. He held it essential in every point of view that the
Genl. Govt. should have power to prevent the increase in slavery.
Source: The Papers of George Mason, ed. Rutland, 3:965-966.

743

1787—The United States Constitution
The northern and southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention debated slavery
and the regulation of trade—a sign of sectional controversies to come. Slavery was a
question to be settled, not a moral dilemma, in the minds of most delegates. Few
delegates considered abolition and they avoided the inclusion of the term ―slavery‖ in the
final draft of the Constitution.
Southern delegates wanted slaves to be included in a state‘s population so that the region
would have a greater number of representatives in Congress. Northerners wanted slaves
counted in the population for the purpose of determining each state‘s share of the tax
burden, but not for the purpose of allotting a state‘s representatives in Congress. The
delegates turned an amendment proposed by members of the Confederation Congress
who decided to count a slave as three-fifths of a person to determine both representation
and direct taxes.
A more sensitive issue was the effort to prevent the new federal government from ending
the foreign slave trade. The southern delegates accepted a twenty-year time limit on the
overseas slave trade in exchange for the guarantee that Congress would not levy export
taxes.
Article 1. Section 2.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States
which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which
shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those
bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all
other Persons.
Article 1. Section 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall
think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one
thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such
Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Source: United States Constitution.

1788—George Mason Opposes the Constitution's Provisions Regarding the Slave Trade
At Virginia's ratification convention in June 1788, Mason voiced his opposition to
Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution, which prevented Congress from prohibiting the
importation of slaves until 1808. Mason believed that the national government should

744
ban further slave imports immediately. He also expressed concern that the Constitution
did not contain a provision for the protection of slave property. A father of nine, he had
written his will shortly after being widowed in 1773 and had made bequests of slave
property a valuable element of his legacy to his children, particularly his daughters. At
his death in 1792 he owned more than 110 slaves. The quotation at the end of the excerpt
is from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.
17 June 1788
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman—This is a fatal section, which has created more
dangers than any other. The first clause, allows the importation of slaves for twenty
years. Under the royal government, the evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and
many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants
prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of.
It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great-Britain. Its exclusion has
been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the union. The
augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and
disgraceful to mankind. Yet by this constitution it is continued for twenty years. As
much as I value an union of all the states, I would not admit the southern states into the
union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would
bring weakness and not strength to the union. And though this infamous traffic be
continued, we have no security for the property of that kind which we have already.
There is no clause in this constitution to secure it; for they may lay such a tax as will
amount to manumission. And should the government be amended, still this detestable
commerce cannot be discontinued till after the expiration of twenty years. For the fifth
article, which provides for amendments, expressly excepts this clause. I have ever looked
upon this as a most disgraceful thing to America. I cannot express my detestation of it.
Yet they have not secured us the property of the slaves we have already. So that ―they
have done what they ought not to have done, and have left undone what they ought to
have done.‖
Source: The Papers of George Mason, ed. Rutland, 3:1086.

October 1788—ACT XXIII. An act to repeal part of an act, directing the trial of
slaves committing capital crimes, and for the more effectual punishing
conspiracies and insurrections of them, and for the better government of negroes,
mulattoes, or indians, bond or free [Passed the 21st of November, 1788.]
This statute made it possible to prosecute a white person for the murder of a slave
under certain conditions.
BE it enacted, That so much of an act, intituled ―An act directing the trial
of slaves committing capital crimes, and for the more effectual punishing
conspiracies and insurrections of them, and for the better government of negroes,
mulattoes, and Indians, bond or free,‖ as declares, that ―Where any slave shall
happen to die by reason of any stroke or blow during his or her correction, by his

745
or her owner, or by reason of any accidental blow whatsoever given by such
owner, no person concerned in such correction or accidental homicide, shall be
liable to any prosecution, or punishment for the same, unless upon examination
before the county court, it shall be proved by the oath at least of one lawful and
credible witness, that such slave was killed wilfully, maliciously, or designedly;
and no person indicted for the murder of a slave, and upon trial found guilty of
man-slaughter only, shall incur any forfeiture or punishment for such offence or
misfortune;‖ shall be, and the same is hereby repealed.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 12:681.

October 1788—ACT LIV. An act concerning the importation of slaves, into the
district of Kentucky [Passed the 26th of December 1788.]
This statute made it easier for residents of the United States to move their slaves
to the district of Kentucky.
I. WHEREAS many persons who have removed from some other parts of
the United States, into the district of Kentucky, and have become citizens of this
commonwealth, have failed within ten days after their removal into the same, to
take the oath, or oaths, prescribed by two acts of assembly, the one, intituled, ―An
act for preventing the further importation of slaves,‖ the other, intituled, ―An act
concerning slaves,‖ to be taken on the importation of the same, although they
might with great truth have taken such oaths: And whereas such failure hath been
chiefly, if not altogether, owing to the impracticability of complying with the said
acts: Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that such persons as have already
removed, or shall remove before the passing of this act, from any part of the
United States, into the district of Kentucky, may take the oaths aforesaid, on or
before the first day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred
and eighty-nine, and the taking thereof shall be as effectual to award the
pecuniary penalties of the said acts, as if it had been within ten days after the
removal of such person.
II. All persons who shall remove to the said district, from any part of the
United States, after the passing of this act, may take the oath aforesaid within
sixty days after such removal; any law to the contrary notwithstanding. Provided
nevertheless, that this act shall not be construed to affect the right of any slave or
slaves, or of any person or persons, entitled to freedom: But as to all persons who
may take the said oaths, on or before the said first day of May, the operation of
the said acts, as far as they relate to the freedom of any slave removed, or which
before the passage of this act may be removed into the district of Kentucky, shall
be, and is hereby, suspended for three years; and no suit, or suits, shall be
instituted or proceeded on in any court of this commonwealth for the recovery of
the freedom of any such slave, before the expiration of the said term of three
years. Provided however, that the suspension aforesaid, shall not be construed to
extend to, or affect, the case of any slave or slaves, or of any person or persons,

746
entitled to freedom, who have before the passing of this act instituted a suit or
suits for the same, in any court of this commonwealth, nor to any such case in
which an adjudication, or adjudications, shall have been had thereupon.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 12:713-714.

October 1789—ACT XXII. An act concerning the Benefit of Clergy [Passed the
27th of November, 1789.]
The legislators continued to guarantee the right of benefit of clergy to slaves in
this act.
SECT. 8 A slave shall in all cases receive the same judgment and stand in
the same condition with respect to the benefit of clergy, as a free negro or
mulatto.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 13:30, 32.

October 1789—ACT XLV. An act to amend the act for preventing the farther
importation of slaves [Passed the 17th of December, 1789.]
The legislators extended the time allowed to new residents of Virginia to take the
oath prescribed in the act entitled ―An act for preventing the farther importation of
slaves.‖
SECT. 1. WHEREAS it hath been represented to the present General
Assembly, that many persons who have migrated into this state, and have become
citizens of this Commonwealth, have failed to take the oath within the time
prescribed by the act, intituled ―An act for preventing the farther importation of
slaves,‖ and that such failure proceeded from their being strangers to the laws of
this state, at the time of such removal, and it is reasonable, that they should be
exonerated from the pecuniary penalties, to which they are liable in consequence
of such failure: Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, that all persons
who have so removed into this state may take the oath aforesaid, on or before the
first day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety,
and the taking thereof shall be as effectual to exonerate them from the pecuniary
penalties of the said recited act, as if it had been taken within ten days after the
removal of every such person as aforesaid into this state, and that the time in
future be extended to sixty days:
SECT. 2. And for perpetuating the certificates of such oath, Be it further
enacted, That where any person hath taken or shall hereafter take the oath
prescribed by the said recited act, that the certificate thereof may be lodged with
the clerk of the court of the county where such person resides, who shall enter the
same of record, and if required, grant a copy thereof, which shall be as valid and

747
effectual as the original thereof; any law to the contrary notwithstanding.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 13:62.

October 1790—ACT LXIV. An act to grant certain privileges to the cities of
Richmond and Williamsburg, and to the borough of Norfolk [Passed the 20th of
December, 1790.]
Richmond, Williamsburg, and Norfolk gained the authority to try slaves for
offenses committed within the jurisdiction of the Hustings Court for each urban
area. The decision to grant this privilege to city and borough governments was
connected to the increased number of slaves in cities and towns in the last quarter
of the eighteenth century. Ira Berlin points out that ―Urban slavery expanded with
the new towns, as slaves—particularly the slave hirelings—offered ambitious
businessmen a quick entry into the rapidly expanding economy. On the eve of the
Revolution, Norfolk residents employed about 750 slaves; by century‘s end that
number had at least doubled. In Richmond, the black population grew apace the
white. During the 1780s, slaves composed almost half of the population in the
new towns, and by the 1790s they outnumbered whites in places like Petersburg.
Similar patterns of growth could be found in all the towns of the Upper South,
especially the newly incorporated cities. The slave population of Baltimore
exploded upward, quadrupling between 1790 and 1810 to stand at nearly 4,000.‖
SECT. 1. BE it enacted by the General Assembly, That the mayor, recorder
and aldermen of the city of Richmond, or any five of them, the mayor, recorder or
eldest alderman being one, may hold a court for the trial of slaves in like manner
and subject to the same laws, rules and regulations as the justices of the county
courts may now do: Provided That their jurisdiction be limited to offences
committed within the jurisdiction of the court of Hustings for the said city.
SECT. 5. And be it further enacted, That the courts of hustings of the city
of Williamsburg and borough of Norfolk, at their respective quarterly sessions,
shall have the same power and authority to impannel grand juries as is by this act
given to the court of hustings of the city of Richmond.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, p. 274; Hening, ed., The Statutes at
Large, 13:200-201.

1791—President George Washington Offers United States Assistance to Put Down the
Slave Revolt in Saint Domingue
In September 1791, Jean Baptiste Ternant, the French minister to the United States,
informed U.S. officials of the slave rebellion in Saint Domingue and asked for assistance

748
in the form of funds and material. Washington wrote to Ternant expressing his regret
over France‘s troubles and offering the support requested.
Mount Vernon, September 24, 1791
Sir: I have not delayed a momt. since the receipt of your communications of the
22d. instant, in dispatching orders to the Secretary of the Treasury to furnish the money,
and to the Secretary of War to deliver the Arms and Ammunition, which you have
applied to me for.
Sincerely regretting, as I do, the cause which has given rise to this application; I
am happy in the opportunity of testifying how well disposed the United States are to
render every aid in their power to our good friends and Allies the French to quell ―the
alarming insurrection of the Negros in Hispaniola‖ and of the ready disposition to effect
it, of the Executive authority thereof.
Two months later, Washington received an update about the situation in Saint Domingue
and expressed his distress over the rebelliousness of the slaves there.
December 27, 1791
Dear Sir: I thank you for having given me the perusal of the letter herewith
returned. Lamentable! to see such a spirit of revolt among the Blacks. Where it will
stop, is difficult to say.
Source: The Writings of George Washington, ed. Fitzpatrick, 31:375-376, 453.

1792—Reverend David Rice's Slavery Inconsistent With Justice and Good Policy
Rice (1733-1816), a Presbyterian minister, was a native Virginian who served as a pastor
in Bedford County for fourteen years and joined the county's committee of public safety
during the Revolution. In 1783, he became the first Presbyterian minister to settle in the
territory of Kentucky, where he sought land for his growing family. He organized three
congregations in Kentucky and, at his house in Danville, founded a school that later
became Transylvania University.
In 1792, Rice delivered the following speech at the state constitutional convention in
Danville, Kentucky, and made his address available in pamphlet form. He urged the
delegates to adopt a plan of gradual emancipation so as to divest the new state of the sin
of slaveholding, which he described as the "national vice of Virginia." While Rice
lambasted slavery for its destruction of slave families and refuted the prevalent scriptural
defenses of the institution, he also appealed directly to the statesmanship of his listeners
by arguing that slavery undermined republican government and civic virtue. In the
following selections, Rice enumerates the many threats that slavery poses to stable
government and resolutely challenges the legal definition of slaves as property. He
reminds the delegates that divine law should always be the ultimate authority. His speech
had little influence on the delegates but remains one of the most pointed early attacks on
the institution of slavery.

749

Mr. Chairman,
I rise, Sir, in support of the motion now before you. But my reverence for this
body, the novelty of my present situation, the great importance and difficulty of the
subject, and the thought of being opposed by gentlemen of the greatest abilities, has too
sensible an impression on my mind. But, Sir, I know so much of my natural timidity,
which increases with my years, that I foresaw this would be the case: I therefore
prepared a speech for the occasion.
Sir, I have lived free, and in many respects happy for near sixty years; but my
happiness has been greatly diminished, for much of the time, by hearing of a great part of
the human species groaning under the yoke of bondage. In this time, I lost a venerable
father, a tender mother, two affectionate sisters, and a beloved first born son; but all these
together have not cost me half the anxiety as has been occasioned by this wretched
situation of my fellow-men, whom without a blush I call my brethren. When I consider
their deplorable state, and who are the cause of their misery, the load of misery that lies
on them; and the load of guilt on us for imposing it on them; it fills my soul with anguish.
I view their distresses, I read the anger of Heaven, I believe that if I should not exert
myself, when, and as far, as in my power, in order to relieve them, I should be partaker of
the guilt.
Sir, the question is, Whether slavery is consistent with justice and good policy?
...
If slavery is not consistent with justice, it must be inconsistent with good policy.
For who would venture to assert, that it would be good policy for us to erect a public
monument of our injustice, and that injustice is necessary for our prosperity, and
happiness? That old proverb, that honesty is the best policy, ought not be despised for its
age.
But the inconsistency of slavery with good policy will fully appear, if we consider
another consequence of our definition [of a slave], viz.
A slave is a member of civil society bound to obey the law of the land; to which
laws he never consented; which partially and feebly protect his person; which allow him
no property; from which he can receive no advantage; and which chiefly, as they relate to
him, were made to punish him. He is therefore bound to submit to a government, to
which he owes no allegiance; from which he receives great injury; and to which he is
under no obligations; and to perform services to a society, to which he owes nothing and
in whose prosperity he had no interest. That he is under this government, and forced to
submit to it, appears from his suffering the penalties of its laws. That he receives no
benefit by the laws and the government he is under, is evident, from their depriving him
of his liberty, and the means of happiness. Though they protect his life and his limbs,
they confine him in misery, they will not suffer him to fly from it; the greatest favours
they afford him chiefly serve to perpetuate his wretchedness.
He is then a member of society, who is, properly speaking, in a state of war with
his master, his civil rulers, and every member of that society. They are all his declared
enemies, having, in him, made war upon almost every thing dear to a human creature. It
is a perpetual war, with an avowed purpose of never making peace. This war, as it is

750
unprovoked, is, on the part of the slave, properly defensive. The injury done him is much
greater than what is generally esteemed a just ground of war between differing nations; it
is much greater than was the cause of war between us and Britain.
It cannot be consistent with the principles of good policy to keep a numerous, a
growing body of people among us, who add no strength to us in time of war; who are
under the strongest temptations to join an enemy, as it is scarce possible they can lose,
and may be great gainers, by the event; who will count so many against us in an hour of
danger and distress. A people whose interest it will be whenever in their power, to
subvert the government, and throw all into confusion. Can it be safe? Can it be good
policy? Can it be our interest or the interest of posterity, to nourish within our own
bowels such an injured, inveterate foe, a foe, with whom we must be in a state of eternal
war? What havock would a handful of savages, in conjunction with this domestic enemy,
make in our country! Especially at a period when the main body of the inhabitants were
softened by luxury and ease, and quite unfitted for the hardships and dangers of war. Let
us turn our eyes to the West-Indies; and there learn the melancholy effects of this
wretched policy. We may there read them written with the blood of thousands. There
you may see the sable, let me say, the brave sons of Africa engaged in a noble conflict
with their inveterate foes. There you may see thousands fired with a generous resentment
of the greatest injuries, and bravely sacrificing their lives on the altar of liberty.
In America, a slave is a standing monument of the tyranny and inconsistency of
human governments.
He is declared by the united voice of America, to be by nature free, and entitled to
the privilege of acquiring and enjoying property; and yet by laws past and enforced in
these states, retained in slavery, and dispossessed of all property and capacity of
acquiring any. They have furnished a striking instance of a people carrying on a war in
defence of principles, which they are actually and avowedly destroying by legal force;
using one measure for themselves and another for their neighbours.
Every state, in order to gain credit abroad, and confidence at home, and to give
proper energy to government, should study to be consistent; their conduct should not
disagree with their avowed principles, nor be inconsistent in its several parts. Consistent
justice is the solid basis on which the fabric of government will rest securely; take this
away, and the building totters, and is liable to fall before every blast. It is, I presume, the
avowed principles of each of us, that all men are by nature free, and are still entitled to
freedom, unless they have forfeited it. Now, after this is seen and acknowledged, to enact
that men should be slaves, against whom we have no evidence that they have forfeited
their right; what would it be but evidently to fly in our own face; to contradict ourselves;
to proclaim before the world our own inconsistency; and warn all men to repose no
confidence in us? After this, what credit can we ever expect? What confidence can we
repose in each other? If we generally concur in this nefarious deed, we destroy mutual
confidence, and break every link of the chain that should bind us together.
Are we rulers? How can the people confide in us, after we have thus openly
declared that we are void of truth and sincerity; and that we are capable of enslaving
mankind in direct contradiction to our own principles? What confidence in legislators,
who are capable of declaring their constituents all free men in one breath; and, in the
next, enacting them all slaves? In one breath, declaring that they have a right to acquire
and possess property; and, in the next, that they shall neither acquire nor possess it during

751
their existence here? Can I trust my life, my liberty, my property in such hands as these?
Will the colour of my skin prove a sufficient defence against their injustice and cruelty?
Will the particular circumstance of my ancestors being born in Europe, and not in Africa,
defend me? Will straight hair defend me from the blow that fall so heavy on the wooly
head?
If I am a dishonest man, if gain is my God, and this may be acquired by such an
unrighteous law, I may rejoice to find it enacted: but I never can believe that the
legislature were honest men; or repose the least confidence in them, when their own
interest would lead them to betray it. I never can trust the integrity of the judge who can
sit upon the seat of justice, and pass an unrighteous judgment, because it is agreeable to
law; when that law itself is contrary to the light and law of nature.
Where no confidence can be put in men of public trust, the exercise of
government must be very uneasy, and the condition of the people extremely wretched.
We may conclude, with the utmost certainty, that it would be bad policy to reduce
matters to this unhappy situation.
Slavery naturally tends to sap the foundations of moral, and consequently of
political virtue; and virtue is absolutely necessary for the happiness and prosperity of a
free people. Slavery produces idleness; and idleness is the nurse of vice. A vicious
commonwealth is a building erected on quicksand, the inhabitants of which can never
abide in safety.
...
It will be said, Negroes were made slaves by law, they were converted into
property by an act of the legislature; and under the sanction of that law I purchased them;
they therefore became my property, I have a legal claim to them. To repeal this law, to
annihilate slavery, would be violently to destroy what I legally purchased with my
money, or inherit from my father. It would be equally unjust with dispossessing me of
my horses, cattle, or any other species of property. To dispossess me of their offspring
would be injustice equal to dispossessing me of the annual profits of my estate. This is
an important objection, and it calls for a serious answer.
The matter seems to stand thus: many years ago, men, being deprived of their
natural right to freedom, and made slaves, were by law converted into property. This
law, it is true, was wrong, it established iniquity; it was against the law of humanity,
common sense, reason, and conscience. It was, however, a law; and under the sanction of
it, a number of men, regardless of its iniquity, purchased these slaves, and made their
fellow men their property.
The question is concerning the liberty of a man. The man himself claims it as his
own property. He pleads, that it was originally his own; that he has never forfeited, nor
alienated it; and therefore, by the common laws of justice and humanity, it is still his
own. The purchaser of the slave claims the same property. He pleads that he purchased
it under the sanction of a law, enacted by the legislature; and therefore it became his.
Now, the question is, who has the best claim? Did the property in question belong to the
legislature? Was it vested in them? If legislatures are possessed of such property as this,
may another never exist! No individual of their constituents could claim it as his own
inherent right; it was not in them collectively; and therefore they could not convey it to

752
their representatives. Was it ever known, that a people chose representatives to create
and transfer this kind of property? The legislature were not, they could not be possessed
of it; and therefore could not transfer it to another; they could not give what they
themselves had not. Now does the property belong to him, who received it from a
legislature that had it not to give, and by a law they had no right to enact; or to the
original owner, who has never forfeited, nor alienated his right? If a law should pass for
selling an innocent man's head, and I should purchase it; have I in consequence of this
law and this purchase, a better claim to this man's head than he had himself?
To call our fellow-men, who have not forfeited, nor voluntarily resigned their
liberty, our property, is a gross absurdity, a contradiction to common sense, and an
indignity to human nature. The owners of such slaves then are the licenced robbers, and
not the just proprietors, of what they claim: freeing them is not depriving them of
property, but restoring it to the right owner; it is suffering the unlawful captive to escape.
It is not wronging the master, but doing justice to the slave, restoring him to himself. The
master, it is true, is wronged, he may suffer and that greatly: but this is his own fault, and
the fault of the enslaving law; and not of the law that does justice to the oppressed.
You say, a law of emancipation would be unjust, because it would deprive men of
their property; but is there no injustice on the other side? Is nobody intitled to justice, but
slave-holders? Let us consider the injustice on both sides: and weigh them in an even
balance. On the one hand, we see a man deprived of all property, of all capacity to
possess property, of his own free agency, of the means of instruction, of his wife, of his
children, of almost every thing dear to him: on the other, a man deprived of eighty or an
hundred pounds. Shall we hesitate a moment to determine, who is the greatest sufferer,
and who is treated with the greatest injustice? The matter appears quite glaring, when we
consider, that neither this man, nor his parents had sinned, that he was born to these
sufferings; but the other suffers altogether for his own sin, and that of his predecessors.—
Such a law would only take away property, that is its own property, and not ours:
property that has the same right to possess us, as its property, as we have to possess it:
property that has the same right to convert our children into dogs, and calves, and colts,
as we have to convert theirs into these beasts: property that may transfer our children to
strangers, by the same right that we transfer theirs.
Human legislatures should remember, that the[y] act in subordination to the great
Ruler of the universe, have no right to take the government out of his hand nor to enact
laws contrary to his; that if they should presume to attempt it, they cannot make that
right, which he has made wrong; they cannot dissolve the allegiance of his subjects, and
transfer it to themselves, and thereby free the people from their obligations to obey the
laws of nature. The people should know, that legislatures have not this power; and that a
thousand laws can never make that innocent, which the divine law has made criminal; or
give them a right to that, which the divine law forbids them to claim.
...
The slavery of the negroes began in iniquity; a curse has attended it, and a curse
will follow it. National vices will be punished with national calamities. Let us avoid
these vices, that we may avoid the punishment which they deserve; and endeavour so to
act, as to secure the approbation and smiles of Heaven.

753
Holding men in slavery is the national vice of Virginia; and while a part of that
state, we were partakers of the guilt. As a separate state, we are just now come to the
birth; and it depends upon our free choice whether we shall be born in this sin, or
innocent of it. We now have it in our power to adopt it as our national crime; or to bear a
national testimony against it. I hope the latter will be our choice; that we shall wash our
hands of this guilt; and not leave it in the power of a future legislature, ever more to stain
our reputation or our conscience with it.
Source: Rice, Slavery Inconsistent With Justice and Good Policy, pp. [1], 8-10, 12-14,
23.

February 12, 1793—The First Fugitive Slave Act
In 1787, the framers of the U.S. Constitution included a fugitive slave clause in Article
IV, Section 2. It read: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be
discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to
whom such service or labor may be due." Six years later, perhaps in response to the
increasing number of runaways who successfully eluded their owners, Congress passed a
fugitive slave law to enforce the constitutional provision. The law enabled an owner or
his agent to seize or arrest any of his slaves who had absconded to another state or
territory and, after proving ownership before a federal judge or local magistrate, take the
runaway back to the place from which he or she had fled. It also imposed a $500 penalty
on individuals who harbored fugitive slaves or hindered their capture. The law, which is
reprinted in its entirety below, reached President George Washington's desk on February
9, 1793, and he signed it three days later.
As part of the Compromise of 1850, Congress amended the 1793 law to make it stricter
(federal commissioners were given broad authority to pursue fugitive slaves; citizens
were commanded to assist searches; those who aided or concealed fugitives were liable to
increased fines or imprisonment; alleged runaways were prohibited from having a jury
trial or testifying for themselves). The 1850 law galvanized Northern abolitionists and
brought them new support from formerly apathetic citizens in the region.
An Act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of
their masters.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the executive authority
of any state in the Union, or of either of the territories northwest or south of the river
Ohio, shall demand any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of
any such state or territory to which such person shall have fled, and shall moreover
produce the copy of an indictment found, or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any
state or territory aforesaid, charging the person so demanded, with having committed
treason, felony or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate
of the state or territory from whence the person so charged fled, it shall be the duty of the

754
executive authority of the state or territory to which such person shall have fled, to cause
him or her to be arrested and secured, and notice of the arrest to be given to the executive
authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to receive the
fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear: But
if no such agent shall appear within six months from the time of the arrest, the prisoner
may be discharged. And all costs or expenses incurred in the apprehending, securing,
and transmitting such fugitive to the state or territory making such demand, shall be paid
by such state or authority.
SECTION. 2. And be it further enacted, That any agent, appointed as aforesaid,
who shall receive the fugitive into his custody, shall be empowered to transport him or
her to the state or territory from which he or she shall have fled. And if any person or
persons shall by force set at liberty, or rescue the fugitive from such agent while
transporting, as aforesaid, the person or persons so offending shall, on conviction, be
fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding one year.
SECTION. 3. And be it also enacted, That when a person held to labour in any of
the United States, or in either of the territories on the northwest or south of the river
Ohio, under the laws thereof, shall escape into any other of the said states or territory, the
person to whom such labour or service may be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby
empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labour, and to take him or her before any
judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, residing or being within the
state, or before any magistrate of a county, city or town corporate, wherein such seizure
or arrest shall be made, and upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate,
either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before and certified by a magistrate of any such
state or territory, that the person so seized or arrested, doth, under the laws of the state or
territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labour to the person claiming him or
her, it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give a certificate thereof to such
claimant, his agent or attorney, which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said
fugitive from labour, to the state or territory from which he or she fled.
SECTION. 4 And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and
willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant, his agent or attorney, in so seizing or arresting
such fugitive from labour, or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, his agent or
attorney when so arrested pursuant to the authority herein given or declared; or shall
harbor or conceal such person after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labour, as
aforesaid, shall, for either of the said offences, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred
dollars. Which penalty may be recovered by and for the benefit of such claimant, by
action of debt, in any court proper to try the same; saving moreover to the person
claiming such labour or service, his right of action for or on account of the said injuries or
either of them.
Source: Statutes at Large, 1:302-305, reprinted in McDougall, ed, Fugitive Slaves, pp.
105-106; see the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act is in Statutes at Large, 9:462-465, reprinted in
McDougall, ed., Fugitive Slaves, pp. 112-115.

December 1793—ACT XXIII. An ACT to prevent the migration of free negroes and
mulattoes into this commonwealth

755

The legislators decided to make it illegal for free persons of color to migrate to Virginia
even though it was legal for slave owners in the state to emancipate their enslaved men,
women, and children.
1. Be it enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any free negro or mulatto to
migrate into this commonwealth, and every free negro or mulatto who shall come into
this commonwealth, contrary to this act, shall and may be apprehended and carried by
any citizen before some justice of the peace of the county where he shall be taken; which
justice is hereby authorized to examine, send and remove every such free negro or
mulatto out of this commonwealth, into that state or island from whence it shall appear he
or she last came; and for this purpose, the sheriff or other officer, and other persons, may
by such justice be employed within the commonwealth, upon the same terms as are by
law directed in the removal of criminals from one country to another. And every free
negro or mulatto who shall come or be brought into this commonwealth by water from
any country, state or island, may and shall be exported to the place from whence he or
she came, or was brought, and the charges attending the same shall be paid by the
importer; to be recovered by motion in the name of the commonwealth, upon ten days
previous notice thereof in any court of record.
2. Every master of a vessel, or other person who shall bring into this
commonwealth by water or by land, in any vessel, boat, land carriage or otherwise, any
free negro or mulatto, shall forfeit and pay for every such person so brought, the penalty
of one hundred pounds lawful money; one half to the commonwealth, and the other half
to the person who shall inform thereof; to be recovered by action of debt or information
in any court of record, and the defendant in every such case shall be ruled to give special
bail.
3. This act shall not extend to masters of vessels bringing into this state any free
negro or mulatto employed on board and belonging to such vessel, and who shall
therewith depart, nor to any person travelling into this state, having any free negro or
mulatto as a servant.
4. And be it further enacted, That in case any slave shall be brought or come into
this state from Africa or the West India islands, directly or indirectly, upon information
thereof given to any justice of the peace, it shall be his duty to cause such slave to be
apprehended immediately and transported out of this commonwealth, and the expense
attending such transportation, shall be paid by the person importing such slave,
recoverable in the name of the justice directing such slave to be transported, by warrant
before a single magistrate.
Source: Shepherd, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1: 239.

1795—The Constitution of the Virginia Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery
Although there were individual Virginians throughout the eighteenth century who spoke
out against slavery, not until 1790 did a group of individuals in Richmond, led by Quaker
Robert Pleasants, organize the ―Virginia Society For Promoting The Abolition of

756
Slavery.…‖ The Society, whose membership numbered almost 150 by 1796, included
Methodists as well as Quakers, and concentrated on letter-writing, petitioning, and
assisting slaves in freedom and kidnapping suits; but they had insufficient funding to
bring major freedom suits. Their activities, along with the activities of a similar society
in Alexandria organized in 1795, were largely ended when the Virginia General
Assembly passed a law in 1795 that prevented abolitionist assistance in freedom suits and
another law in 1798 forbidding members of abolitionist societies from sitting on juries in
freedom suits. Both societies were further weakened by the backlash against Gabriel‘s
Rebellion of 1800.
Below are excerpts from the constitution, including the preamble and articles forbidding
members from owning slaves and describing how members should investigate cases of
free blacks being held in bondage.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE VIRGINIA SOCIETY,
For promoting the ABOLITION of SLAVERY, and the Relief of free Negroes,
or others, unlawfully held in Bondage, and other humane Purposes
From a full belief that ―the Lord‘s mercy is over all his works, that he created
mankind of every nation, language, and colour, equally free, and that slavery in all its
forms, in all its degrees,‖ is an outrageous violation, and an odious degradation of human
nature: That it is inconsistent with the precepts of the Gospel, of ―doing to others, as we
would they should do unto us;‖ and that it is not only a moral, but a political evil, which
tends wherever it prevails, to deprave the morals of the people, weaken the bonds of
Society, discourage trades and manufactures, and rather promotes arbitrary power, than
secures the just rights and liberties of mankind;—Believing also, that the Societies
already established in other parts of the world, for promoting the abolition of slavery, and
the slave trade, have been of real advantage in manifesting the unrighteous policy of the
one, and the iniquity of the other,—WE THE SUBSCRIBERS, in humble hope of
contributing our mite to the cause of humanity, and the promotion of righteousness in the
earth, have associated ourselves, under the title of, ―THE VIRGINIA SOCIETY, FOR
PROMOTING THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY, AND THE RELIEF OF FREE
NEGROES OR OTHERS UNLAWFULLY HELD IN BONDAGE, AND OTHER
HUMANE PURPOSES.‖
...
VII. In all cases where persons legally entitled to freedom shall be held in
bondage, it shall be the business of the Corresponding members, appointed in the
different districts, more particularly to enquire into, and give notice to the Acting
Committee of all such cases, and to procure authenticated copies from records, or such
other writings or testimonies as they may think necessary, or proper, for investigation of
the right, and relief of the sufferers.
...

757
IX. Two thirds of the members present at a half yearly meeting shall have power
to expel any person whom they may deem unworthy of remaining a member,—and no
person shall be a member, who holds a slave, or is concerned in the unrighteous traffic of
buying or selling that unhappy race of human beings.
Source: The Constitution of the Virginia Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery;
Philip J. Schwarz on the Virginia Society for the Abolition of Slavery in Paul Finkelman
and Joseph C. Miller, eds., Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery, forthcoming.
1796—St. George Tucker‘s A Dissertation on Slavery: With a Proposal for the Gradual
Abolition of It, in the State of Virginia
Born and raised in Bermuda, St. George Tucker came to Virginia in 1771 to study at the
College of William and Mary and later read law under George Wythe. A jurist and legal
scholar, he received an appointment as a professor of law at the College of William and
Mary in 1790. When he died in 1827, he was sitting on the bench of the United States
District Court.
Tucker had several domestic slaves at his residence on Market Square. After spending
more than two years working on a feasible plan for abolition, he published A Dissertation
on Slavery in 1796. In it, he addressed directly the paradox of freedom and slavery that
had bothered him since his participation in the Revolution a generation earlier. Although
he sent two copies of his proposal to the General Assembly, Tucker was soon
disappointed to discover that legislators did not give it serious consideration.
The following extracts include the title page and prefatory material.
A Dissertation on Slavery: With a Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of It, in the State
of Virginia, by St. George Tucker, Professor of Law in the University of William and
Mary, and one of the Judges of the General Court, in Virginia.
Slavery not only violates the Laws of Nature, and of civil Society, it also wounds the best
Forms of Government: in a Democracy, where all Men are equal, Slavery is contrary to
the Spirit of the Constitution. MONTESQUIEU
Philadelphia: Printed for Mathew Carey, No. 118, Market-Street, 1796.
To the General Assembly of Virginia
To whom it belongs to decide upon the expediency and practicability of a plan for
the gradual abolition of Slavery in this commonwealth,
The following pages are most respectfully submitted and inscribed,
BY THE AUTHOR.
Williamsburg, in
Virginia, May 20, 1796.

758
To the Reader
The following pages form a part of a course of Lectures on Law and Police,
delivered in the University of William and Mary, in this commonwealth. The Author
considering the Abolition of Slavery in this State, as an object of the first importance, not
only to our moral character and domestic peace, but even to our political salvation; and
being persuaded that the accomplishment of so momentous and desirable an undertaking
will in great measure depend upon the early adoption of some plan for that purpose, with
diffidence submits to the consideration of his countrymen his ideas on a subject of such
consequence. He flatters himself that the plan he ventures to suggest, is liable to fewer
objections than most others that have been submitted to the consideration of the public, as
it will be attended with a gradual change of condition in the blacks, and cannot possibly
affect the interest either of creditors or any other description of persons of the present
generation: and posterity he makes no doubt will feel themselves relieved from a
perilous and grievous burden by the timely adoption of a plan, whose operation may be
felt by them, before they are borne down by a weight which threatens destruction to our
happiness both public and private.
On the State of Slavery in Virginia
In the preceding Enquiry into the absolute rights of the citizens of united America, we
must not be understood as if those rights were equally and universally the privilege of all
the inhabitants of the United States, or even of all those, who may challenge this land of
freedom as their native country. Among the blessings which the Almighty hath showered
down on these states, there is a large portion of the bitterest draught that ever flowed
from the cup of affliction. Whilst America hath been the land of promise to Europeans,
and their descendants, it hath been the vale of death to millions of the wretched sons of
Africa. The genial light of liberty, which hath here shone with unrivalled lustre on the
former, hath yielded no comfort to the latter, but to them hath proved a pillar of darkness,
whilst it hath conducted the former to the most enviable state of human existence. Whilst
we were offering up vows at the shrine of Liberty, and sacrificing hecatombs upon her
altars; whilst we swore irreconcilable hostility to her enemies, and hurled defiance in
their faces; whilst we adjured the God of Hosts to witness our resolution to live free, or
die, and imprecated curses on their heads who refused to unite with us in establishing the
empire of freedom; we were imposing upon our fellow men, who differ in complexion
from us, a slavery, then thousand times more cruel than the utmost extremity of those
grievances and oppressions, of which we complained. Such are the inconsistencies of
human nature; such the blindness of those who pluck not the beam out of their own eyes,
whilst they can espy a moat, in the eyes of their brother; such that partial system of
morality which confines rights and injuries, to particular complexions; such the effect of
that selflove which justifies, or condemns, not according to principle, but to the agent.
Had we turned our eyes inwardly when we supplicated the Father of Mercies to aid the
injured and oppressed when we invoked the Author of Righteousness to attest the purity
of our motives, and the justice of our cause; and implored the God of Battles to aid our
exertions in its defence, should we not have stood more self convicted than the contrite
publican! Should we not have left our gift upon the altar, that we might be first
reconciled to our brethern whom we held in bondage? Should we not have loosed their

759
chains, and broken their fetters? Or if the difficulties and dangers of such an experiment
prohibited the attempt during the convulsions of a revolution, is it not our duty to
embrace the first moment of constitutional health and vigour, to effectuate so desirable an
object, and to remove from us a stigma, with which our enemies will never fail to upbraid
us, nor our consciences to reproach us? To form a just estimate of this obligation, to
demonstrate the incompatibility of a state of slavery with the principles of our
government, and of that revolution upon which it is founded, and to elucidate the
practicability of its total, though gradual, abolition, it will be proper to consider the nature
of slavery, its properties, attendants, and consequences in general; its rise, progress, and
present state not only in this commonwealth, but in such of our sister states as have either
perfected, or commenced the great work of its extirpation; with the means they have
adopted to effect it, and those which the circumstances and situation of our country may
render it most expedient for us to pursue, for the attainment of the same noble and
important end.
...
The present number of slaves in Virginia, is immense, as appears by the census taken in
1791, amounting to no less than 292,427 souls: nearly two-fifths of the whole population
of the commonwealth. We may console ourselves with the hope that this proportion will
not increase, the further importation of slaves being prohibited, whilst the free migrations
of white people hither is encouraged. But this hope affords no other relief from the evil
of slavery, than a diminution of those apprehensions which are naturally excited by the
detention of so large a number of oppressed individuals among us, and the possibility that
they may one day be roused to an attempt to shake off their chains.
...
In the course of this enquiry it is easy to trace the desire of the legislature to put a stop to
the further importation of slaves, and had not this desire been uniformly opposed on the
part of the crown, it is highly probable that event would have taken effect at a much
earlier period than it did. A duty of five per cent, to be paid by the buyers, at first, with
difficulty obtained the royal assent. Requisitions from the crown for aids, on particular
occasions, afforded a pretext from time to time for increasing the duty from five, to ten,
and finally to twenty per cent with which the buyer was uniformly made chargeable. The
wishes of the people of the colony, were not sufficient to counterbalance the interest of
the English merchants, trading to Africa, and it is probable, that however disposed to put
a stop to so infamous a traffic by law, we should never have been able to effect it, so long
as we might have continued dependent on the British government: an object sufficient of
itself to justify a revolution. That the legislature of Virginia were sincerely disposed to
put a stop to it, cannot be doubted; for even during the tumult and confusion of the
revolution, we have seen that they availed themselves of the earliest opportunity, to crush
for ever so pernicious and infamous a commerce, by an act passed in October 1778, the
penalties of which, though apparently lessened by the act of 1792, are still equal to the
value of the slave; being two hundred dollars upon the importer, and one hundred dollars
upon every person buying or selling an imported slave.

760
A system uniformly persisted in for nearly a whole century, and finally carried
into effect, so soon as the legislature was unrestrained by 'the inhuman exercise of the
royal negative,' evinces the sincerity of that disposition which the legislature had shewn
during so long a period, to put a check to the growing evil. From the time that the duty
was raised above five per cent it is probable that the importation of slaves into this colony
decreased. The demand for them in the more southern colonies probably contributed also
to lessen the numbers imported into this: for some years immediately preceding the
revolution, the importation of slaves into Virginia might almost be considered as at an
end; and probably would have been entirely so, if the ingenuity of the merchant had not
found out the means of evading the heavy duty, by pretended sales, at which the slaves
were brought in by some friend, at a quarter of their real value.
Tedious and unentertaining as this detail may appear to all others, a citizen of
Virginia will feel some satisfaction at reading so clear a vindication of his country, from
the opprobrium, but too lavishly bestowed upon her of fostering slavery in her bosom,
whilst she boasts a sacred regard to the liberty of her citizens, and of mankind in general.
The acrimony of such censures must abate, at least in the breasts of the candid, upon an
impartial review of the subject here brought before them; and if in addition to what we
have already advanced, they consider the difficulties attendant on any plan for the
abolition of slavery, in a country where so large a proportion of the inhabitants are slaves;
and where a still larger proportion of the cultivators of the earth are of that description of
men, they will probably feel emotions of sympathy and compassion, both for the slave
and for his master, succeed to those hasty prejudices, which even the best dispositions are
not exempt from contracting, upon subjects where there is a deficiency of information.
...
The extirpation of slavery from the United States, is a task equally arduous and
momentous. To restore the blessings of liberty to near a million of oppressed individuals,
who have groaned under the yoke of bondage, and to their descendants, is an object,
which those who trust in Providence will be convinced would not be unaided by the
divine Author of our being, should we invoke his blessing upon our endeavours. Yet
human prudence forbids that we should precipitately engage in a work of such hazard as
a general and simultaneous emancipation. The mind of man must in some measure be
formed for his future condition. The early impressions of obedience and submission,
which slaves have received among us, and the no less habitual arrogance and assumption
of superiority, among the whites, contribute, equally, to unfit the former for freedom, and
the later for equality. To expel them all at once, from the United States, would in fact be
to devote them only to a lingering death by famine, by disease, and other accumulated
miseries: ‗We have in history but one picture of a similar enterprize, and there we see it
was necessary not only to open the sea by a miracle, for them to pass, but more necessary
to close it again to prevent their return.‘ To retain them among us, would be nothing
more than to throw so many of the human race upon the earth without the means of
subsistence: they would soon become idle, profligate, and miserable. Unfit for their new
condition, and unwilling to return to their former laborious course, they would become
the caterpillars of the earth, and the tigers of the human race. The recent history of the
French West Indies exhibits a melancholy picture of the probable consequences of a

761
general, and momentary emancipation in any of the states, where slavery has made
considerable progress. In Massachusetts the abolition of it was effected by a single
stroke; a clause in their constitution: but the whites at that time, were as sixty-five to one,
in proportion to the blacks. The whole number of free persons in the United States, south
of Delaware state, are 1,233,829, and there are 648,439 slaves; this proportion being less
than two to one. Of the cultivators of the earth in the same district, it is probable that
there are four slaves for one free white man.—To discharge the former from their present
condition, would be attended with an immediate general famine, in those parts of the
United States, from which not all the productions of the other states, could deliver them;
similar evils might reasonably be apprehended from the adoption of the measure by any
one of the southern states; for in all of them the proportion of slaves is too great, not to be
attended with calamitous effects, if they were immediately set free. These are serious, I
had almost said unsurmountable obstacles, to a general, simultaneous emancipation.—
There are other considerations not to be disregarded. A great part of the property of
individuals consists in slaves. The laws have sanctioned this species of property. Can
the laws take away the property of an individual without his own consent, or without a
just compensation? Will those who do not hold slaves agree to be taxed to make this
compensation? Creditors also, who have trusted their debtors upon the faith of this
visible property will be defrauded. If justice demands the emancipation of the slaves, she
also, under these circumstances, seems to plead for the owner, and for his creditor. The
claims of nature, it will be said are stronger than those which arise from social
institutions, only. I admit it, but nature also dictates to us to provide for our own safety,
and authorizes all necessary measures for that purpose. And we have shewn that our own
security, nay, our very existence, might be endangered by the hasty adoption of any
measure for the immediate relief of the whole of this unhappy race. Must we then quit
the subject, in despair of the success of any project for the amendment of their, as well as
our own, condition? I think not.—Strenuously as I feel my mind opposed to a
simultaneous emancipation, for the reasons already mentioned, the abolition of slavery in
the United States, and especially in that state to which I am attached by every tie that
nature and society form, is now my first, and will probably be my last expiring wish.
...
We must therefore endeavour to find some middle course, between the tyrannical and
iniquitous policy which holds so many human creatures in a state of grievous bondage,
and that which would turn loose a numerous, starving, and enraged banditti upon the
innocent descendants of their former oppressors. Nature, time, and sound policy must cooperate with each other to produce such a change: if either be neglected, the work will be
incomplete, dangerous, and not improbably destructive.
The plan therefore which I would presume to propose for the consideration of my
countrymen is such, as the number of slaves, the difference of their nature, and habits,
and the state of agriculture, among us, might render it expedient, rather than desirable to
adopt: and would partake partly of that proposed by Mr. Jefferson, and adopted in other
states; and partly of such cautionary restrictions, as a due regard to situation and
circumstance, and even to general prejudices, might recommend to those, who engage in
so arduous, and perhaps unprecedented an undertaking.

762
1. Let every female born after the adoption of the plan be free, and transmit
freedom to all her descendants, both male and female.
2. As a compensation to those persons, in whose families such females, or their
descendants may be born, for the expence and trouble of their maintenance during
infancy, let them serve such persons until the age of twenty-eight years: let them then
receive twenty dollars in money, two suits of clothes, suited to the season, a hat, a pair of
shoes, and two blankets. If these things be not voluntarily done, let the county courts
enforce the performance, upon complaint.
3. Let all Negroe children be registered with the clerk of the county or corporation
court, where born, within one month after their birth: let the person in whose family they
are born take a copy of the register, and deliver it to the mother, or if she die to the child,
before it is of the age of twenty-one years. Let any Negroe claiming to be free, and above
the age of puberty, be considered as of the age of twenty-eight years, if he or she be not
registered, as required.
4. Let all such Negroe servants be put on the same footing as white servants and
apprentices now are, in respect to food, raiment, correction, and the assignment of their
service from one to another.
5. Let the children of Negroes and mulattoes, born in the families of their parents,
be bound to service by the overseers of the poor, until they shall attain the age of twentyone years.—Let all above that age, who are not housekeepers, nor have voluntarily bound
themselves to service for a year before the first day of February annually, be then bound
for the remainder of the year by the overseers of the poor. To stimulate the overseers of
the poor to perform their duty, let them receive fifteen per cent. of their wages, from the
person hiring them, as a compensation for their trouble, and ten per cent. per annum out
of the wages of such as they may bind apprentices.
6. If at the age of twenty-seven years, the master of a Negroe or mulattoe servant
be unwilling to pay his freedom dues, above mentioned, at the expiration of the
succeeding year, let him bring him into the county court, clad and furnished with
necessaries as before directed, and pay into court five dollars, for the use of the servant,
and thereupon let the court direct him to be hired by the overseers of the poor for the
succeeding year, in the manner before directed.
7. Let no Negroe or mulattoe be capable of taking, holding, or exercising, any
public office, freehold, franchise or privilege, or any estate in lands or tenements, other
than a lease not exceeding twenty-one years.—Nor of keeping, or bearing arms, unless
authorised so to do by some act of the general assembly, whose duration shall be limited
to three years. Nor of contracting matrimony with any other than a Negroe or mulattoe;
nor be an attorney; nor be a juror; nor a witness in any court of judicature, except against,
or between Negroes and mulattoes. Nor be an executor or administrator; nor capable of
making any will or testament; nor maintain any real action; nor be a trustee of lands or
tenements himself, nor any other person to be a trustee to him or to his use.
8. Let all persons born after the passing of the act, be considered as entitled to the
same mode of trial in criminal cases, as free Negroes and mulattoes are now entitled to.
The restrictions in this plan may appear to savour strongly of prejudice: whoever
proposes any plan for the abolition of slavery, must either encounter, or accommodate
himself to prejudice.—I have preferred the latter; not that I pretend to be wholly exempt
from it, but that I might avoid as many obstacles as possible to the completion of so

763
desirable a work, as the abolition of slavery. Though I am opposed to the banishment of
the Negroes, I wish not to encourage their future residence among us. By denying them
the most valuable privileges which civil government affords, I wish to render it their
inclination and their interest to seek those privileges in some other climate. There is an
immense unsettled territory on this continent more congenial to their natural constitution
than ours, where they may perhaps be received upon more favourable terms than we can
permit them to remain with us. Emigrating in small numbers they will be able to effect
settlements more easily than in large numbers; and without the expence or danger of
numerous colonies. By releasing them from the yoke of bondage, and enabling them to
seek happiness wherever they can hope to find it, we surely confer a benefit, which no
one can sufficiently appreciate, who has not tasted of the bitter curse of compulsory
servitude. By excluding them from offices, we may hope that the seeds of ambition
would be buried too deep, ever to germinate: by disarming them, we may calm our
apprehensions of their resentments arising from past sufferings; by incapacitating them
from holding lands, we should add one inducement more to emigration, and effectually
remove the foundation of ambition, and party-struggles. Their personal rights, and their
property, though limited, would, whilst they remain among us, be under the protection of
the law; and their condition not at all inferior to that of the labouring poor in most other
countries. Under such an arrangement we might reasonably hope, that time would either
remove from us a race of men, whom we wish not to incorporate with us, or obliterate
those prejudices, which not form an obstacle to such incorporation.
But it is not from the want of liberality to the emancipated race of blacks that I
apprehend the most serious objections to the plan I have ventured to suggest.—Those
slave holders (whose number I trust are few) who have been in the habit of considering
their fellow creatures as no more than cattle, and the rest of the brute creation, will
exclaim that they are to be deprived of their property without compensation. Men who
will shut their ears against this moral truth, that all men are by nature free, and equal, will
not even be convinced that they do not possess a property in an unborn child: they will
not distinguish between allowing to unborn generations the absolute and unalienable
rights of human nature, and taking away that which they now possess; they will shut their
ears against truth, should you tell them, the loss of the mother's labour for nine months,
and the maintenance of a child for a dozen or fourteen years, is amply compensated by
the services of that child for as many years more, as he has been an expence to them. But
if the voice of reason, justice and humanity be not stifled by sordid avarice or unfeeling
tyranny, it would be easy to convince even those who have entertained such erroneous
notions, that the right of one man over another is neither founded in nature, nor in sound
policy. That it cannot extend to those not in being; that no man can in reality be deprived
of what he doth not possess: that fourteen years labour by a young person in the prime of
life, is an ample compensation for a few months of labour lost by the mother, and for the
maintenance of a child, in that coarse homely manner that Negroes are brought up: And
lastly, that a state of slavery is not only perfectly incompatible with the principles of
government, but with the safety and security of their masters. History evinces this. At
this moment we have the most awful demonstrations of it. Shall we then neglect a duty,
which every consideration, moral, religious, political, or selfish, recommends. Those
who wish to postpone the measure, do not reflect that every day renders the task more
arduous to be performed. We have now 300,000 slaves among us. Thirty years hence we

764
shall have double the number. In sixty years we shall have 1,200,000. And in less than
another century from this day, even that enormous number will be doubled. Milo
acquired strength enough to carry an ox, by beginning with the ox while he was yet a
calf. If we complain that the calf is too heavy for our shoulders, what will not the ox be?
To such as apprehend danger to our agricultural interest, and the depriving the
families of those whose principal reliance is upon their slaves, of support, it will be
proper to submit a view of the gradual operation, and effects of this plan. They will no
doubt be surprized to hear, that whenever it is adopted, the number of slaves will not be
diminished for forty years after it takes place; that it will even encrease for thirty years;
that at the distance of sixty years, there will be one-third of the number at its first
commencement: that it will require above a century to complete it; and that the number
of blacks under twenty-eight, and consequently bound to service, in the families they are
born in, will always be at least as great, as the present number of slaves. These
circumstances I trust will remove any objections, and that they are truly stated will appear
upon enquiry. It will further appear, that females only will arrive at the age of
emancipation within the first forty-five years; all the males during that period, continuing
either in slavery, or bound to service till the age of twenty-eight years. The earth cannot
want cultivators, whilst our population increases as at present, and three-fourths of those
employed therein are held to service, and the remainder compellable to labour. For we
must not lose sight of this important consideration, that these people must be bound to
labour, if they do not voluntarily engage therein. Their faculties are at present only
calculated for that object; if they be not employed therein they will become drones of the
worst description. In absolving them from the yoke of slavery, we must not forget the
interests of society. Those interests require the exertions of every individual in some
mode or other; and those who have not wherewith to support themselves honestly without
corporal labour, whatever be their complexion, ought to be compelled to labour. This is
the case in England, where domestic slavery has long been unknown. It must also be the
case in every well ordered society; and where the numbers of persons without property
increase, there the coertion of the laws becomes more immediately requisite. The
proposed plan would necessarily have this effect, and therefore ought to be accompanied
with such a regulation. Though the rigours of our police in respect to this unhappy race
ought to be softened, yet, its regularity, and punctual administration should be increased,
rather than relaxed. If we doubt the propriety of such measures, what must we think of
the situation in our country, when instead of 300,000, we shall have more than two
millions of SLAVES among us? This must happen within a CENTURY, if we do not set
about the abolition of slavery. Will not our posterity curse the days of their nativity with
all the anguish of Job? Will they not execrate the memory of those ancestors, who,
having it in their power to avert evil, have, like their first parents, entailed a curse upon
all future generations? We know that the rigour of the laws respecting slaves
unavoidably must increase with their numbers: What a blood-stained code must that be
which is calculated for the restraint of millions held in bondage! Such must our unhappy
country exhibit within a century, unless we are both wise and just enough to avert from
posterity the calamity and reproach, which are otherwise unavoidable.
I am not vain enough to presume the plan I have suggested entirely free from
object; nor that in offering my own ideas to others I have been more fortunate than
others: but from the communication of sentiment between those who lament the evil, it is

765
possible that and effectual remedy may at length be discovered. Whenever that happens
the golden age of our country will begin. Till then,
--Non hospes ab hospite tutus,
Non Herus a Famulis fratrum quoque gratia rara.
THE END
Source: Coleman, ed., Virginia Silhouettes, pp. 1-3, 21, 25-27, 45-48, 54-64 [Note: The
Dissertation is numbered separately from the rest of the volume].

January 1796—H[enry?] Lee to St. George Tucker
Just five months before he published his Dissertation on Slavery, St. George Tucker was
requested by a friend, H[enry?] Lee, to purchase slaves in Williamsburg on his behalf.
Richmond
Jany. 18th 1796
dear Tucker,
On the 25th instant. before the Raleigh tavern in your city, some negroes will be
sold by Mr. Pierce as administrator.
I want three or four men or lads. Do me the favor to purchase them for me. I
consider
85 £ a reasonable price for a likely sound man not exceeding thirty. This letter shall be
your authority for the purchase and I will send you a bill for the money you may engage
at the day it shall be due, or will sign the necessary bonds.
Inform me by letr. sent to Richmond of your agency, and accept my best wishes
H. Lee
Source: Coleman, ed., Virginia Silhouettes, p. 5.

1796—A Young Runaway Slave Woman Bedevils George Washington
From Philadelphia on November 28, 1796, Washington wrote the following letter to
Joseph Whipple, the U.S. Collector of Customs in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. A
young slave woman named Oney Judge, who worked for Martha Washington, had run
away to Portsmouth with a Frenchman. Skilled as a seamstress and possibly pregnant,
Judge apparently attempted to negotiate with the Washingtons through Whipple; she
seems to have offered to come back to the Washingtons in return for a promise of future
freedom. Despite his support for gradual abolition, George Washington refused to
countenance Judge‘s request as he did not want to reward disobedience. Instead, he
suggested that she would be welcomed back to her former position if she returned

766
voluntarily. If she would not, he asked Whipple to try to retrieve her as unobtrusively as
possible, but to give up altogether if he could not get her without causing a scene.
I regret that the attempt you made to restore the Girl (Oney Judge as she called
herself while with us, and who, without the least provocation absconded from her
Mistress) should have been attended with so little Success. To enter into such a
compromise with her, as she suggested to you, is totally inadmissable, for reasons that
must strike at first view: for however well disposed I might be to a gradual abolition, or
even to an entire emancipation of that description of People (if the latter was in itself
practicable at this moment) it would neither be politic or just to reward unfaithfulness
with a premature preference; and thereby discontent before hand the minds of all her
fellow-servants who by their steady attachments are far more deserving than herself of
favor.
I was apprehensive (and so informed Mr. Wolcott) that if she had any previous
notice more than could be avoided of an attempt to send her back, that she would contrive
to elude it; for whatever she may have asserted to the contrary, there is no doubt in this
family of her having been seduced, and enticed off by a Frenchman, who was either
really, or pretendedly, deranged, and under that guise, used to frequent the family; and
has never been seen here since [the] girl decamped. We have indeed, lately been
informed thro‘ other channels that she went to Portsmouth with a Frenchman, who
getting tired of her, as is presumed, left her; and that she had betaken herself to the
needle, the use of which she well understood, for a livelihood.
About the epoch I have mentioned she herself was very desirous of returning to
Virginia; for when Captn. Prescot was on the point of sailing from Portsmouth for the
Federal City with his family, she offered herself to his lady as a waiter, told her she had
lived with Mrs. Washington (without entering into particulars), and that she was desirous
of getting back to her native place and friends. Mrs. Prescot either from not wanting a
Maid Servant, or presuming she might have been discarded for improper conduct,
declined (unlucky for Mrs. Washington) taking her.
If she will return to her former service without obliging me to use compulsory
means to effect it her late conduct will be forgiven by her Mistress, and she will meet
with the same treatment from me that all the rest of her family (which is a very numerous
one) shall receive. If she will not you would oblige me, by resorting to such measures as
are proper to put her on board a Vessel bound either to Alexandria or the Federal City.
Directed in either case, to my Manager at Mount Vernon; by the door of which the Vessel
must pass, or to the care of Mr. Lear at the last mentioned place, if the Vessel should not
stop before it arrives in that Port.
I do not mean however, by this request, that such violent measures should be used
as would excite a mob or riot, which might be the case if she has adherents, or even
uneasy Sensations in the Minds of well disposed Citizens; rather than either of these
should happen I would forego her Services altogether, and the example also which is of
infinite more importance. The less is said beforehand, and the more celerity is used in the
act of shipping her when an opportunity presents, the better chance Mrs. Washington
(who is desirous of receiving her again) will have to be gratified.
We had vastly rather she should be sent to Virginia than brought to this place, as
our stay here will be but short; and as it is not unlikely that she may, from the

767
circumstance I have mentioned, be in a state of pregnancy. I should be glad to hear from
you on this subject and am Sir etc.
Source: The Writings of George Washington, ed. Fitzpatrick, 35:297-298.
December 1796—ACT XI. An ACT to amend the act, intituled, ―An act to amend and
reduce into one, the several acts concerning slaves, free negroes, and mulattoes‖
The members of the General Assembly decided that a slave whose master took him or her
to a state where slavery was illegal would remain a slave if he or she was taken back to
Virginia.
1. Be it enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for any citizen of these United
States, residing in or owning lands within this state, who has carried or may carry any
slave or slaves born within this state, into any other state, and who has not sold or hired
or shall not hereafter sell or hire out such slaves, to bring him, her or them back again
into Virginia, without incurring any penalty therefor, nor shall such slave or slaves be
entitled to freedom on that account.
Provided always, That if any such slave or slaves be entitled to freedom under the
laws of that state, to which he, she or they may have been or shall hereafter be removed,
such right shall remain; any thing in this act notwithstanding.
Source: Shepherd, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:19-20.

1797—George Washington Predicts Further Escapes by Slaves
In the following excerpt from a letter to his nephew, Lawrence Lewis, Washington
repeats his support for gradual abolition and reiterates his theory of the importance of
selling captured runaways so that their rebelliousness will not spread to other slaves.
Mount Vernon, August 4, 1797
Dear Sir: Your letter of the 24th ulto has been received, and I am sorry to hear of
the loss of your servant; but it is my opinion these elopements will be MUCH MORE,
before they are LESS frequent: and that the persons making them should never be
retained, if they are recovered, as they are sure to contaminate and discontent others. I
wish from my soul that the Legislature of this State could see the policy of a gradual
Abolition of Slavery; It would prevt. much future mischief.
Source: The Writings of George Washington, ed. Fitzpatrick, 36:2.

768
December 1797—ACT IV. An ACT to amend the act, intituled, ―An act to amend the act,
intituled, ‗An act to reduce into one, the several acts concerning slaves, free negroes and
mulattoes‘‖ [Passed January 25, 1798.]
Section 5 of this statute indicates that free black men, women, and children were required
to register their status as free persons of color in the county in which they lived.
5. And whereas divers free negroes and mulattoes who have been registered and
numbered agreeably to the act of assembly in that case made and provided, and who have
obtained copies of the said registers as by the said act is required, have granted their said
copies to runaway slaves, who by virtue thereof have passed for free men, and have under
sanction thereof prevailed on masters of vessels to transport them out of this
commonwealth: For remedy whereof, Be it enacted, That any free negro or mulatto who
shall deliver to any slave the copy of the register of his or her freedom, signed by the
clerk of the court with whom the said register was made, on any pretext whatsoever, shall
on conviction thereof, be adjudged a felon, and suffer accordingly.
Source: Shepherd, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:78.

1798 to 1831—Excerpts from the York County Free Black Register
The law required free persons of color in Virginia to register their physical description
and information about the way in which they gained their freedom. This requirement was
a clear sign that free black men, women, and children did not have the same degree of
freedom that white residents of Virginia enjoyed.
Elizabeth Armfield 5 feet 6 Inches high aged 66 years a bright Mulatto long grey hair
born of free parents in the Parish of Bruton & County of York registered the 25th Sep
1800.
Sarah Berry, a dark mulatto Girl aged about 16 or 17 years, 5 feet 4 3/4 Inches a little
pitted with the small pox has straight black hair resembling that of an Indian, black eyes
and features rather small was born free in the parish of York Hampton & County of York
registered 11th Feb 1803.
Jane Gillet a bright mulatto abt 22 or 23 years of age 5 feet 1 1/2 Inches high has a scar
on her left arm black Eyes Ear perforated for Earrings small regular features & good
countenance Emancipated by deed from Mary Stith recorded in York Ct registered 19
August 1811.
Patty alias Martha Gillett is a short black woman about 21 years of age 5 feet 1 1/4 Inches
high long hair, which she usually wears platted before—flat nose, on the left side of wch
is a scar—& one on left side of her chin: Daughter of Sarah Gillet who was set free by
deed from Mary Stith dated 2 Octr 1793—since which period the sd Martha was born—
Registered in York Ct 20 febry 1815.

769

Peter alias Peter Gillett is a Mulatto of bright complexion about 22 years of age, 5 feet 6
1/2 Inches high—has long bushy hair, a scar on the back of his right wrist & one on the
inside of same wrist. Emancipated by deed from Mary Stith dated the 2nd of Octo: 1793
& recorded in York Court—Registered 15th February 1813 before the Court of York
County.
Israel Kemp is a tall black fellow abt (blank) years of age (blank) feet Inches high—is
well known as a Baptist Preacher—set free by deed from the Revd Jno Bracken recorded
in Hustings ct of Wmburg—Registered in presence of York Ct the 20th August 1810 &
certd to be truly registered
marginal notes: renewed 18th April 1820.
Benjamin White emancipated by deed from his Father Benja White recorded in York
County Court 16 June 1794 about 21 years of age 5 feet 8 Inches high—has a scar on his
left Leg & two on his right arm—dark mulatto & has long bushy hair Registered in York
Ct 18 August 1812.
Source: York County Free Black Register, 1798-1831.

1799—Death of George Washington
President George Washington died on the night of December 14, 1799, almost three years
after leaving office. His will, probated in Fairfax County Court in Alexandria on January
10, 1800 decreed that his slaves should be freed upon the death of Martha Washington.
(A compendium of Washington‘s slaves from circa June 1799 listed 164 slaves outright
and 153 dower slaves.) In his funeral procession at Mount Vernon on December 18,
1799, two slaves led his horse behind the bier.

William Lee, the only slave Washington mentioned by name in his will
and the only one to whom he offered immediate freedom, had been
Washington’s body servant since 1768. He attended Washington
throughout the Revolutionary War. By 1788, he had broken both knees
and was disabled for the rest of his life.
In the name of God amen
I George Washington of Mount Vernon—a citizen of the United States,—and lately
President of the same, do make, ordain and declare this Instrument; which is written with
my own hand and every page thereof subscribed with my name, to be my last Will &
Testament, revoking all others.

770
Imprimus. All my debts, of which there are but few, and none of magnitude, are to be
punctually and speedily paid—and the Legacies hereinafter bequeathed, are to be
discharged as soon as circumstances will permit, and in the manner directed—
Item. To my dearly beloved wife Martha Washington I give and bequeath the use, profit
and benefit of my whole Estate, real and personal, for the term of her natural life—except
such parts thereof as are specifically disposed of hereafter.—My improved lot in the
Town of Alexandria, situated on Pitt & Cameron Streets, I give to her and her heirs
forever, as I also do my household & Kitchen furniture of every sort & kind, with the
liquors and groceries which may be on hand at the time of my decease; to be used &
disposed of as she may think proper.
Item Upon the decease of my wife, it is my Will & desire that all the Slaves which I hold
in my own right, shall receive their freedom.—To emancipate them during her life,
would, tho' earnestly wished by me, be attended with such insuperable difficulties on
account of their intermixture by Marriages with the Dower Negroes, as to excite the most
painful sensations, if not disagreeable consequences from the latter, while both
descriptions are in the occupancy of the same Proprietor; it not being in my power, under
the tenure by which the Dower Negroes are held, to manumit them.—And whereas
among those who will receive freedom according to this devise, there may be some, who
from old age or bodily infirmities, and others who on account of their infancy, that will
be unable to support themselves, it is my Will and desire that all who come under the first
& second description shall be comfortably cloathed & fed by my heirs while they live;—
and that such of the latter description as have no parents living, or if living are unable, or
unwilling to provide for them, shall be bound by the Court until they shall arrive at the
age of twenty five years;—and in cases where no record can be produced, whereby their
ages can be ascertained, the judgment of the Court upon its own view of the subject, shall
be adequate and final.—The Negroes thus bound, are (by their Masters or Mistresses) to
be taught to read & write; and to be brought up to some useful occupation, agreeably to
the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, providing for the support of Orphan and
other poor Children.—And I do hereby expressly forbid the Sale, or transportation out of
the said Commonwealth, of any Slave I may die possessed of, under any pretence
whatsoever.—And I do moreover most pointedly, and most solemnly enjoin it upon my
Executors hereafter named, or the Survivors of them, to see that this clause respecting
Slaves, and every part thereof be religiously fulfilled at the Epoch at which it is directed
to take place; without evasion, neglect or delay, after the Crops which may then be on the
ground are harvested, particularly as it respects the aged and infirm;—Seeing that a
regular and permanent fund be established for their Support so long as there are subjects
requiring it; not trusting to the uncertain provision to be made by individuals.—And to
my Mulatto man William (calling himself William Lee) I give immediate freedom; or if
he should prefer it (on account of the accidents which have befallen him, and which have
rendered him incapable of walking or of any active employment) to remain in the
situation he now is, it shall be optional to him to do so: In either case however, I allow
him an annuity of thirty dollars during his natural life, which shall be independent of the
victuals and cloaths he has been accustomed to receive, if he chuses the last alternative;
but in full, with his freedom, if he prefers the first;—& this I give him as a testimony of

771
my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services during the Revolutionary
War.—
...
Item The balance due to me from the Estate of Bartholomew Dandridge deceased (my
wife's brother) and which amounted on the first day of October 1795 to four hundred and
twenty five pounds (as will appear by an account rendered by his deceased son John
Dandridge, who was the acting Exr. of his fathers Will) I release & acquit from the
payment thereof.—And the Negroes, then thirty three in number) [sic] formerly
belonging to the said estate, who were taken in execution—sold—and purchased in on
my account in the year [blank] and ever since have remained in the possession, and to the
use of Mary, Widow of the said Bartholomew Dandridge, with their increase, it is my
Will & desire shall continue, & be in her possession, without paying hire, or making
compensation for the same for the time past or to come, during her natural life; at the
expiration of which, I direct that all of them who are forty years old & upwards, shall
receive their freedom; all under that age and above sixteen, shall serve seven years and no
longer; and all under sixteen years, shall serve until they are twenty five years of age, and
then be free.—And to avoid disputes respecting the ages of any of these Negroes, they
are to be taken to the Court of the County in which they reside, and the judgment thereof,
in this relation shall be final; and a record thereof made; which may be adduced as
evidence at any time thereafter, if disputes should arise concerning the same.—And I
further direct, that the heirs of the said Bartholomew Dandridge shall, equally, share the
benefits arising from the Services of the said negroes according to the tenor of this
devise, upon the decease of their Mother.
Source: The Last Will and Testament of George Washington, ed. Fitzpatrick, pp. 1-4, 1213.

1800—The Slave Gabriel Plans a Rebellion
In 1776, the slave Gabriel was born at ―Brookfield,‖ the tobacco plantation of Thomas
Prosser in Henrico County. He learned to read and write as a child. He and his brother
Solomon were trained as blacksmiths, which was probably the occupation of their father
as well. By adulthood, Gabriel had reached more than six feet in height and had gained
considerable bulk from his work at the forge. He was known in the community as being
distinctive for his physical size, as well as for his courage and intellect. In addition to
working at the plantation, Gabriel did smithing work around Richmond several days each
month.
Early in the spring of 1800, Gabriel began to outline an insurrection that aimed to achieve
liberty and economic rights for slaves and working-class whites. The highly political,
interracial conspiracy that Gabriel coordinated over the next several months was to result
in a violent assault against slaveowners and merchants on August 30th, but the plot was
revealed that night by one of the conspirators, perhaps scared by an incredibly violent

772
thunderstorm that had broken out. Captured in Norfolk on September 23, 1800, Gabriel
was hanged October 10th. Twenty-seven slaves died altogether.
In the following passages, Douglas Edgerton discusses Gabriel‘s motivations and outlines
his insurrection plan.
The spring of 1800 found Richmond, Virginia, a feverish tribute to partisan
politics; the April elections for the General Assembly were crucial for both Federalists
and Republicans in the upcoming presidential contest. The accompanying unrest,
discord, and rumors of impending disunion inspired a young slave named Gabriel to
conceive of what was perhaps the most extensive slave conspiracy in southern history.
Most of his contemporaries, white as well as black, believed that his plan stood a good
chance of succeeding. Had it done so, it might have changed not only the course of
American race relations but also the course of American political history.
...
The historical Gabriel who emerges from the voluminous trial records was . . . no
rustic farmhand but a highly skilled blacksmith who hired out his time around the
Richmond area. Far from being meek or timid, this born rebel had so little prejudice
against violence that he once bit off the left ear of a white neighbor during an angry
dispute over a stolen hog. Most of all, the Gabriel who engineered a complex conspiracy
with branches in at least three Virginia cities was no apolitical servant but a literate
artisan whose breadth of vision was truly international. Far from praying for the religious
day of jubilee, the black Jacobin labored to gather together ―the most redoubtable
democrats in the state‖ to destroy the economic hegemony of the ―merchants,‖ the only
whites he ever identified as his enemies.
...
The pervasive language of liberty and equality, which reached its rhetorical peak
during the overheated partisan warfare of the late 1790s, could not help but politicize
black Virginians. This was particularly true of urban slaves and freemen who labored
alongside stalwart white artisans, many of whom were members of the DemocraticRepublican societies of Richmond and Norfolk. Most urban bondmen lacked a
sophisticated understanding of the political issues they overheard, but that is hardly the
point; popular revolutions often arise from conjunctions between the aspirations of the
disenfranchised majority and the demands of the politically conscious minority. Only
when Gabriel‘s plan is placed against the turbulent political background of 1800 does the
logic of his conspiracy emerge. By taking advantage of what he believed to be an
impending civil war between Republicans and Federalists, Gabriel hoped his urban
followers could force the Federalist ―merchants‖ to yield to his simple demands for
justice. It was not merely that the conspiracy developed during a time of division among
whites; it was that artisan Gabriel, sharing the same small-producer ideology of many
urban Republicans, hoped to join in and exploit that division. His faith was that white

773
mechanics would see in his own struggle for liberty and economic rights grounds for
accepting his support—and that of his soldiers.
...
Sometime during the first days of spring in the election year of 1800, Gabriel
began to formulate a more precise plan for his freedom. He did not rebel because he was
a slave; he had always been a slave, but only in recent months had he achieved a level of
psychological autonomy that empowered him to break free from what he had borne for so
long. His incarceration in the Henrico brig was the first step. His jailing and the public
humiliation of his branding [for maiming] reminded him that whatever his status in the
Brookfield quarters, neighboring whites and the machinery of the state were determined
to hold him down. The violent political rhetoric of 1800 played an equally important role
in Gabriel‘s personal development. As the public debate grew more clamorous, those on
the bottom of society were drawn into the discourse, and they were drawn to the side of
the stouthearted mechanics and unskilled whites beside whom they labored and supped.
The challenging words of [the abolitionist Frenchman Charles] Quersey inspired Gabriel
and helped him to choose sides in the coming conflict. Finally, Saint Domingue served
as an inspiration to Gabriel and completed his development. Like Quersey, the distant
figure of Toussaint, still publicly loyal to France, seemed to clarify the domestic situation
and told him that if he dared, success might be within his reach.
Richmond was the key. As well as being the political heart of the state, it was
also a predominantly black city and the home to countless bondmen who might be willing
to join Gabriel‘s crusade. In northern cities, a discernible gap separated the politically
conscious artisans and the unskilled laborers, who commonly expressed their grievances
through sporadic crowd activity. But Gabriel stood at the top of a distinctly compressed
southern urban class structure. White artisans were few in number, and skilled slaves
were politicized by the election debates and radicalized by the news from Saint
Domingue. As his vague plan began to emerge, Gabriel hoped to rely on a form of
popular protest to achieve essentially political ends. His following would assume the
form of an urban mob; they would rise up not merely in protest over a single practice but
because they expected to achieve something lasting by it. They expected to attain their
freedom and a place in the political order.
The violence anticipated during the fall election would provide the right timing,
for it might gain allies for him. When the slaves rose in demand of their rights, Gabriel
told Ben, another of Prosser‘s slaves, ―he expected the poor white people‖ and ―most
redoubtable democrats‖ in the city to rise with them. Their revolt need not be the prelude
to a race war; the black and white insurgents he expected to recruit would spark a class
struggle that had a recognized purpose and might force specific concessions from the
state authorities. ―Quakers, the Methodists, and [all] Frenchmen . . . were to be spared,‖
Gabriel insisted, on account of ―their being friendly to liberty.‖ The blacksmith
―intended also to spare the poor white women who had no slaves.‖
There can be little doubt of the role that partisan politics played in Gabriel‘s
thinking. In mid-April, just one day before notifying Jefferson of the Republican
victories in the preliminary spring elections, James Monroe informed the vice president

774
of odd rumors that had surfaced ―of a negro insurrection.‖ But whatever news had leaked
to authorities quickly died down, and the governor thought no more about it.
...
As Gabriel‘s army neared [Richmond], it would split into three groups. ―The
centre [column], well provided with cutlasses, knives, pikes, and muskets,‖ would move
on Capitol Square and seize the guns stored in the building. James Monroe, sleeping in
the adjacent Governor‘s Mansion, would be taken hostage but left unharmed; it was
expected that, as an advocate of French liberty, he might be brought, by persuasion or
force, to consider the slaves‘ demands. The other two groups would set fire to the
warehouse district as a diversion and then hold Mayo‘s Bridge and fortify the city. While
they awaited ―reinforcements‖ from the other Virginia towns, the rebels would ―take the
treasury, and divide the money amongst the soldiers.‖ Enough townspeople would die, or
be taken hostage to force the town leaders to grant concessions. ―[I]f the white people
agreed to their freedom they would then hoist a white flag, and [Gabriel] would dine and
drink with the merchants of the city on the day when it should be agreed to.‖
What would happen next, Gabriel declined to say. Surely he believed that his
revolt would bring about more than just the freedom of his soldiers; the young husband
did not intend to risk his life so that his wife and family could remain in bondage. The
seizure of the capital city must mean the end of slavery in Virginia, and perhaps beyond.
But his desire to humble those on top and then live among them, was clear enough.
Gabriel understood that simple liberation was not sufficient. He wanted the fully
acknowledged position of equality with the master class—political, social, and
economic—that was the antithesis of human bondage.
. . . As he marched into the city he planned to carry a flag inscribed with the
words ―death or Liberty.‖ Gabriel‘s banner was designed to appeal to his broad coalition.
West African armies marched under unit flags that presumably made them invincible in
battle. The banner would remind older bondmen of Dunmore‘s regiment, and by turning
Patrick Henry‘s famous phrase on its head, it would also remind whites that they too
professed to believe in freedom.
Source: Edgerton, Gabriel‘s Rebellion, pp. ix-xi, 48-51.
December 1800—ACT 70. An ACT to amend the act, intituled, ―An act to reduce into
one the several acts concerning slaves, free negroes and mulattoes‖ [Passed January 21,
1801.]
This act reveals the fact that counties and corporations did not want to support a free
person of color who could not find employment.

6. If any free negro or mulatto so registered, shall remove into
another county, it shall and may be lawful for any magistrate of
the county or corporation in which he or she may intrude, to
issue a warrant to apprehend said free negro or mulatto; and if

775

upon examination it be found that he or she has no honest
employment by which to maintain him or herself, such free
negro or mulatto shall be deemed and treated as a vagrant.
Source: Shepherd, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:301.

December 1802—ACT 21. An ACT more effectually to restrain the practice of
negroes going at large [Passed January 25, 1803.]
The passage of this law indicates that several counties did not require free black
men, women, and children to register. The members of the General Assembly
hoped that the registration requirement would restrict the movement of free
people of color.
1. Be it enacted by the general assembly, That from and after the
commencement of this act, every free negro or mulatto, who resides in any county
in this commonwealth, shall be registered and numbered in a book to be kept for
that purpose by the clerk of the court of the said county, which register shall
specify the age, name, and colour and stature of such free negro or mulatto,
together with any apparent mark or scar, on his or her face, head or hands, and in
what court he or she was emancipated; or that such negro or mulatto was born
free. A copy of the said register, signed by the clerk and attested by one justice of
the peace of the said negro or mulatto, on application, for which copy the clerk
may demand and receive twenty-five cents, to be paid by the person receiving the
same.
2. Provided always, That the clerk shall in no case grant a copy of such
register, until the court of the county in which such free negro or mulatto resides,
shall have certified that such register has been truly made.
Source: Shepherd, ed., The Statutes at Large, 2:417-418.

December 1804—ACT XII. An ACT to amend and explain an act further
declaring what shall be deemed unlawful meetings of slaves [Passed January 4,
1805.]
Ira Berlin notes that ―The evangelical awakenings that had begun prior to the
Revolution reignited in the 1780s. Beginning with a series of revivals along the
James River in 1785, the movement spread quickly, stoked by the growth of the
Baptist Church in Virginia and the Methodist Church in Maryland and Delaware.
Even more than in the prerevolutionary period, the movement‘s rough
egalitarianism became harnessed to a growing antislavery sentiment and a
willingness to allow slave and free black members to participate in some aspects
of church governance and discipline. Indeed, within the white populace,
evangelical preachers were the most determined opponents to slavery. But

776
whether it was the hope of eternal grace or temporal equality that drew slaves,
black men and especially black women came to Christianity in unprecedented
numbers.‖
The legislators penned the following law in reaction to slaves who attended
worship services that were led by black ministers. Gowan Pamphlet led the First
Baptist Church in Williamsburg when the General Assembly passed this statute.
1. Whereas doubts have arisen in the minds of many of the good citizens
of this commonwealth relative to the construction which may be given to the act,
entitled, ―An act further declaring what shall be deemed unlawful meetings of
slaves,‖ whereby they apprehend that their religious rights may be infringed: For
the removal whereof, Be it enacted by the general assembly, That nothing in the
said act contained shall be so construed as to prevent the masters or owners of
slaves from carrying, or permitting his, her or their slave or slaves to go with him,
her or them, or with any part of his, her or their white family, to any places
whatever for the purpose of religious worship: Provided, That such worship be
conducted by a regularly ordained, or licensed, white minister.
2. And be it further enacted, That nothing in the said recited act contained
shall be considered as in any manner affecting white persons who may happen to
be present at any meeting or assemblage, for the purpose of religious worship, so
conducted by a white minister as aforesaid, at which there shall be such a number
of slaves as would, as the law has heretofore been construed, constitute an
unlawful assembly of slaves.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, p. 272; Shepherd, ed., The Statutes at
Large, 3:124.

December 1805—ACT LXIII. An ACT to amend the several laws concerning
slaves [Passed January 25, 1806.]
Many Virginians disliked the increase in the number of free blacks in the state
after 1782 when it became legal for masters to manumit their slaves. The
legislators responded to this concern and decided that a slave emancipated after
May 1, 1806 had to leave the state within one year of receiving his or her
freedom.
10. And be it further enacted, That if any slave hereafter emancipated shall
remain within this commonwealth more than twelve months after his or her right
to freedom shall have accrued, he or she shall forfeit all such right, and may be
apprehended and sold by the overseers of the poor of any county or corporation in
which he or she shall be found, for the benefit of the poor of such county or
corporation.
Source: Shepherd, ed., The Statutes at Large, 3:251-253.

777

Part IV—The Defense of Slavery and The Growth of the Antislavery
Movement

1820—The Missouri Compromise
The United States had an equal number of free and slave states—eleven—in 1819.
Slavery either had been prohibited or was soon to be prohibited in the states located north
and east of Pennsylvania and the Ohio River. However, no move had been made to
extend the dividing line between free and slave states across the Louisiana Purchase
territory where slavery had existed since the time when France and Spain had colonized
the area. In 1819, the Missouri Territory included all of the Louisiana Purchase except
the state of Louisiana and the Arkansas Territory. The request of residents of the
Missouri Territory to draft a state constitution and to start the process of gaining
admission to the Union forced Congress to confront the issue of the spread of slavery.
The members of Congress reached a compromise that allowed Missouri to enter the
Union as a slave state and Maine to enter the Union as a free state.
The Missouri Compromise remained in effect until 1854 when it was replaced with the
concept of ―popular sovereignty‖—―all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories,
and in the new states to be formed therefrom are to be left to the people residing therein,
through their appropriate representatives.‖
A. The Tallmadge Amendment, February 13, 1819—
And provided, That the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be
prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been [duly]
convicted; and that all children born within the said State, after the admission thereof into
the Union, shall be free at the age of twenty-five years.
B. The Taylor Amendment, January 26, 1820—
The reading of the bill proceeded as far as the fourth section; when
Mr. Taylor, of New York, proposed to amend the bill by incorporating in that
section the following provision:
Section 4, line 25, insert the following after the word ―States‖: ―And shall ordain
and establish, that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said
State, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor
or service is lawfully claimed in any other State, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed,
and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid: And
provided, also, That the said provision shall not be construed to alter the condition or
civil rights of any person now held to service or labor in the said Territory.

778
C. The Thomas Amendment (Final Form), February 17, 1820—
And be it further enacted, That, in all that territory ceded by France to the United
States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty
minutes north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of
the State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in
the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be and
is hereby forever prohibited: Proved always, That any person escaping into the same,
from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United
States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his
or her labor or service, as aforesaid.
D. Missouri Enabling Act, March 6, 1820—
Be it enacted…That the inhabitants of that portion of the Missouri territory
included within the boundaries hereinafter designated, be, and they are hereby, authorized
to form for themselves a constitution and State government, and to assume such name as
they shall deem proper; and the said State, when formed, shall be admitted into the
Union, upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever….
Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That in all that territory ceded by France to the
United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and
thirty minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contemplated by
this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes,
whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever
prohibited: Provided always, That any person escaping into the same from whom labour
or service is lawfully claimed, in any State or territory of the United States, such fugitive
may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labour or
service as aforesaid.
Source: Morris, ed., Basic Documents in American History, pp. 93-95.

1820 to 1850—The Era of Reform, the Antislavery Movement, and the Defense of
Slavery
In the early nineteenth century, reformers of all kinds sought to find or impose harmony
on a society in which economic change and discord had reached a crescendo. Prompted
by the evangelical ardor of the Second Great Awakening and convinced of the
perfectibility of the human race, they crusaded for individual improvement. Some
withdrew from the everyday competitive world to seek perfection in utopian
communities. Others sought to improve themselves by renouncing alcohol. Inevitably
the personal impulse to reform oneself led to the creation and reshaping of institutions.
Schools, penitentiaries, and other institutions all underwent scrutiny and reform. Women
were prominent in the reform movement, and the role of women in public life became an
issue itself.

779
Eventually one concern overrode all others: antislavery. No single issue evoked the
depth of passion that slavery did. On a personal level it pitted neighbor against neighbor,
settler against settler, section against section. Territorial expansion in the 1840s and
1850s would make it politically explosive as well.
The Beginnings of Abolitionism. A reform movement with a liberating ideology and
perfectionist goals could hardly have ignored the continued existence of human slavery in
the Southern states. The evils of slavery had been acknowledged by many leaders of the
Revolutionary generation, and organized antislavery activity, especially among the
Quakers, dated back to the late eighteenth century. Pressure from antislavery groups had
already achieved the abolition of slavery in the Northern states, and in the 1820s a small
manumission movement in the Upper South, supported mostly by Quakers, had called for
gradual, compensated emancipation with colonization of the free blacks in Africa.
In the early stages of the movement, because of the prevailing prejudice against
blacks, both Northern and Southern emancipationists believed that a program of
colonization would remove one of the chief obstacles to slavery‘s demise. In 1817 they
helped to organize the American Colonization Society, and in 1822 the first permanent
settlement of free blacks from the United States was planted in a territory named Liberia
on the coast of West Africa. The American Colonization Society had only limited
success in persuading free blacks to migrate, but the colonization movement introduced
many future abolitionists to the antislavery cause. Eventually most abolitionists
denounced colonization both as a proslavery attempt to strengthen slavery by eliminating
a potential danger and as an injustice to the blacks themselves. Nevertheless, the
colonization idea persisted among more moderate critics of slavery (including Abraham
Lincoln) to the time of the Civil War.
During the 1820s Benjamin Lundy, a New Jersey Quaker, was the most important
American emancipationist. Advocating a program of gradual emancipation,
compensation to slaveholders, and colonization of the liberated slaves, Lundy helped
organize local manumission societies in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia and at
the same time edited an antislavery newspaper, The Genius of Universal Emancipation,
in Baltimore. In 1830 young William Lloyd Garrison, a reformer from Boston, got his
start as an antislavery crusader writing for Lundy‘s paper. But Garrison was a man of
different temperament and brought a new passion and militancy to the attack. One of his
strident editorials led to his arrest and brief imprisonment, after which he left Baltimore
and returned to Boston. There, on January 1, 1831, he began the publication of The
Liberator, a weekly newspaper dedicated to the immediate abolition of Southern slavery
without compensation to the masters or colonization of the emancipated blacks. Garrison
set the tone of his crusade in the prospectus printed in the first issue:
I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do
not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. . . . I am in earnest—I will
not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—AND I WILL
BE HEARD.
In 1832 Garrison organized the New England Anti-Slavery Society and a year
later helped to establish a national organization, the American Anti-Slavery Society.

780
During the next few years abolitionist agents were busy establishing local societies, until
by 1840 a network of some 2,000 of them with nearly 200,000 members stretched across
the North. To many, Garrison was the embodiment of abolitionism, and the angry
response of the South to his harsh words kept him in the public eye. But he was more an
editor and publicist than an effective leader and tactician, and the movement soon grew
too large for him to control. Other abolitionists also played significant roles: Wendell
Phillips in New England, Gerrit Smith and Arthur and Lewis Tappan in New York, and
Theodore Dwight Weld in the West.
…
Except for communitarianism and perhaps feminism, abolition was the most
radical cause of the reformers, for it attacked not only the basic structure of Southern
society but an institution whose filaments ran through the whole national economy. To
justify their crusade against it, abolitionists described slavery as the greatest social evil in
the way of the nation‘s moral regeneration. To prove its wickedness they dwelt on its
corrupting impact on slaveholders and the cruelties inflicted on the slaves, for they were
always less interested in presenting a balanced picture than in winning converts. Slavery
provided abolitionists with plenty of illustrations of cruelty. In 1839 Weld published a
powerful antislavery tract, Slavery As It Is, which was simply a documented compilation
of atrocities culled from Southern newspapers and court records. The Southern states
made themselves especially vulnerable to criticism by refusing to eliminate the system‘s
worst abuses: its physical cruelty, its failure to give legal recognition to slave marriages,
the separation of children from their parents, the callous practices of interstate slave
traders, and the denial to Negroes of opportunities for self-improvement.
Abolitionism also attracted Northern reformers because the Southern
manumission societies had failed to accomplish their purpose; slavery, it appeared, would
never be destroyed without intervention from the outside. It no longer seemed to be a
weak and declining institution that could be left to die a natural death; instead it was
flourishing and spreading westward into new territories and states. The reformers were
shocked by the Southerners‘ growing tendency to defend slavery as a desirable and
permanent institution and by their increasingly harsh treatment of even native Southern
critics. Moreover, the reformers were acutely conscious of the hypocrisy of America‘s
posing as a model of liberal institutions while remaining one of the last countries in the
Western world to tolerate human bondage. Finally, the success of British abolitionists in
securing emancipation in the British West Indies (1833) stimulated the reformers to
undertake a similar crusade in America.
One small group of Americans, the free blacks, needed no prodding from white
reformers to support abolitionism, and in the North they made a significant contribution
to the movement. Northern free Negroes always constituted the majority of subscribers
to Garrison‘s Liberator, and after the organization of the American Anti-Slavery Society
three Negroes always served on its executive committee. Among the most prominent
black abolitionist agents and orators were Samuel Ringgold Ward, who escaped from
slavery in Maryland; Lunsford Lane, who was born a slave in North Carolina and bought
his own freedom; Sojourner Truth, who was born a slave in New York and was freed by
the state emancipation act; Charles Lenox Remond, a well-educated Massachusetts black

781
who lectured in Great Britain as well as in the United States; and Frederick Douglass,
who escaped from slavery in Maryland to become editor of an antislavery newspaper, one
of the greatest of all antislavery orators, and the preeminent American black leader of the
nineteenth century. Though most black abolitionists accepted the peaceful tactics of their
white comrades, a few helped to build a tradition of militant activism. In Boston, in
1829, David Walker, a free Negro born in North Carolina, published an angry Appeal to
the Colored Citizens of the World, justifying violence to destroy slavery and warning
white masters of the coming retribution for holding blacks in bondage. In 1843, Henry
H. Garnet, in an address before a Negro convention in Buffalo, urged slaves to strike for
their liberties: ―Let your motto be resistance! . . . No oppressed people have ever secured
their liberty without resistance!‖ Many free Negroes guided fugitives to freedom over
the so-called underground railroad. Among them was Harriet Tubman, who escaped
from slavery in Maryland but returned 19 times to help several hundred slaves flee from
their bondage.
Abolitionist Tactics. The tactics of the abolitionists were determined by their optimistic
assumptions about human nature, by their faith in the power of truth, by their belief that
slavery was essentially a moral issue, and by the restrictive political structure within
which they had to operate. They were confronted with the fact that Congress, unlike the
British Parliament, had no constitutional power to abolish slavery. At the same time, the
pacifism of most abolitionists discouraged the use of force. Abolitionists, therefore,
relied on ―moral suasion.‖ Their first goal was to persuade slaveholders that slavery was
a sin requiring repentance, as well as a denial of the ―unalienable rights‖ with which,
according to the Declaration of Independence, all men are endowed. Though
abolitionists believed in immediate emancipation—slaveholding being a sin, a moral
person could not advocate abandoning it gradually—they were practical enough to
understand that the actual implementation of emancipation might take a little time.
Hence they usually qualified their ―immediatism‖ by defining it, in one way or another,
as a program of emancipation ―promptly commenced‖ but ―gradually accomplished.‖
But the theoretical immediatism to which abolitionists were committed strengthened the
conviction of indignant Southerners that abolitionists were reckless incendiaries seeking
to bring ruin upon the South.
Whether moral suasion might be supplemented by some form of political action
was a question on which abolitionists differed. Garrison‘s nonresistance principles
turned him against government as an instrument of force and therefore against
involvement in politics. Moreover, he viewed the political parties as tools of the
slaveholders, the Union as their protector, and the Constitution as a proslavery document
(in his words, ―a covenant with death and an agreement with hell‖). Most abolitionists,
however, though recognizing that Congress could not touch slavery in the states, believed
that some things might be accomplished through political action—for example, the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, the outlawing of the interstate slave
trade, and the exclusion of slavery from federal territories. Hence they took an active
part in politics and put pressure on congressional candidates to take antislavery positions.
In 1840, a group of political abolitionists organized the Liberty party and nominated
James G. Birney for the Presidency, but the small vote the party attracted in this and
subsequent elections indicated that most abolitionists preferred to operate through

782
existing parties. With the growth of political abolitionism there was a notable decline in
pacifist sentiment, and the sectional conflict of the 1850s prepared many abolitionists to
turn from moral suasion to force as the ultimate remedy.
…
Northern businessmen, viewing antislavery agitation as a threat to their profitable
trade with the South, more than once joined or encouraged the mobs. Nationalists
opposed the abolitionists, because their crusade endangered the federal Union;
conservative churchmen feared that attacks on slavery might divide the churches along
sectional lines. However, race prejudice, which was nearly as intense in the North as in
the South, was always the fundamental cause of the hostility to abolitionism. The
prevailing prejudice exposed Northern free blacks to many forms of discrimination.
They were prohibited from entering most trades and professions and forced into menial
occupations; they were excluded from the public schools or sent to segregated schools;
they were assigned segregated seats in white churches and on public transportation; they
were barred from officeholding and jury duty; they were denied the ballot except in five
New England states and in New York (where they had to meet a property qualification
not required of whites); and they were prohibited from settling in several Western states. .
..
A Broadening Appeal. Though abolitionists had only limited success in reducing
Northern prejudice against Negroes, the growing sectional tension of the 1840s and
1850s caused Northerners to listen more sympathetically to what they had to say about
the South and the evils of slavery. Eventually abolitionist agitation helped to persuade
large numbers of Northerners that even black slavery was morally wrong and therefore
could not be accepted as a permanent institution. This agitation also produced an image
of slaveholders as unenterprising, undemocratic, arrogant, immoral, and cruel. The
slaveholders and their political henchmen, said the abolitionists, formed a sinister ―Slave
Power‖ that ruled the South and conspired to rule the entire Union in order to destroy
freedom and make slavery a national institution.
Meanwhile, as the abolitionists braved mobs to defend freedom of assembly and
of the press, they began to win admiration as champions of civil liberties not only for
blacks but for whites. They aroused sympathy when Southern mobs broke into post
offices to destroy packages of antislavery pamphlets, for now the right of minority groups
to disseminate their ideas through the mails seemed to be at stake. In 1836, when the
abolitionists deluged Congress with petitions urging the abolition of slavery in the
District of Columbia, Southerners forced through the House a so-called gag rule, which
provided that petitions relating to slavery were to be laid on the table without being
printed, referred to committee, or debated. Until the repeal of the gag rule in 1844,
abolitionists stood as defenders of another sacred liberty: the right of petition.
Most Northerners also sympathized with the more or less systematic efforts of
abolitionists to assist fugitive slaves to freedom along the routes of the underground
railroad. Few could help feeling compassion for pathetic fugitives seeking their own
liberty, and even a Negrophobe might resent the activities of the professional slave
catchers who roamed the free states. In 1842 an important case (Prigg v. Pennsylvania)

783
involving the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 came before the
Supreme Court. Though the Court ruled that the act was constitutional, it conceded that a
state might prohibit its own officers from helping to enforce it. Thereafter a number of
states, under pressure from the abolitionists, adopted ―personal-liberty laws‖ that
withheld assistance in the capture of fugitives.
On one issue—whether slavery should be introduced into new territories and
states—the abolitionists eventually gained overwhelming Northern support. Northerners
continued to agree that the Constitution prevented federal interference with slavery in the
Southern states, but by the 1850s they felt strongly that slavery should not be permitted to
enlarge its domain. Often this sentiment sprang less from sympathy for the blacks than
from a determination of free white farmers to keep slaveholders out of the territories they
coveted. But the abolitionist indictment of slavery proved a handy weapon for them to
use against Southern expansionists.
In one fundamental respect the abolitionist crusade was a failure. Since it did not
convert the slaveholders, it never achieved its original goal: peaceful abolition through
moral suasion. Abolitionists who hoped to eliminate prejudice and discrimination in the
Northern states, of course, suffered a second defeat. But in another and unexpected way
the crusade was a success. Though it was launched by pacifists, by 1861 abolitionism,
which had itself grown increasingly militant, had helped to arm the Northern population
morally for the terrible struggle that lay ahead.
THE PROSLAVERY ARGUMENT
Slavery a Positive Good. In January 1837 Senator John C. Calhoun boldly took a
position toward which many Southern apologists for slavery had been drifting:
I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin,
and distinguished by color and other physical differences, as well as intellectual,
are brought together, the relation now existing in the slave-holding states between
the two is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good.
There would be no more apologies—no concessions that slavery was at best a necessary
evil—as Southern dialecticians spun out the arguments affirming the benign qualities of
their peculiar institution. Never before had the justification of human bondage been
presented with so much moral fervor and in such elaborate detail as in the antebellum
South. Indeed, the proslavery argument was one of the most impressive products of its
intellectual life. Southern poets, theologians, moral philosophers, social theorists, jurists,
and scientists combined their talents to uphold slavery and denounce heresy and
radicalism.
This body of proslavery literature is significant not only because it was one of the
principal contributions of Southern men of letters but because it was a rare expression in
nineteenth-century America of deep pessimism about human nature, of doubt about the
liberal tradition, and of skepticism about progress. Romanticism, which found expression
in the North in the reform movement and in a remarkable burst of literary productivity,
found expression in the South in a cult of chivalry and in an attempt to identify the
planter class with traditional aristocratic values.

784

The Nature of the Defense. Since the average slave-holder was highly religious, a
theological defense of slavery was almost invariably incorporated in the numerous
treatises on the subject. Out of the mass of Scriptural arguments, three were of crucial
importance. The first identified the Negroes as the descendants of Canaan, the son of
Ham, of whom Noah said, ―Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his
brethern.‖ The second pointed to Mosaic law, which authorized the Jews to make
bondsmen ―of the heathen that are round about you.‖ The third noted that neither the
prophets of the Old Testament or Christ and his apostles ever condemned slavery.
Rather, they repeatedly admonished servants to obey their masters and to submit to their
earthly lot. The proper role of the church, therefore, was not to attack slavery but to bring
spiritual salvation to the slaves and to urge benevolence on their masters.
Turning to history, the defenders argued that slavery had always existed in some
form and that it had been the foundation of all the great civilizations of antiquity.
Aristotle, whose thought permeates the proslavery argument, taught that in every
organized society the men of superior talents would become masters over those of
inferior talents. Slavery thus enabled a class to emerge that could devote its genius to art,
literature, and other intellectual pursuits.
Yet, in spite of such generalizations, few Southerners were prepared to defend
their own slave system on a class basis—that is, as a desirable condition for certain
classes of people of all races. Rather, their defense was essentially a defense of black
slavery—of the subordination of the black race to the white. Since all Southern slaves
had at least some African ancestors, evidence that Africans were innately inferior to
whites was crucial to the Southern justification of the peculiar institution. By a curious
combination of comparative anatomy and the pseudoscience of phrenology, Southern
ethnologists attributed to blacks certain distinct physical and psychic traits that suggested
their inferiority to the whites. These alleged racial traits established the master-slave
relationship between whites and blacks as a natural condition, its abolition a profound
disaster to both groups.
Belief in the inferiority of Negroes led also to the conclusion that the affirmations
of the Declaration of Independence, the provisions of state bills of rights, and the benefits
of citizenship did not and were not intended to apply to them. Society must have a class
―to perform the drudgery of life,‖ affirmed James H. Hammond of South Carolina, a class
―requiring but low order of intellect,‖ a class that ―constitutes the very mud-sill of
society.‖ Black slavery provided this class and, by freeing the whites from menial tasks,
elevated all members of the privileged caste to a condition of perfect equality.
The South had found in slavery, argued its defenders, a way to avoid the dangers
to order and property posed by the laboring classes in free society. Slavery served as a
conservative bulwark against all the radical ―isms‖ that threatened the North with
revolution. In the South the slaves were ―orderly and efficient,‖ and society had within it
no element of disharmony. ―It is the only condition of society in which labor and capital
are associated on a large scale in which their interests are combined and not in conflict.
Every plantation is an organized community . . . where all work, where each member gets
subsistence and a home.‖ Slavery, in short, was a practical form of socialism.
In every respect, said Southern apologists, the slaves were better off than socalled free laborers. They were happy and contented, because they were well treated,

785
well fed, well housed, and well clothed; they were cared for in childhood, in old age, and
in times of sickness. The free-labor system, which left workers to shift for themselves,
was far more cruel and heartless. Indeed, wrote a Virginian, ―a merrier being does not
exist on the fact of the globe, than the Negro slave of the United States.‖
The defense of slavery as a positive good in the South at a time when a great
reform movement was agitating the North posed a serious threat to the survival of the
Union. Slavery was no longer open to discussion in the South, and slaveholders intensely
resent its denunciation on moral grounds in the North. Not even the two largest
Protestant churches were able to bear the strain, and the slavery issue led to sectional
splits—the Methodists in 1844, the Baptists in 1845. Eventually the national political
parties would also disintegrate, and thus another major institutional tie would be broken.
Abolitionists and proslavery polemicists had raised a moral issue—the right and wrong of
slavery—that stubbornly resisted resolution by the best efforts of a generation of able
politicians and statesmen.
Source: Norton et al., A People and a Nation, p. 324; Blum, et al., The National
Experience, pp. 242-249.

1821—Thomas Jefferson Predicts Freedom for Slaves
In his autobiography, written in 1821, Jefferson reviewed his work with George Wythe
and Edmund Pendleton in revising the code of Virginia. He recalled that the men
envisioned proposing an amendment to the section about the slaves that would provide
for the gradual emancipation and deportation of Virginia‘s slaves. According to
Jefferson, this did not come to pass because public opinion would not accept it.
While, in the selection below, Jefferson referred to the provisions regarding slavery as ―a
mere digest of the existing laws,‖ he was not entirely accurate. As editor Julian K. Boyd
points out, the revision proposed by Jefferson limited the increase of slaves in Virginia to
the descendants of female slaves then in the state (this clause was accepted by the
legislature) and imposed harsh penalties on free blacks who tried to immigrate to the state
or who remained in the state after manumission (these provisions were rejected by the
legislature). Boyd argued that through these provisions Jefferson was attempting to bring
about gradual emancipation and a decrease in the number of black residents of the state.
In the excerpt below, Jefferson expresses his belief that Virginia‘s slaves would one day
be free and that deportation would have to accompany emancipation.
The bill on the subject of slaves was a mere digest of the existing laws respecting
them, without any intimation of a plan for a future & general emancipation. It was
thought better that this should be kept back, and attempted only by way of amendment
whenever the bill should be brought on. The principles of the amendment however were
agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day, and deportation at a
proper age. But it was found that the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor
will it bear it even at this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must hear and adopt it,

786
or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these
people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in
the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction
between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and
deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly,
and their place be pari passu441 filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is
left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in
vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This
precedent would fall far short of our case.
Source: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Ford, 1:67-68.

1829—Justice Thomas Ruffin of the North Carolina Supreme Court on the Master's
Absolute Dominion Over a Slave
In The State v. John Mann, Judge Thomas Ruffin (1787-1870) of the North Carolina
Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that had held Thomas Mann liable for
assault and battery on a slave named Lydia, whom Mann had hired from her owner,
Elizabeth Jones. A jury, instructed that Mann had only a special property in the slave,
had found Mann guilty of cruel and unwarrantable punishment upon Lydia, whom he had
shot and wounded after she ran off while he was attempting to punish her for a minor
infraction. Mann appealed the verdict, and Ruffin determined that he had the same right
to control the slave's behavior as did her owner and thus could not be indicted for battery.
In delivering his decision, Ruffin addressed the question of the extent of a master's power
over a slave, and he concluded that it was absolute.
Ruffin, a native of King and Queen County, Virginia, and a graduate of the College of
New Jersey, had risen quickly at the bar in North Carolina and had just been elected an
associate justice of the supreme court in 1829. In his classic, doggedly logical argument
for judicial restraint, Ruffin declared that the courts should not be in the business of
determining the rights of masters over their slaves. Judges had to recognize that masters
had full dominion over their slaves, he said, and that any attempt to provide slaves with
recourse in the courts would undermine slavery. Because slavery was at essence
maintained by physical force, Ruffin argued, masters had to be allowed absolute power
over their slaves so that they could compel absolute submission. Ruffin also averred that
community pressure was usually a sufficient external force to limit cruelty on the part of
a master. Ruffin, who served as chief justice from 1833 to 1852, is considered by legal
scholars as a pioneer in constitutional law and also a formidable jurist in both common
law and equity.

441With equal pace; with equal speed. Webster‘s New World Dictionary, 2nd College
Edition.

787
The excerpt below contains the substance of Ruffin‘s argument about the power relations
of slavery. It comes from Ruffin's third draft of his opinion, which is exactly the same as
the printed opinion found in 13 North Carolina 263.
A judge cannot but lament when such cases as the present are brought into
judgment. It is impossible that the reasons on which they go can be appreciated, but
where institutions similar to our own exist and are thoroughly understood. The struggle,
too, in the judge's own breast between the feelings of the man and the duty of the
magistrate is a severe one, presenting strong temptation to put aside such questions, if it
be possible. It is useless, however, to complain of things inherent in our political state.
And it is criminal in a Court to avoid any responsibility which the laws impose. With
whatever reluctance, therefore, it is done, the Court is compelled to express an opinion
upon the extent of the dominion of the master over the slave in North Carolina.
. . . Arguments drawn from the well-established principles which confer and
restrain the authority of the parent over the child, the tutor over the pupil, the master over
the apprentice, have been pressed on us. The Court does not recognize their application.
There is no likeness between the cases. They are in opposition to each other, and there is
an impassable gulf between them. The difference is that which exists between freedom
and slavery—and a greater cannot be imagined. In the one, the end in view is the
happiness of the youth, born to equal rights with that governor, on whom the duty
devolves of training the young to usefulness in a station which he is afterwards to assume
among freemen. To such an end, and with such a subject, moral and intellectual
instruction seem the natural means; and for the most part they are found to suffice.
Moderate force is superadded only to make the others more effectual. If that fail it is
better to leave the party to his own headstrong passions and the ultimate correction of the
law than to allow it to be immoderately inflicted by a private person. With slavery it is
far otherwise. The end is the profit of the master, his security and the public safety; the
subject, one doomed in his own person and his posterity, to live without knowledge and
without capacity to make anything his own, and to toil that another may reap the fruits.
What moral considerations shall be addressed to such a being to convince him what it is
impossible but that the most stupid must feel and know can never be true—that he is thus
to labor upon a principle of natural duty, or for the sake of his own personal happiness,
such services can only be expected from one who has no will of his own; who surrenders
his will in implicit obedience to that of another. Such obedience is the consequence only
of uncontrolled authority over the body. There is nothing else which can operate to
produce the effect. The power of the master must be absolute to render the submission of
the slave perfect. I most freely confess my sense of the harshness of this proposition; I
feel it as deeply as any man can; and as a principle of moral right every person in his
retirement must repudiate it. But in the actual condition of things it must be so. There is
no remedy. This discipline belongs to the state of slavery. They cannot be disunited
without abrogating at once the rights of the master and absolving the slave from his
subjection. It constitutes the curse of slavery to both the bond and free portion of our
population. But it is inherent in the relation of master and slave.
That there may be particular instances of cruelty and deliberate barbarity where,
in conscience, the law might properly interfere, is most probable. The difficulty is to
determine where a Court may properly begin. Merely in the abstract it may well be

788
asked, which power of the master accords with right? The answer will probably sweep
away all of them. But we cannot look at the matter in that light. The truth is that we are
forbidden to enter upon a train of general reasoning on the subject. We cannot allow the
right of the master to be brought into discussion in the courts of justice. The slave, to
remain a slave, must be made sensible that there is no appeal from his master; that his
power is in no instance usurped; but is conferred by the laws of man at least, if not by the
law of God. The danger would be great, indeed, if the tribunals of justice should be
called on to graduate the punishment appropriate to every temper and every dereliction of
menial duty. No man can anticipate the many and aggravated provocations of the master
which the slave would be constantly stimulated by his own passions or the instigation of
others to give; or the consequent wrath of the master, prompting him to bloody
vengeance upon the turbulent traitor—a vengeance generally practiced with impunity by
reason of its privacy. The Court, therefore, disclaims the power of changing the relation
in which these parts of our people stand to each other.
We are happy to see that there is daily less and less occasion for the interposition
of the Courts. The protection already afforded by several statutes, that all-powerful
motive, the private interest of the owner, the benevolences towards each other, seated in
the hearts of those who have been born and bred together, the frowns and deep
execrations of the community upon the barbarian who is guilty of excessive and brutal
cruelty to his unprotected slave, all combined, have produced a mildness of treatment and
attention to the comforts of the unfortunate class of slaves, greatly mitigating the rigors of
servitude and ameliorating the condition of the slaves. The same causes are operating
and will continue to operate with increased action until the disparity in numbers between
the whites and blacks shall have rendered the latter in no degree dangerous to the former,
when the police now existing may be further relaxed. This result, greatly to be desired,
may be much more rationally expected from the events above alluded to, and now in
progress, than from any rash expositions of abstract truths by a judiciary tainted with a
false and fanatical philanthropy, seeking to redress an acknowledged evil by means still
more wicked and appalling than even that evil.
I repeat I would gladly have avoided this ungrateful question. But being brought
to it the Court is compelled to declare that while slavery exists amongst us in its present
state, or until it shall seem fit to the legislature to interpose express enactments to the
contrary, it will be the imperative duty of the judges to recognize the full dominion of the
owner over the slave, except where the exercise of it is forbidden by statute. And this we
do upon the ground that this dominion is essential to the value of slaves as property, to
the security of the master, and the public tranquillity, greatly dependent upon their
subordination; and, in fine, as most effectually securing the general protection and
comfort of the slaves themselves.
Per Curium—Let the judgment below be reversed, and judgment entered for the
defendant.
Source: The Papers of Thomas Ruffin, ed. de Roulhac Hamilton, pp. 256-257.
1829—David Walker‘s Appeal To The Coloured Citizens of the World

789
In his Appeal, David Walker makes several pointed references to Thomas Jefferson‘s
Notes on the State of Virginia and the Declaration of Independence. Walker‘s arguments
against Jefferson‘s inconsistencies are only a part of his Appeal. However, for the
purpose of the Enslaving Virginia storyline (and brevity), only references to Jefferson
and the Revolution appear here.
In his introduction to the reprint of Walker‘s work, James Turner notes that:
―The publication of David Walker‘s Appeal was an event of major importance. It was
the most seminal expression of African American political thought to come forth in the
early nineteenth century. The Appeal is fundamentally a treatise on the necessity of and
moral justification for resistance to slavery as the most despicable form of oppression.
[In 1829, when Walker‘s Appeal was first published,] abolitionist activities were
in a nascent stage of development. Walker presents the first sustained critique of slavery
and racism in the United States by an African [American] person. . . .The Appeal
evidenced a level of writing craft, multidimensional analysis, and command of principles
of natural and religious philosophy that dramatically belied the conventional notion, at
the time, that Africans were incapable of complex reasoning, rational differentiation, and
fluent conversation in the lingua franca, i.e., English.
Its impact was immediate and dramatic. Slaveholders, particularly the powerful
plantation owners and their political allies, were very alarmed. They proclaimed the
pamphlet subversive and an incitement to revolution. . . .A group of wealthy planters
offered a ten-thousand dollar reward for [Walker]—dead or alive. The Georgia
legislature, followed by Louisiana, passed laws against the circulation of the Appeal.
Violation of those laws was punishable by imprisonment or death. The state of North
Carolina made it a crime to teach a slave to read or write.
The concise clarity from which David Walker articulated the human rights of
African people at home and abroad sustains the relevance of this document to
contemporary readers. The text is structured from an unequivocal Black perspective.
Walker argues the need for conscious awareness among the people, responsibility for
self-determination, mutual cooperation, political organization, and the essentiality of
unity among all Africans on an international basis.‖
Our Wretchedness In Consequence Of Slavery.
My beloved brethren: The Indians of North America and of South America—the
Greeks—the Irish, subjected under the king of Great Britain—the Jews, that ancient
people of the Lord—the inhabitants of the islands of the sea—in fine, all the inhabitants
of the earth, (except, however, the sons of Africa) are called men, and of course are, and
ought to be free. But we, (coloured people) and our children are brutes!! and of course
are, and ought to be SLAVES to the American people and their children forever!! to dig
their mines and work their farms; and thus go on enriching them, from one generation to
another with our blood and our tears!!!!
I promised in a preceding page to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the most
incredulous, that we, (coloured people of these United States of America) are the most
wretched, degraded and abject set of beings that ever lived since the world began, and

790
that the white Americans having reduced us to the wretched state of slavery, treat us in
that condition more cruel (they being an enlightened and Christian people,) than any
heathen nation did any people whom it reduced to our condition.
Oh! pity us we pray thee, Lord Jesus, Master.—Has Mr. Jefferson declared to the
world, that we are inferior to the whites, both in the endowments of our bodies and of
minds? It is indeed surprising, that a man of such great learning, combined with such
excellent natural parts, should speak so of a set of men in chains. I do not know what to
compare it to, unless, like putting one wild deer in an iron cage, where it will be secured,
and hold another by the side of the same, then let it go, and expect the one in the cage to
run as fast as the one at liberty.
I saw a paragraph, a few years since, in a South Carolina paper, which, speaking
of the barbarity of the Turks, it said: ‗The Turks are the most barbarous people in the
world—they treat the Greeks more like brutes than human beings.‘ And in the same
paper was an advertisement, which said: ‗Eight well built Virginia and Maryland Negro
fellows and four wenches will positively be sold this day, to the highest bidder!‘ And
what astonished me still more was, to see in this same humane paper!! the cuts of three
men, with clubs and budgets on their backs, and an advertisement offering a considerable
sum of money for their apprehension and delivery. I declare, it is really so amusing to
hear the Southerners and Westerners of this country talk about barbarity, that is
positively, enough to make a man smile.
I ask you, O! Americans, I ask you, in the name of the Lord, can you deny these
charges? Some perhaps may deny, by saying, that they never thought or said that we
were not men. But do not actions speak louder than words?—have they not made
provisions for the Greeks, and Irish? Nations who have never done the least thing for
them, while we, who have enriched their country with our blood and tears—have dug up
gold and silver for them and their children, from generation to generation, and are in
more miseries than any other people under heaven, are not seen, but by comparatively, a
handful of the American people?
The world knows, that slavery as it existed among the Romans, (which was the
primary cause of their destruction) was, comparatively speaking, no more than a cypher,
when compared with ours under the Americans. Indeed I should not have noticed the
Roman slaves, had not the very learned and penetrating Mr. Jefferson said, ―when a
master was murdered, all his slaves in the same house, or within hearing, were
condemned to death.‖ Here let me ask Mr. Jefferson, (but he is gone to answer at the bar
of God, for the deeds done in his body while living,) I therefore ask the whole American
people, had I not rather die, or be put to death, than to be a slave to any tyrant, who takes
not only my own, but my wife and children‘s lives by inches? Yea, would I meet death
with avidity far! far!! in preference to such servile submission to the murderous hands of
tyrants. Mr. Jefferson‘s very severe remarks on us have been so extensively argued upon
by men whose attainments in literature, I shall never be able to reach, that I would not
have meddled with it, were it not to solicit each of my brethren, who has the spirit of a
man, to buy a copy of Mr. Jefferson‘s Notes on Virginia, and put it in the hand of his son.
For let no one of us suppose that the refutations which have been written by our white
friends are enough—they are whites—we are blacks.
We, and the world wish to see the charges of Mr. Jefferson refuted by the blacks
themselves, according to their chance; for we must remember that what the whites have

791
written respecting this subject, is other men‘s labors, and did not emanate from the
blacks. I know well, that there are some talents and learning among the coloured people
of this country, which we have not a chance to develop, in consequence of oppression;
but our oppression ought not to hinder us from acquiring all we can. For we will have a
chance to develop them by and by. God will not suffer us, always to be oppressed. Our
suffering will come to an end, in spite of all the Americans this side of eternity. Then we
will want all the learning and talents among ourselves.—―Every dog must have its day,‖
the American is coming to an end.
But let us review Mr. Jefferson‘s remarks respecting us some further. Comparing our
miserable fathers, with the learned philosophers of Greece, he says:
Yet notwithstanding these and other discouraging circumstances among the Romans,
their slaves were often their rarest artists. They excelled too, in science, insomuch as to
be usually employed as tutors to their master‘s children; Epictetus, Terence and Phaedrus,
were slaves,—but they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition then, but
nature, which has produced the distinction.
See this, my brethren!! Do you believe that this assertion is swallowed by millions of the
whites? Do you know that Mr. Jefferson was one of as great characters as ever lived
among the whites? See his writings for the world, and public labors for the United States
of America. Do you believe that the assertions of such a man, will pass away into
oblivion unobserved by this people and the world? If you do you are much mistaken.
But to the slaves among the Romans. Every body who has read history, knows,
that as soon as a slave among the Romans obtained his freedom, he could rise to the
greatest eminence in the State, and there was no law instituted to hinder a slave from
buying his freedom. Have not the Americans instituted laws to hinder us from obtaining
our freedom? Do any deny this charge? Read the laws of Virginia, North Carolina, &c.
Further: have not the Americans instituted laws to prohibit a man of colour from
obtaining and holding an office whatever, under the government of the United States of
America? Now, Mr. Jefferson tells us, that our condition is not so hard, as the slaves
were under the Romans!!!!!!
The whites have always been an unjust, jealous, unmerciful, avaricious and
bloodthirsty set of beings, always seeking after power and authority.—We view them all
over the confederacy of Greece, where they were first known to be any thing, (in
consequence of education) we see them there, cutting each other‘s throats—trying to
subject each other to wretchedness and misery—to effect which, they used all kinds of
deceitful, unfair, and unmerciful means. We view them next in Rome, where the spirit of
tyranny and deceit raged still higher. We view them in Gaul, Spain, and in Britain.—In
fine, we view them all over Europe, together with what were scattered about in Asia and
Africa, as heathens, and we see them acting more like devils than accountable men. But
some may ask, did not the blacks of Africa, and the mulattoes of Asia, go on in the same
way as did the whites of Europe. I answer, no—they never were half so avaricious,
deceitful and unmerciful as the whites, according to their knowledge.
But we leave the whites or Europeans as heathens, and take a view of them as
Christians, in which capacity we see them as cruel, if not more so than ever. In fact, take
them as a body, they are ten times more cruel, avaricious and unmerciful than ever they

792
were; for while they were heathens, they were not quite so audacious as to go and take
vessel loads of men, women and children, and in cold blood, and through devilishness,
throw them into the sea, and murder them in all kind of ways. While they were heathens,
they were too ignorant for such barbarity. But being Christians, enlightened and sensible,
they are completely prepared for such hellish cruelties.
How can, Oh! how can those enemies but say that we and our children are
not of the HUMAN FAMILY, but were made by our Creator to be an inheritance
to them and theirs forever? How can the slaveholders but say that they can bribe
the best coloured person in the country, to sell his brethren for a trifling sum of
money, and take that atrocity to confirm them in their avaricious opinion, that we
were made to be slaves to them and their children? How could Mr. Jefferson but
say,
I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a
distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the
whites in the endowments of both body and mind?
―It,‖ says he, ―is not against experience to suppose, that different species
of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different
qualifications.‖ [Here, my brethren, listen to him.]
Will not a lover of natural history, then, one who views the gradations in all the
races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep in the
department of MAN as distinct as nature has formed them?
I hope you will try to find out the meaning of this verse—its widest sense and all
its bearings: whether you do or not, remember the whites do. This very verse,
brethren, having emanated from Mr. Jefferson, a much greater philosopher the
world never afforded, has in truth injured us more, and has been as great a barrier
to our emancipation as any thing that has ever been advanced against us. I hope
you will not let it pass unnoticed.
For my own part, I am glad Mr. Jefferson has advanced his positions for your
sake; for you will either have to contradict or confirm him by your own actions, and not
by what our friends have said or done for us; for those things are other men‘s labors, and
do not satisfy the Americans, who are waiting for us to prove to them ourselves, that we
are MEN, before they will be willing to admit the fact; for I pledge you my sacred word
of honor, that Mr. Jefferson‘s remarks have sunk deep into the hearts of millions of the
whites, and never will be removed this side of eternity.
ADDITION.—I will give here a very imperfect list of the cruelties inflicted on us
by the enlightened Christians of America.—First, no trifling portion of them will beat us
nearly to death, if they find us on our knees praying to God,—They hinder us from going
to hear the word of God—they keep us sunk in ignorance, and will not let us learn to read
the word of God, nor write—If they find us with a book of any description in our hand,
they will beat us nearly to death—they are so afraid we will learn to read, and enlighten
our dark and benighted minds—They will not suffer us to meet together to worship the

793
God who made us—they brand us with hot iron—they cram bolts of fire down our
throats—they cut us as they do horses, bulls, or hogs—they crop our ears and sometimes
cut off bits of our tongues—they chain and handcuff us, and while in that miserable and
wretched condition, beat us with cowhides and clubs—they keep us half naked and starve
us sometimes nearly to death under their infernal whips or lashes (which some of them
shall have enough of yet)—They put on us fifty-sixes and chains, and make us work in
that cruel situation, and in sickness, under lashes to support them and their families.—
They keep us three or four hundred feet under ground working in their mines, night and
day to dig up gold and silver to enrich them and their children.—They keep us in the
most deathlike ignorance by keeping us from all source of information, and call us, who
are free men and next to the Angels of God, their property!!!!!! They make us fight and
murder each other, many of us being ignorant, not knowing any better.—They take us,
(being ignorant,) and put us as drivers one over the other, and make us afflict each other
as bad as they themselves afflict us—and to crown the whole of this catalogue of
cruelties, they tell us that we (the blacks) are an inferior race of beings! incapable of selfgovernment!!—We would be injurious to society and ourselves, if tyrants should lose
their unjust hold on us!!! That if we were free we would not work, but would live on
plunder or theft!!!! that we are the meanest and laziest set of beings in the world!!!!!
That they are obliged to keep us in bondage to do us good!!!!!!—That we are satisfied to
rest in slavery to them and their children!!!!!!—That we ought not to be set free in
America, but ought to be sent away to Africa!!!!!!!!-—That if we were set free in
America, we would involve the country in a civil war, which assertion is altogether at
variance with our feeling or design, for we ask them for nothing but the rights of man,
viz. for them to set us free, and treat us like men, and there will be no danger, for we will
love and respect them, and protect our country—but cannot conscientiously do these
things until they treat us like men.
See your Declaration Americans!!! Do you understand your own language? Hear
your language, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776—
We hold these truths to be self evident—that ALL men are created EQUAL!! that they
are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!
Compare your own language above, extracted from your Declaration of
Independence, with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful
fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us—men who have never given your fathers
or you the least provocation!!!!!!
Hear your language further!
But when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same object,
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty,
to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Now, Americans! I ask you candidly, were your sufferings under Great Britain,
one hundredth part as cruel and tyrannical as you have rendered ours under you? Some

794
of you, no doubt, believe that we will never throw off your murderous government and
―provide new guards for our future security.‖ If Satan has made you believe it, will he
not deceive you? Do the whites say, I being a black man, ought to be humble, which I
readily admit? I ask them, ought they not be as humble as I? or do they think that they
can measure arms with Jehovah? will not the Lord yet humble them? or will not those
very coloured people whom they now treat worse than brutes, yet under God, humble
them down low enough? Some of the whites are ignorant enough to tell us, that we ought
to be submissive to them that they may keep their feet on our throats. And if we do not
submit to be beaten to death by them, we are bad creatures and of course must be
damned, &c.
The Americans may be as vigilant as they please, but they cannot be vigilant
enough for the Lord, neither can they hide themselves, where he will not find and bring
them out.
Source: David Walker‘s Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World, ed. Turner, pp. 918, 27, 30-37, 46-48, 84-85, 95-96.
1831—Nat Turner‘s Insurrection
The most famous slave insurrection in the United States took place in Southampton
County, Virginia, in 1831. Before dawn on August 22, Nat Turner, a gifted slave
preacher, followed his religious, mystical visions and launched a rebellion against local
slaveholders. Eventually, sixty to eighty black men joined Turner, and they murdered
between fifty-seven and sixty whites, many of them women and children. The rebellion
was swiftly put down by the militia. About two dozen of the insurrectionists were killed
in battle or hanged after trial, and more than one hundred alleged rebels died at the hands
of vigilantes.
Nat Turner himself avoided capture for more than two months. Once found, he was
quickly tried, found guilty, and executed. Before his trial, however, Turner was
interviewed in his jail cell by Thomas R. Gray, a local lawyer and slaveholder. Gray
published Turner‘s account of his life and the rebellion as The Confessions of Nat Turner
(1831), which went through at least two reprintings and may have sold as many as 50,000
copies. While the Confessions does contain the voice of Nat Turner, Gray crafted it to
prove that Turner was insane and that the seeds of the rebellion lay in the fanaticism of
one man, not in the system of slavery itself. In contrast, the heroic image of Turner in
the oral history passed down by slaves portrayed the rebellion as a courageous effort to
liberate slaves from an oppressive system.
Turner‘s revolt led to a legislative debate in Virginia about the possible gradual abolition
of slavery. The state‘s representatives ultimately rejected that option in favor of new
restraints on slaves and free blacks. Free blacks were denied the right to trial by jury.
Both free blacks and slaves were forbidden to preach or lead religious meetings.

795
While Turner pleaded not guilty at his trial, a witness who had seen his family members
killed during the revolt testified to Turner‘s leadership of the uprising. The following
excerpt from the trial record is from the Southampton County Minute Book, 1830-1835,
housed in the Library of Virginia in Richmond.
At a Court of Oyer and Terminer summoned and held for the County of
Southampton on Saturday the fifth day of November 1831 for the trial of Nat alias Nat
Turner a negro man slave the property of Putnam Moore an infant charged with
conspiring to rebel and making insurrection—Present—Jeremiah Cobb, Samuel B. Hines,
James D. Massenburg, James W. Parker, Robert Goodwin, James Trezevant & Ores A.
Browne—Gent. Carr Bowers, Thomas Preston and Richd A. Urquardt.
For reasons appearing to the Court it is ordered that the Sheriff summon a
sufficient additional guard to repel any attempt that may be made to remove Nat alias Nat
Turner from the custody of the Sheriff—
The prisoner Nat alias Nat Turner was set to the bar in custody of the Jailor of this
County, and William C. Parker is by the Court assigned Counsel for the prisoner in his
defense, and Meriwether B. Broadnax attorney for the Commonwealth filed an
Information against the prisoner who upon his arraignment pleaded not guilty and Levi
Waller being summoned as a Witness states that on the morning of the 22nd day of
August last between 9 and 10 o‘clock he heard that the negroes had risen and were
murdering the whites and were coming. Witness sent his son Thos. to the school house
he living about a quarter of a mile off to let it be known & for his children to come home.
Mr. Crocker the School Master came with the Witnesses children Witness told him to go
to the house and load the guns, but before the guns were loaded Mr. Crocker came to the
still where witness was—and said they were in Sight. Witness retreated and concealed
himself in the corner of the fence in the weeds behind the garden on the opposite side of
the house. Several negroes pursued him but he escaped them by falling among the weeds
over the fence—One negro rode up and looked over, but did not observe him—The
attention of the party he thinks were called off from him by some of the party going in
pursuit of another, which he thinks they took for him but turned out to be his
blacksmith—Witness then retreated into the swamp which was not far off—After
remaining some time witness again approached the house—before he retreated he saw
several of his family murdered by the negroes—Witness crept up near the house to see
what they were doing and concealed himself by getting in the plum orchard behind the
garden—the negroes were drinking—Witness saw prisoner whom he knew very well,
mounted (he thought on Dr. Musgrave‘s horse) stated that the prisoner seemed to
command the party—made Peter Edwards‘ negro man Sam who seemed disposed to
remain mount his horse and go with them—prisoner gave command to the party to ―go
ahead‖ when they left his house—Witness states that he cannot be mistaken in the
identity of the prisoner—James Trezevant being sworn said that Mr. James W. Parker
and himself were the Justices before whom the prisoner was examined prior to his
commitment—That the prisoner at the time was in confinement but no threats or
promises were held out to him to make any disclosures. That he admitted he was one of
the insurgents engaged in the late insurrection, and the Chief among them—that he gave
to his master and mistress Mr. Travis and his wife the first blow before they were
dispatched—that he killed Miss Peggy Whitehead—that he was with the insurgents from

796
their first movement to their dispersion on the Tuesday morning after the insurrection
took place—That he gave a long account of the motives which lead him finally to
commence the bloody scenes which took place—that he pretended to have had
intimations by signed omens from God that he should embark in the desperate attempt—
That his comrades and even he were impressed with a belief that he could by the
imposition of his hands cure disease—That he related a particular instance in which it
was believed that he had in that manner effected a cure on one of his comrades, and that
he went on to detail a medley of incoherent and confused opinions about his
communications with God, his command over the clouds etc., etc. which he had been
entertaining as far back as 1826.
The Court after hearing the testimony and from all the circumstances of the case
are unanimously of opinion that the prisoner is guilty in manner and form as in the
Information against him alleged, and it being demanded of him if anything for himself he
had or knew to say by the Court to judgment and execution against him of and upon the
premises should not precede—he said he had nothing but what he had before said.
Therefore it is considered by the Court that he be taken hence to the Jail from whence he
was taken therein to remain until Friday the 11th day of November instant, on which day
between the hours of ten o‘clock in the forenoon and four o‘clock in the afternoon he is
to be taken by the Sheriff to the usual place of execution and then and there be hanged by
the neck until he be dead. And the Court value the said slave to the sum of three hundred
and seventy five dollars.
Ordered that William C. Parker be allowed the sum of ten dollars as a fee for
defending Nat alias Nat Turner, late the property of Putnam Moore, an infant.
JMH. COBB
Source: Greenberg, ed., The Confessions of Nat Turner and Related Documents, pp.
101-103.

1832—Thomas R. Dew Argues Against the Abolition of Slavery
In the wake of Nat Turner‘s 1831 rebellion, a number of Virginia legislators, under the
leadership of Thomas J. Randolph, Thomas Jefferson‘s grandson, proposed plans for the
emancipation of the state‘s slaves. Backed by a coalition of moral and practical
opponents of the peculiar institution, as well as large numbers of western Virginians
resentful of the power of the plantation gentry in state affairs, in the early months of
1832, Randolph and the emancipationists initiated in the General Assembly an open,
frank, and widely reported two-week-long debate over the future of slavery. The
emancipationist legislators were able to force agreement from many of their opponents
that slavery was a dangerous institution that ideally should be eliminated. Yet they
shared with the defenders of slavery the conviction that Africans could not coexist with
Europeans in a state of equality, without society collapsing into crime, anarchy, and race
war. Overwhelmingly, therefore, Virginia‘s emancipationists returned to the plan of
colonization, arguing that freed slaves should be returned to Africa at state expense. In
response, Virginia‘s conservative slaveholders argued for the rights of property, and

797
particularly focused on the financial impossibility of the gargantuan task of general
colonization. Randolph‘s proposals were largely shelved. In the wake of the debates,
conservatives gained the upper hand, arguing that the only way to maintain peace and
order in Virginia‘s race relations was to tighten the discipline and regulation of slavery
even further. Public discussion of emancipation in Virginia withered, as conservatives
argued that absolute white solidarity was needed to prevent revolution. In the decade
before the Civil War, men like George Fitzhugh and Edmund Ruffin would adopt radical
proslavery views more typical of the Deep South.
Thomas Roderick Dew (1802-1846), a professor of political law at the College of
William and Mary and a slaveholder, published one of the best-known conservative
analyses of the debate entitled ―Abolition of Negro Slavery,‖ in the September 1832
issue of the American Quarterly Review. His arguments gained considerable press
throughout the South. Although Dew acknowledged the debaters‘ eloquence, he
criticized the legislators for opening up the Pandora‘s Box of abolition. Dew stated
without reservation that the elimination of slavery would be impossible to achieve in
Virginia. He focused largely on property rights as a justification for slavery. The
excerpts below introduce the flavor of Dew‘s piece, which became nationally known as
the forerunner of those increasingly strident proslavery writings produced in the years
leading up to the sectional crisis.
In our southern slave-holding country, the question of emancipation had never
been seriously discussed in any of our legislatures, until the whole subject, under the
most exciting circumstances, was, during the last winter, brought up for discussion in the
Virginia legislature, and plans of partial or total abolition were earnestly pressed upon the
attention of that body. It is well known, that during the last summer, in the county of
Southampton in Virginia, a few slaves, led on by Nat Turner, rose in the night, and
murdered in the most inhuman and shocking manner between sixty and seventy of the
unsuspecting whites of that county. The news of course was rapidly diffused, and with it
consternation and dismay were spread throughout the state, destroying for a time all
feeling of security and confidence, and even when subsequent development had proven,
that the conspiracy had originated with a fanatic negro preacher, (whose confessions
prove beyond a doubt mental aberration,) and that this conspiracy embraced but few
slaves, all of whom had paid the penalty of their crimes, still the excitement remained,
still the repose of the commonwealth was disturbed, for the ghastly horrors of the
Southampton tragedy could not immediately be banished from the mind. Rumour, with
her thousand tongues, was busily engaged in spreading tales of disaffection, plots,
insurrections, and even massacres, which frightened the timid, and harassed and mortified
the whole of the slave-holding population. During this period of excitement, when
reason was almost banished from the mind, and the imagination was suffered to conjure
up the most appalling phantoms, and picture to itself a crisis in the vista of futurity, when
the overwhelming numbers of the blacks would rise superior to all restraint, and involve
the finest portion of our land in universal ruin and desolation, we are not to wonder that
even in the lower part of Virginia many should have seriously inquired, if this supposed
monstrous evil could not be removed from her bosom. Some looked to the removal of
the free people of colour, by the efforts of the Colonization Society, as an antidote to our

798
ills; some were disposed to strike at the root of the evil, to call on the general government
for aid, and by the labours of Hercules to extirpate the curse of slavery from the land; and
others again, who could not bear that Virginia should stand towards the general
government (whose unconstitutional action she had ever been foremost to resist) in the
attitude of a suppliant, looked forward to the legislative action of the state as capable of
achieving the desired result. In this degree of excitement and apprehension, the
legislature met, and plans for abolition were proposed and earnestly advocated in debate.
Upon the impropriety of this debate we beg leave to make a few observations.
Any scheme of abolition proposed so soon after the Southampton tragedy, would
necessarily appear to be the result of that most inhuman massacre. Suppose the negroes,
then, to be really anxious for their emancipation, no matter on what terms, would not the
extraordinary effect produced on the legislature by the Southampton insurrection, in all
probability have a tendency to excite another? And we must recollect, from the nature of
things, no plan of abolition could act suddenly on the whole mass of slave population in
the state.
...
We have not formed our opinion lightly upon this subject; we have given to the
vital question of abolition the most mature and intense consideration which we are
capable of bestowing, and we have come to the conclusion—a conclusion which seems to
be sustained by facts and reasoning as irresistible as the demonstration of the
mathematician—that every plan of emancipation and deportation which we can possibly
conceive, is totally impracticable. We shall endeavour to prove, that the attempt to
execute these plans can only have a tendency to increase all the evils of which we
complain, as resulting from slavery. If this be true, then the great question of abolition
will necessarily be reduced to the question of emancipation, with a permission to remain,
which we think can easily be shown to be subversive of the interests, security, and
happiness, of both the blacks and whites, and consequently hostile to every principle of
expediency, morality, and religion. We have heretofore doubted the propriety even of too
frequently agitating, especially in a public manner, the questions of abolition, in
consequence of the injurious effects which might be produced on the slave population.
But the Virginia legislature, in its zeal for discussion, boldly set aside all prudential
considerations of this kind, and openly and publicly debated the subject before the whole
world. The seal has now been broken, the example has been set from a high quarter; we
shall, therefore, waive all considerations of a prudential character which have heretofore
restrained us, and boldly grapple with the abolitionists on this great question. We fear
not the result, so far as truth, justice, and expediency alone are concerned. But we must
be permitted to say, that we do most deeply dread the effects of misguided philanthropy,
and the intrusion, in this matter, of those who have no interest at stake, and who have not
that intimate and minute knowledge of the whole subject so absolutely necessary to wise
action.
...

799
There is $100,000,000 of slave property in the state of Virginia, and it matters but
little how you destroy it, whether by the slow process of the cautious practitioner, or with
the frightful despatch of the self confident quack; when it is gone, no matter how, the
deed will be done, and Virginia will be a desert.
Source: Greenberg, ed., The Confessions of Nat Turner and Related Documents, pp.
115-118, 131.

1850—The Compromise of 1850
The issue of statehood for California brought up the question of the expansion of slavery
again. The admission of California as a free state would end the balance between free
and slave states. Henry Clay, who had played a large role in the Missouri Compromise,
drew up a series of eight resolutions to address the issue. His proposals sparked a long
debate that involved John Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, and Daniel Webster. A
congressional committee included all of Clay‘s proposals into one bill that became
known as the ―Omnibus Bill.‖ The passage of the bill was in question until Stephen A.
Douglas decided to divide the provisions into six (later five) separate measures. Douglas
realized that nearly everybody objected to one or another provision of the ―Omnibus
Bill.‖ He succeeded in finding a majority for each measure when it was brought up for a
vote. The name given to the various pieces of legislation—The Compromise of 1850—
was misleading. The passage of the bills was a result of Douglas‘s legislative maneuvers,
not a result of sectional compromise. The five measures did not settle the divisive issue
of slavery.
Henry Clay‘s Resolutions, January 29, 1850
It being desirable, for the peace, concord, and harmony of the Union of
these States, to settle and adjust amicably all existing questions of controversy
between them arising out of the institution of slavery upon a fair, equitable and
just basis: therefore,
1. Resolved, That California, with suitable boundaries, ought, upon her
application, to be admitted as one of the States of this Union, without the imposition by
Congress of any restriction in respect to the exclusion or introduction of slavery within
those boundaries.
2. Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be
introduced into any of the territory acquired by the United States from the republic of
Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to provide by law either for its introduction into,
or exclusion from, any part of the said territory; and that appropriate territorial
governments ought to be established by Congress in all of the said territory, not assigned
as the boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the adoption of any
restriction or condition on the subject of slavery.
5. Resolved, That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia
whilst that institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of

800
that State, without the consent of the people of the District and without just compensation
to the owners of slaves within the District.
6. But, resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit, within the District, the slave
trade in slaves brought into it from States or places beyond the limits of the District,
either to be sold therein as merchandise, or to be transported to other markets without the
District of Columbia.
7. Resolved, That more effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to
the requirement of the constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to
service or labor in any State, who may escape into any other State or Territory in the
Union. And,
8. Resolved, That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves
between the slaveholding States; but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought
from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular laws.
Source: Morris, ed., Basic Documents in American History, pp. 115-117.
1852—Frederick Douglass on ―The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro‖
On July 5, 1852, Douglass spoke on ―The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro‖ in
Rochester, New York. Between 500 and 600 people paid 12 ½ cents to hear Douglass
criticize their country on account of slavery, challenge all citizens to improve their
country by eliminating slavery, and to express hope that slavery would be abolished.
This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the Fourth of July. It is the birthday of
your National Independence, and of your political freedom. This, to you, is what the
Passover was to the emancipated people of God. It carries your minds back to the day,
and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated
with that act, and that day. This celebration also marks the beginning of another year of
your national life; and reminds you that the Republic of America is now 76 years old. I
am glad, fellow-citizens, that your nation is so young. Seventy-six years, though a good
old age for a man, is but a mere speck in the life of a nation. Three score years and ten is
the allotted time for individual men; but nations number in their years by thousands.
According to this fact, you are, even now, only in the beginning of your national career,
still lingering in the period of childhood. I repeat, I am glad this is so. There is hope in
the thought, and hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which lower above the
horizon. The eye of the reformer is met with angry flashes, portending disastrous times;
but his heart may well beat lighter at the thought that America is young, and that she is
still in the impressionable stage of her existence. May he not hope that high lessons of
wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny? Were the nation
older, the patriot‘s heart might be sadder, and the reformer‘s brow heavier. Its future
might be shrouded in gloom, and the hope of its prophets go out in sorrow. There is
consolation in the thought that America is young.—Great streams are not easily turned
from channels, worn deep in the course of ages.
…

801

Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here
to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are
the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that
Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring
our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout
gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be
truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy
and delightful.
…
But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity
between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high
independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in
which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common.—The rich inheritance of justice,
liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not
by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death
to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a
man into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous
anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock
me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me
warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, towering up
to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in
irrevocable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten
people!
…
My subject, then, fellow-citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular
characteristics from the slave‘s point of view. Standing there identified with the
American bondsman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my
soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this
4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the pact, or to the professions of the
present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false
to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.
Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the
name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name
of the constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in
question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to
perpetuate slavery—the great sin and shame of America! ―I will not equivocate; I will
not excuse‖; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall
escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at
heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.

802
…
What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the
subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave
is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders
themselves acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave.
There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia which, if committed by a black man
(no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two
of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. What is this but the
acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The
manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books
are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of
the slave to read or to write.
…
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I
the ability, and could reach the nation‘s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of
biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light
that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the
whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the
conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the
hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be
proclaimed and denounced.
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to
him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the
constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy
license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and
heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty
and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings,
with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud,
deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a
nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking
and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.
…
But a still more inhuman, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be
presented. By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been
nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason and Dixon‘s line
has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and
sell men, women and children, as slaves, remains no longer a mere state institution, but is
now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the starspangled banner, and American Christianity. Where these go, may also go the merciless
slave-hunter. Where these are, man is not sacred. He is a bird for the sportsman‘s gun.
By that most foul and fiendish of all human decrees, the liberty and person of every man

803
are put in peril. Your broad republican domain is hunting ground for men. Not for
thieves and robbers, enemies of society, merely, but for men guilty of no crime. Your
law-makers have commanded all good citizens to engage in this hellish sport. Your
President, your Secretary of State, your lords, nobles, and ecclesiastics enforce, as a duty
you owe to your free and glorious country, and to your God, that you do this accursed
thing.
…
Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are
flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love for liberty, your superior civilization, and
your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the
two great political parties) is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement
of three millions of your countrymen . . . . You declare before the world, and are
understood by the world to declare that you ―hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal; and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;
and that among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and yet, you hold
securely, in a bondage, which, according to your own Thomas Jefferson, ―is worse than
ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose,‖ a seventh part of the
inhabitants of your country.
Fellow-citizens, I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The
existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity
as a base pretense, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it
corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name
a hissing and a bye-word to a mocking earth. It is the antagonistic force in your
government, the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your Union. It fetters
your progress; it is the enemy of improvement; the deadly foe of education; it fosters
pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice; it shelters crime; it is a curse to the earth that
supports it; and yet you cling to it as if it were the sheet anchor of all your hopes. Oh! be
warned! be warned! a horrible reptile is coiled up in your nation‘s bossom; the
venomous creature is nursing at the tender breast of your youthful republic; for the love
of God, tear away, and fling from you the hideous monster, and let the weight of twenty
millions crush and destroy it forever!
…
Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day
presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in
operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. ―The arm of the Lord is
not shortened,‖ and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began,
with hope. While drawing encouragement from ―the Declaration of Independence,‖ the
great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also
cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age.‖
Source: Douglass, ―The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro,‖ in The Life and
Writings of Frederick Douglass, ed. Foner, 2:181-204.

804

1857—The Dred Scott Decision
Born a slave in Virginia circa 1800, Dred Scott relocated from Southampton County first
to Alabama and then to Missouri, as his owner, Peter Blow, migrated west. After Blow
died in 1832, Scott was purchased by Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. Army.
For the next several years, Scott lived with Emerson on army posts in the free state of
Illinois and in the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was illegal. In 1846, while
working as a hired slave in St. Louis, Scott attempted to purchase freedom for himself
and his family from Emerson‘s widow, Eliza Irene Sanford. (Her brother, John F. A.
Sanford represented her in court, but the Supreme Court reporter misspelled his name so
the case is known as Scott v. Sandford.) She refused, and Scott filed suit for his freedom
and that of his wife and daughters. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court,
which declared in a 7-2 decision that Scott was still a slave but which went much further
by pronouncing that a black person could never be considered a citizen of the United
States and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories. The decision was a
bombshell, as no one had predicted that Chief Justice Roger Taney would use the case to
attack the Missouri Compromise and black rights. The case remains notorious today, as
both conservative and liberal legal scholars agree that it was one of the worst legal
decisions handed down by the Court. Virginian Peter V. Daniel, the most proslavery
member of the Court, voted with the majority. Fortunately for Dred Scott and his
family, soon after the decision, the sons of his first owner purchased and freed the Scott
family. In the following selections, legal historian Paul Finkelman provides a succinct
overview of the case and its significance.
In 1846 Dred Scott, a slave living in St. Louis, sued in a Missouri state court to
prove that he, his wife, Harriet, and his two daughters, Eliza and Lizzie, were legally
entitled to their freedom. Eleven years later the United States Supreme Court, by a vote
of 7-2, rejected Scott‘s claim. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney
reached two major conclusions. First, he held that blacks, even if free, could never be
considered citizens of the United States, and thus they did not have a right to sue in
federal courts. Second, Taney held that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in
any federal territories, and so the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in the vast
territories north and west of the state of Missouri, was unconstitutional. This decision
affected Dred Scott personally, but because Chief Justice Taney addressed issues beyond
the scope of Scott‘s immediate claim, the case had an enormous affect on the politics of
the nation.
The story of Dred Scott is really three stories. First, there is the story of a slave,
Dred Scott, struggling hard to gain his freedom through the courts and eventually taking
his case to the United States Supreme Court. Scott lost that suit. However, in the end he
gained his freedom through other means, when white friends, the sons of Peter Blow,
who had owned Scott years before, purchased and freed Scott and his family.
The second story is about the Supreme Court, its role in interpreting the
Constitution and federal law, and the limits of its power to resolve political problems.
Chief Justice Taney tried to settle, with one sweeping decision, the volatile problem of

805
slavery in the territories. He also tried to relegate American blacks to a permanent state
of inferiority. Taney ultimately failed in both attempts. His decision led to a temporary
diminution of the power of the Supreme Court. More permanently, the case was a
catalyst for a fundamental alteration of the Constitution through the Thirteenth,
Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, forever changing the nature of American law and
race relations. The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment
made all people born in the United States—including former slaves—citizens of the
United States and guaranteed them equal rights under the law. The Fifteenth Amendment
prohibited discrimination in voting on the basis of race. In the aftermath of Dred Scott
and the Civil War, the United States witnessed what Abraham Lincoln called ―a new
birth of freedom‖ for African Americans.
The third story is about the politics of slavery and the coming of the Civil War.
The Supreme Court decision sparked enormous political reaction, particularly in the
North. It destroyed any chance of agreement between the North and South over slavery
in the territories. It would be an exaggeration to say that the Dred Scott decision caused
the Civil War. But it certainly pushed the nation far closer to that war. The decision
played a decisive role in the emergence of Abraham Lincoln as the Republican Party‘s
presidential candidate in 1860 and his election later that year. That in turn set the stage
for secession and war.
The case began simply enough. Dred Scott wanted to be free. Unlike most
slaves, however, Scott had what he believed was a legal claim to his freedom. For many
years, Scott had been the slave of Dr. John Emerson, an army surgeon who had taken him
to live on military bases in the free state of Illinois and later to Fort Snelling, in what is
today St. Paul, Minnesota. At that time present-day Minnesota was part of the Wisconsin
Territory. In 1846 Scott filed suit in a Missouri court to gain freedom for himself, his
wife, Harriet, and for their two children. Scott argued that living in those free
jurisdictions had made him and his family free, and once free they remained free, even
after returning to Missouri.
In 1847, when the case went to trial, Scott lost on technical grounds. In 1848 the
Missouri Supreme Court granted Scott the right to a new trial, and in January 1850 Scott
and his family won their freedom in a St. Louis court. A jury of twelve white men in
Missouri concluded that Scott‘s residence in a free state and a free territory had made him
free. However, in 1852 the Missouri Supreme Court reversed this result.
In 1854 Scott turned to the federal courts and renewed his quest for freedom in
the United States Circuit Court in Missouri. There Judge Robert W. Wells upheld Scott‘s
right to sue in a federal court but, after a trial, rejected his claim to freedom. Scott
remained a slave.
Scott then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In 1857 the Court, in a
7-2 decision, held that Scott was still a slave. In his ―Opinion of the Court,‖ Chief Justice
Taney declared (1) that no black person could ever be a citizen of the United States and
thus blacks could not sue in federal courts, and (2) that Congress did not have the power
to prohibit slavery in the federal territories and thus the Missouri Compromise of 1820
was unconstitutional, as were all other restrictions on slavery in the territories. These two
dramatic and controversial rulings placed the decision at the center of American politics
and law for the next decade and a half.

806

Source: Finkelman, Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents, pp. 1-4.

Part V—Emancipation and Amendments to the Constitution

January 1, 1863—The Emancipation Proclamation
In 1862 Abraham Lincoln decided that complete emancipation would be required to save
the Union. He had several reasons for this belief: slave labor bolstered the rebel cause,
sagging morale in the North needed the lift of a moral cause, and public opinion was
shifting toward emancipation as the war continued. In addition, the possibility that
England or France would support the Confederacy would vanish if the war became a war
to end slavery.
Lincoln issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862 after the
Union forces secured a victory over Robert E. Lee at Antietam. He announced that he
would issue the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. In his annual message
of December 1862 Lincoln closed with the following passage: ―We, even we here, hold
the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom
to the free—honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save
or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail.
The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just—a way which if followed the world will
forever applaud and God must forever bless.‖
Whereas, On the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United
States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
―That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a
state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be
then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States,
including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the
freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of
them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
―That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation,
designate the states and parts of states, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively,
shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any state, or the
people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the
United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified
voters of such state shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing
testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such state, and the people thereof, are not
then in rebellion against the United States.‖
Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of
the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United

807
States in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United
States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this
first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three,
and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one
hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the states and
parts of states wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against
the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines,
Jefferson, St. Johns, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne,
Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans),
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia,
(except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of
Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk,
including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth); and which excepted parts are, for the
present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare
that all persons held as slaves within said designated states, and parts of states, are, and
henceforward shall be free; and that the executive government of the United States,
including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the
freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all
violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to them that, in all cases
when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition,
will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions,
stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the
Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and
the gracious favor of Almighty God.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United
States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of
our Lord
[L.S.]
one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of
the United
States of America the eighty-seventh.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State
Source: Morris, ed., Basic Documents in American History, pp. 124-127.

808
1865 to 1870—The Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution
The straightforward Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in the United States. The
much more ambiguous Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the states from denying
citizens the ―equal protection of the laws,‖ pressured the states to allow black men to vote
or risk a reduction in representation in Congress, and forbade some former Confederates
from holding state or national office. By tacitly sanctioning the denial of votes to
women, the Fourteenth Amendment drew criticism from some supporters of women‘s
suffrage. In the mid-twentieth century, the Fourteenth Amendment would serve as the
cornerstone of the legal efforts by the NAACP and other civil rights groups to dismantle
segregation and ensure equal rights for black Americans. The Fifteenth Amendment
declared that citizens could not be denied the vote based on race or previous condition of
servitude. Again, some women‘s suffrage advocates were disappointed; they had hoped
the amendment would include sex along with race. Although by the early twentieth
century, many former Confederate states had used violent intimidation, poll taxes, and
grandfather clauses to deny black men the suffrage, former slaves voted throughout the
South for decades after the end of the Civil War.
Amendment XIII [Adopted 1865]
Section 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or
any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XIV [Adopted 1868]
Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to
their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding
Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of Electors for
President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the
executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is
denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and
citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion,
or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens
twenty-one years of age in such state.

809
Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or Elector of
President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United
States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or
as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or
comfort to the enemies thereof. Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each house,
remove such disability.
Section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any
State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or
rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss of emancipation of any slave;
but all debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article.
Amendment XV [Adopted 1870]
Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude.
Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
Source: United States Constitution.

810
Sources Cited in the
American Paradox

Blair, Banister, Braxton, Horner, and Whiting Papers, 1765-1890. Swem Library,
College of William and Mary.
Blum, John M., et al. The National Experience: A History of the United States. 7th ed.
Orlando, Fl.: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Publishers, 1989.
Berlin, Ira. Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North
America. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1998.
Coleman, Mrs. George P., ed. Virginia Silhouettes: Contemporary Letters Concerning
Negro Slavery in the State of Virginia, To Which is Appended A Dissertation on
Slavery with A Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of It in the State of Virginia.
Richmond: Press of the Dietz Printing Co., 1934.
Coleman, Mary Haldane. St. George Tucker: Citizen of No Mean City. Richmond:
Dietz Press, 1938.
Craton, Michael, James Walvin, and David Wright. Slavery, Abolition and
Emancipation: A Thematic Documentary. London and New York: Longman,
1976.
Douglass, Frederick. The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass, ed. Philip S. Foner.
4 vols. New York: International Publishers, 1950-1955.
Edgerton, Douglas R. Gabriel‘s Rebellion: The Virginia Slave Conspiracies of 1800 and
1802. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993.
Finkelman, Paul. Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents. Boston:
Bedford Books of St. Martin‘s Press, 1997.
Genovese, Eugene D. Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York:
Random House, 1972.
Greenberg, Kenneth S., ed. The Confessions of Nat Turner and Related Documents.
Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin‘s Press, 1996.
Hening, William Waller, ed. The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of
Virginia, From the First Session of the Legislature, in 1619. 13 vols. Richmond,
New York, and Philadelphia, 1819-1823; reprint, Charlottesville: The University
Press of Virginia for the Jamestown Foundation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, 1969.

811
Hodges, Graham Russell, ed. The Black Loyalist Directory: African Americans in Exile
After the American Revolution. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.,
in Association with the New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1996.
Hughes, Langston. Selected Poems of Langston Hughes. New York: Random House,
1959.
Hughes, Sarah S. ―Slaves for Hire: The Allocation of Black Labor in Elizabeth City
County, Virginia, 1782-1810.‖ William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., XXXV
(1978): 260-86.
Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. William Peden. New York: W.
W. Norton & Co., 1982.
Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford. 10 vols.
New York: G. P. Putnam‘s Sons, 1892-1899.
Jones, Jacqueline. ―Race, Sex, and Self-Evident Truths: The Status of Slave Women
during the Era of the American Revolution,‖ in Ronald Hoffman and Peter J.
Albert, eds., Women in the Age of the American Revolution. Charlottesville:
University Press of Virginia, 1989.
Jordan, Winthrop. White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 15501812. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968.
Juvenis. Observations on the Slavery of the Negroes, in the Southern States, Particularly
Intended for the Citizens of Virginia. New York: W. Ross, 1785.
Kaplan, Sidney and Emma Nogrady Kaplan. The Black Presence in the Era of the
American Revolution. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1989.
Katz, William Loren. Breaking the Chains: African-American Slave Resistance. New
York: Atheneum, 1990.
Lafayette, Marquis de. Letter, in Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 39(1931):
between pp. 106-107.
McDougall, Marion Gleason, ed. Fugitive Slaves. Boston: 1891; reprint, New York:
Bergman Publishers, 1967.
McIlwaine, H. R., ed. Official Letters of the Governors of the State of Virginia. 3 vols.
Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1926-1929.
Mason, George. The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed. Robert A. Rutland. 3
vols. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970.

812
Morgan, Edmund S. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial
Virginia. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1975.
Morris, Richard B., ed. Basic Documents in American History. Malabar, Fl.: Robert E.
Krieger Publishing Company, 1965.
Norton, Mary Beth et al. A People and a Nation: A History of the United States. 2nd ed.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1986.
Quarles, Benjamin. The Negro in the American Revolution. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1961.
Rice, Reverend David. Slavery Inconsistent With Justice and Good Policy, Proved by a
Speech, Delivered in the Convention, Held at Danville, Kentucky. Philadelphia,
1792; reprint, Augusta, [Me.]: Peter Edes, 1804.
Ruffin, Thomas. The Papers of Thomas Ruffin, ed. J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton. Raleigh:
Edwards and Broughton Printing Co., 1920.
Schmidt, Fredrika Teute, and Barbara Ripel Wilhelm, eds., ―Early Proslavery Petitions in
Virginia.‖ William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XXX (1973): 133-146.
Schwarz, Philip J. Entry on the Virginia Society for the Abolition of Slavery in Paul
Finkleman and Joseph C. Miller, eds., Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery.
New York: Macmillan Reference USA, Simon & Schuster Macmillan and
London: Simon & Schuster and Prentice Hall International, c. 1998.
Shepherd, Samuel, ed. The Statutes at Large of Virginia, From October Session 1792, to
December Session 1806[sic 1807], Inclusive, in Three Volumes, (New Series,)
Being a Continuation of Hening. Richmond, 1835; reprint, New York: AMS
Press, Inc., 1970.
Tise, Larry. Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavery in America, 1701-1840.
Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1987.
United States Constitution.
Virginia Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. The Constitution of the Virginia
Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. Richmond, 1795.
Walker, David. David Walker‘s Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World, ed. James
Turner. Baltimore: Black Classic Press, 1993.
Washington, George. The Last Will and Testament of George Washington and Schedule
of his Property, to which is appended the Last Will and Testament of Martha

813
Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick. 5th ed. [Mount Vernon, Va.]: The Mount
Vernon Ladies‘ Association of the Union, 1982.
Washington, George. The Papers of George Washington, eds. W. W. Abbot and Dorothy
Twohig. Confederation Series. 6 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of
Virginia, 1992-1997.
Washington, George. The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript
Sources, 1745-1799, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick. 39 vols. Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1931-1944.
York County Free Black Register, 1798-1831.

814

1781 to 1782—Thomas Jefferson‘s Notes on the State of Virginia
Jefferson wrote Notes on the State of Virginia not for publication but in response to a set
of queries about the new republic posed by a French nobleman, the Marquis de BarbeMarbois. In Notes Jefferson expresses both antislavery and antiblack sentiments. He
makes clear his belief that race resulted in significant behavioral differences among black
and white Virginians. He uses his ideal of the gentry class to assess the lives of slaves.
In Query XIV—Laws, Jefferson refers to a three-man committee appointed by the
General Assembly to revise the legal code. The committee, consisting of Jefferson,
Edmund Pendleton, and George Wythe, submitted their report to the legislature on June
18, 1779. By 1786, fifty of the 126 bills had become law. The provision recommending
emancipation, obviously, was not one of them.
The following excerpts are from the edition published by London bookseller John
Stockdale in 1787.
Query VIII—Population
Under the mild treatment our slaves experience, and their wholesome, though coarse,
food, this blot in our country increases as fast, or faster, than the whites. During the regal
government, we had at one time obtained a law, which imposed such a duty on the
importation of slaves, as amounted nearly to a prohibition, when one inconsiderate
assembly, placed under a peculiarity of circumstance, repealed the law. This repeal met a
joyful sanction from the then sovereign, and no devices, no expedients, which could ever
after be attempted by subsequent assemblies, and they seldom met without attempting
them, could succeed in getting the royal assent to a renewal of the duty. In the very first
session held under the republican government, the assembly passed a law for the
perpetual prohibition of the importation of slaves. This will in some measure stop the
increase of this great political and moral evil, while the minds of our citizens may be
ripening for a complete emancipation of human nature.

Query XIV—Laws
Many of the laws which were in force during the monarchy being relative merely
to that form of government, or inculcating principles inconsistent with republicanism, the
first assembly which met after the establishment of the commonwealth appointed a
committee to revise the whole code, to reduce it into proper form and volume, and report
it to the assembly. This work has been executed by three gentlemen, and reported; but

815
probably will not be taken up till a restoration of peace shall leave to the legislature
leisure to go through such a work.
The plan of the revisal was this. The common law of England, by which is meant,
that part of the English law which was anterior to the date of the oldest statutes extant, is
made the basis of the work. It was thought dangerous to attempt to reduce it to a text: it
was therefore left to be collected from the usual monuments of it. Necessary alterations
in that, and so much of the whole body of the British statutes, and of acts of assembly, as
were thought proper to be retained, were digested into 126 new acts, in which simplicity
of stile was aimed at, as far as was safe. The following are the most remarkable
alterations proposed:
...
To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the
revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was
prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further
directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up,
at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the
females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be
colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper,
sending them with arms, implements of household and of the handicraft arts, seeds, pairs
of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independent people, and
extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to
send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white
inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be
proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the
state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the
vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten
thousand recollections by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new
provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances,
will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in
the extermination of the one or the other race.—To these objections, which are political,
may be added others, which are physical and moral.
The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the
negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin itself; whether it
proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other
secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were
better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a
greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and
white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one,
preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable
veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair,
a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the white, declared by
their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oran-ootan for the black
women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought
worthy of attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals;

816
why not in that of man? Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical
distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body. They
secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a strong
and disagreeable odor. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of
heat, and less so of cold, than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the
pulmonary apparatus, which a late ingenious experimentalist has discovered to be the
principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them from extricating, in the act of
inspiration, so much of that fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part
with more of it. They seem to require less sleep. A black, after hard labour through the
day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though
knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. They are at least as brave,
and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought,
which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go
through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after
their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate
mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless
afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in
wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to
participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to
sleep when abstracted from diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose
body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing
them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in
memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could
scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and
that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.
It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation. We will
consider them here, on the same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not
apocryphal on which a judgment is to be found. It will be right to make great allowances
for the difference of condition, of education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they
move. Many millions of them have been brought to, and born in America. Most of them
indeed have been confined to tillage, to their own homes, and their own society; yet many
have been so situated, that they might have availed themselves of the conversation of
their masters; many have been brought up in the handicraft arts, and from that
circumstance have always been associated with the whites. Some have been liberally
educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated to a
considerable degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works from
abroad. The Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will often carve figures on their
pipes not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a
country, so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants
cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove
their reason and sentiment strong, their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet
could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration; never
seen even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture. In music they are more generally
gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time, and they have been found
capable of imagining a small catch. Whether they will be equal to the composition of a
more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved. Misery is

817
often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry.—Among the blacks is misery
enough, God knows, but no poetry. . . . The improvement of the blacks in body and mind,
in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and
proves their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition in life.
We know that among the Romans, about the Augustan age especially, the
condition of their slaves was much more deplorable than that of the blacks on the
continent of America. . . . With the Romans, the regular method of taking the evidence of
their slaves was under torture. Here it has been thought better never to resort to their
evidence. When a master was murdered, all his slaves, in the same house, or within
hearing, were condemned to death. Here punishment falls on the guilty only, and as
precise proof is required against him as against a freeman. Yet notwithstanding these and
other discouraging circumstances among the Romans, their slaves were often their rarest
artists. They excelled too in science, insomuch as to be employed as tutors to their
master's children. Epictetus, (Diogenes, Phaedon), Terence, and Phaedrus were slaves.
But they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition, then, but nature, which has
produced the distinction.—Whether further observation will or will not verify the
conjecture, that nature has been less bountiful to them in the endowments of the head, I
believe that in those of the heart she will be found to have done them justice. That
disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their
situation, and not to any depravity of the moral sense. The man, in whose favour no laws
of property exist, probably feels himself less bound to respect those made in favour of
others. While arguing for ourselves, we lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be
just, must give a reciprocation of right: that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of
conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience: and it is a problem which I give to the
master to solve, whether the religious precepts against the violation of property were not
framed for him as well as his slave? And whether the slave may not as justifiably take a
little from one, who has taken all from him, as he may slay one who would slay him?
That a change in the relations in which a man is placed should change his ideas of moral
right and wrong, is neither new, nor peculiar to the color of the blacks. Homer tells us it
was so 2600 years ago.
Jove fix'd it certain, that whatever day
Makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.
But the slaves of which Homer speaks were whites. Notwithstanding these
considerations which must weaken their respect for the laws of property, we find among
them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better
instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude, and unshaken fidelity.—The opinion, that
they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination, must be hazarded with great
diffidence. . . . To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we
have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been
viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only,
that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, were made distinct by time and
circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is
not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of
the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history
then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy,
excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed

818
them? This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful
obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish
to vindicate the liberty of human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and
beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question "What further is to be done with
them?" join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only.
Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free,
might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is
necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of
mixture.

Query XVIII—Manners
The particular customs and manners that may happen to be received in that state?
It is difficult to determine on the standard by which the manners of a nation may
be tried, whether catholic, or particular. It is more difficult for a native to bring to that
standard the manners of his own nation, familiarized to him by habit. There must
doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the
existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a
perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the
one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to
imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him.
From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could
find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self love, for restraining the intemperance
of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present.
But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the
lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to
his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot
but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can
retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what
execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to
trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies,
destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can
have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born
to live and labour for another: in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature,
contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavours to the evanishment of the
human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding
from him. With the morals of the people, there industry also is destroyed. For in a warm
climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so
true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to
labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their
only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift
of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my
country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that
considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune,

819
an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by
supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in
such a contest.—But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through
the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be
contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind. I think a change
already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is
abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope
preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is
disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their
extirpation.
Source: Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. Peden, pp. 87, 136-143, 162-163.

May 1782—ACT VIII. An act for the recovery of slaves, horses, and other property, lost
during the war
This statute made it easier for masters to regain possession of enslaved persons who ran
away or were captured by the British during the Revolution.
I. WHEREAS great numbers of slaves, horses, and other property belonging to
the citizens of this commonwealth and of the neighbouring states, have, during the war,
been carried off, or have gone from their owners and been concealed by wicked and evil
disposed persons; and it is reasonable that the owners should be enabled to recover their
property in an easy and expeditious manner: Be it therefore enacted, That any person or
persons who have any such slave or slaves, horses or other property in his or her
possession, and who shall not before the first day of October next deliver such slave or
slaves, horses or other property in his or her possession, and who shall not before the first
day of October next deliver such slave or slaves, horses or other property to the owner or
owners thereof, if known, and if not known, publish a particular description of such slave
or slaves, horses or other property three times in the Virginia gazette, shall forfeit and pay
the sum of fifty pounds. And if any person or persons possessed of such slave or slaves,
horses or other property as aforesaid, shall delay to deliver or publish the same as above
directed, within the time hereby limited, he or she shall forfeit and pay the sum of five
pounds, for every month he or she shall so delay after the said first day of October next,

820
and shall moreover be liable to the action of the party grieved at the common law, in
which the plaintiff shall recover double damages. And if the defendant in any such action
shall not immediately pay and satisfy the damages, he or she shall be imprisoned six
months, without bail or mainprize, unless the damages are sooner discharged; the act of
insolvency, or any other law to the contrary notwithstanding; and the act of limitation
shall be no bar to such action.
II. And be it further enacted, That all and every person and persons from whom
any such slave or slaves, horses or other property have gone or been taken as aforesaid,
on application to any two justices of the peace for the county where such slave or slaves,
horses or other property may be, and making proof, to the satisfaction of such justices, of
his or her right to such slaves, horses, or other property, and that the same were taken or
went off from him or her in consequence of the invasion of this or any of the
neighbouring states, shall be entitled to a warrant from such justices, under their hands
and seals, directed to the sheriff or any constable of the said county, commanding them
and each and every of them, to take such slave or slaves, horse or horses, or other
property, and deliver the same to the owners thereof. Provided, That before granting
such warrant, the person or persons demanding the same shall give bond, with sufficient
security, in such sum as the justices shall direct, payable to the person or persons in
whose possession the slave or slaves, horse or horses, or other property claimed as
aforesaid may be, to return the same to the possessors in case he or she so claiming shall
fail to prove his or her right to such slaves, horses or other property, at the trial of any suit
to be brought for the same.
III. And be if further enacted, That where any person or persons shall be
possessed of any slaves, horses or other property suspected to have gone or to have been
taken from their owners, in consequence of any invasion as aforesaid, it shall be lawful
for any two justices of the peace for the county where such persons reside, on information
to them made, to cause such person or persons to come before them, and if such suspicion
shall appear to them to be well founded, after hearing the parties, to cause such person or
persons to enter into a recognizance to the governor or chief magistrate of this
commonwealth, in such sum as the said justices shall judge reasonable, and with
sufficient security, on condition that he or she shall not sell, dispose of or secrete any
such slave or slaves, horses or other property, for such time as the said justices shall think
proper, not exceeding one year. And when any slave or slaves shall be found wandering
about, it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace to commit such slave or slaves to the
gaol of his county, by warrant under his hand and seal, and the sheriff or gaoler is hereby
required to receive such slave or slaves, and to confine him, her or them in close gaol for
three months, unless the owner or owner of such slave or slaves shall sooner appear. And
such sheriff or gaoler shall, within three weeks after such commitment, cause such slave
or slaves to be advertised in the Virginia gazette, which advertisement shall be inserted in
three successive papers, and if no owner shall appear within the time limited for the
confinement of such slave or slaves, the sheriff or gaoler may hire out such slave or
slaves for the payment of his prison fees and the expences of advertising. And if the
owner shall apply within the time aforesaid, he shall pay the said fees and expences of
advertising, and the further sum of twenty shillings for each slave so confined and
advertised as aforesaid.

821
IV. And it is further enacted, That the penalties by this act imposed may be
recovered in any court of record in this commonwealth, by action of debt, indictment or
information, and shall be applied, the one half thereof to the use of the commonwealth,
and the other half to the use of the informer. Provided always, That this act, so far as it
respects the penalties to be incurred for not delivering to the owner, or not publishing any
such slaves, horses or other property, shall not extend to bona fide purchasers of such
slaves, horses or other property, or to such as may have pursued the method directed by
the laws now in force for taking up of strays. Provided also, That this act shall not
extend to slaves, horses or other property taken by the enemy and retaken in action by
any soldier or citizen of this state, or any of the United States, except where the same
were the capitulation or agreement to be returned to their owners.
Source: Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 11:23-25.

May 1782—ACT XXI. An act to authorize the manumission of slaves
The General Assembly decided to allow slave owners to manumit their enslaved men,
women, and children. The law required a former master to be financially responsible for
a slave who was either too old or too young to support him or herself.
Ira Berlin notes that ―The spectacular increase in manumission, self-purchase,
freedom suits, flight, and immigration altered the size and character of the free
black population in the Upper South. Maryland, which was fast being
transformed from a slave society into a society with slaves, best exemplified the
change. Between 1755 and 1790, the state‘s free black population grew 300
percent to about 8,000, and in the following ten years it more than doubled. By
1810 nearly 34,000 black Marylanders were free, giving the state the largest free
black population in the nation. The gains registered by free blacks elsewhere in
the Upper South never equaled that of Maryland, but they were substantial. In
1782, the year Virginia legalized private manumission, St. George Tucker
estimated the presence of about 2,000 free blacks in the state. By 1790, when the
first federal census was taken, the free black population had grown to 12,000.
Ten years later, it numbered 20,000, and in another ten years it stood at over
30,000. During the twenty years between 1790 and 1810, the free black
population of Virginia had more than doubled. In all, the number of free black
people in the states of the Upper South grew almost 90 percent between 1790 and
1800 and another 65 percent the following decade, so that they made up more
than 10 percent of the region‘s black population. By the end of the first decade of
the nineteenth century, there were over 108,000 free black people in the Upper
South, and better than 10 percent of the black population enjoyed freedom . . . .
As in the North, freedom arrived burdened with the heavy weight of
slavery‘s continuing presence. New forms of dependency emerged even more
quickly than the old ones could be liquidated. In the countryside, many free
blacks continued to reside with their former masters, suffering the oversight of an
owner even after they no longer were owned. Planters appreciated the advantages

822
of power without responsibility. They held tight to the spouses and children of
former slaves, seeing them as a lever to access the labor of free blacks. Some
planters sold or rented small plots of land to former slaves to secure the benefit of
their labor during planting and harvest. In the cities, term slavery provided a
means for owners to exact the labor of energetic young men and women and make
them responsible for themselves in old age. Much like gradual emancipation and
apprenticeship in the northern states, contingent manumission and term slavery
delayed the arrival of freedom and strengthened the masters‘ hand.
But if the continued presence of slavery burdened black people, so did
freedom. As slaves, black men and women were fully integrated into the
economy and society of the Upper South. As free people, they faced ostracism
and discrimination. To the new forms of subordination that equated free blacks
with slaves, lawmakers added the new proscriptions that distinguished free blacks
from white people. Free black men were barred from voting, sitting on juries,
testifying in court, and attending the militia, and all free blacks, women as well as
men, were barred from owning dogs and guns and trading without a permit. A
pass system prevented free blacks from traveling freely and required them to
register themselves annually with county authorities. Many of these restrictions
had long existed, but the new legislation reinforced them, reminding all that
freedom would not mean equality.‖
I. WHEREAS application hath been made to this present general assembly, that
those persons who are disposed to emancipate their slaves may be empowered so to do,
and the same hath been judged expedient under certain restrictions: Be it therefore
enacted, That it shall hereafter be lawful for any person, by his or her last will and
testament, or by any other instrument in writing, under his or her hand and seal, attested
and proved in the county court by two witnesses, or acknowledged by the party in the
court of the county where he or she resides, to emancipate and set free, his or her slaves,
or any of them, who shall thereupon be entirely and fully discharged from the
performance of any contract entered into during servitude, and enjoy as full freedom as if
they had been particularly named and freed by this act.
II. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That all slaves so set free, not
being in the judgment of the court, of sound mind and body, or being above the age of
forty-five years, or being males under the age of twenty-one, or females under the age of
eighteen years, shall respectively be supported and maintained by the person so liberating
them, or by his or her estate; and upon neglect or refusal so to do, the court of the county
where such neglect or refusal may be, is hereby empowered and required, upon
application to them made, to order the sheriff to distrain and sell so much of the person‘s
estate as shall be sufficient for that purpose. Provided also, That every person by written
instrument in his life time, or if by last will and testament, the executors of every person
freeing any slave, shall cause to be delivered to him or her, a copy of the instrument of
emancipation, attested by the clerk of the court of the county, who shall be paid therefor,
by the person emancipating, five shillings, to be collected in the manner of other clerk‘s
fees. Every person neglecting or refusing to deliver to any slave by him or her set free,
such copy, shall forfeit and pay ten pounds, to be recovered with costs in any court of
record, one half thereof to the person suing for the same, and the other to the person to

823
whom such copy ought to have been delivered. It shall be lawful for any justice of the
peace to commit to the gaol of his county, any emancipated slave travelling out of the
county of his or her residence without a copy of the instrument of his or her
emancipation, there to remain till such copy is produced and the gaoler‘s fees paid.
III. And be it further enacted, That in case any slave so liberated shall neglect in
any year to pay all taxes and levies imposed or to be imposed by law, the court of the
county shall order the sheriff to hire out him or her for so long time as will raise the said
taxes and levies. Provided sufficient distress cannot be made upon his or her estate.
Saving nevertheless to all and every person and persons, bodies politic or corporate, and
their heirs and successors, other than the person or persons claiming under those so
emancipating their slaves, all such right and title as they or any of them could or might
claim if this act had never been made.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, pp. 283-285; Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large,
11:39-40.

May 1782—ACT XXXII. An act concerning Slaves
Legislators passed this law to prevent masters from allowing their slaves to hire
themselves out to others in their community. This statute did not keep slaves from
participating in the economy. Ira Berlin observes that ―Entering the marketplace, slaves
sold items of handicraft and produce from their gardens, along with their labor, and
thereby accumulated property of their own. Although the economy of Chesapeake slaves
rarely advanced beyond the ―ground…allowed them for gardening, and privilege given
them to raise dung-hill fowls,‖ farming and handicraft provided new outlets for the
slaves‘ entrepreneurial energies. Slaveholders raised few objections to these practices or
challenged the slaves‘ right to market goods produced on his or her own time. In fact,
petitioners from the Virginia piedmont complained that many slaveholders permitted
their slaves to ―own, possess and raise stock of horses and hogs‖ and allowed them to
exercise ―all the rights of ownership in such stock.‖ Writing at the turn of the century,
one observer declared that the right to produce and market such crops was ―permitted
(and greatly confirmed by custom).‖ Indeed, some slaveholders regularly purchased
produce from their slaves. The reinvigoration of the slaves‘ economy entangled masters
in endless negotiations with their slaves, who tenaciously protected what they believed
was rightfully theirs.‖
I. WHEREAS great inconveniences hath arisen from persons permitting their
slaves to go at large and hire themselves out, under a promise of paying their masters or
owners a certain sum of money in lieu of their services: For remedy whereof, Be it
enacted, That if any person shall, after the tenth day of August next, permit or suffer his
or her slave to go at large and hire him or herself out, it shall be lawful for any person to
apprehend and carry every such slave before a justice of the peace in the county where
apprehended, and if it shall appear to the justice that such slave comes within the purview
of this act, he shall order him or her to the gaol of the county, there to be safely kept until
the next court, when, if it shall be made appear to the court that the slave so ordered to

824
gaol hath been permitted or suffered to hire him or herself out, contrary to the meaning of
this act, it shall be lawful for the court, and they are hereby required to order the sheriff of
the county to sell and dispose of every such slave for ready money, at the next court held
for the said county, notice being given by the sheriff at the court-house door at least
twenty days before the said sale.
II. And be if further enacted, That twenty five per centum upon the amount of the
sale of every slave made under this act, shall be applied by the court ordering such sale,
towards lessening the county levy, and the residue shall be paid by the sheriff, after
deducting five per centum for his trouble and the gaoler‘s fees, to the owner of such
slave.
Source: Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, p. 270; Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large,
11:59.

1782—The French Army Conceals Slaves in Yorktown and Williamsburg
On June 26, 1782, Governor Benjamin Harrison wrote to Count Rochambeau to request
his assistance in returning slaves to their owners.
Complaints are made every day to me of Negroes being concealed in York and
Williamsburg amongst the Troops. I am certain it must be without your knowledge and
am therefore unhappy to be again obliged to trouble you on that subject, but as their
[there] is no other way by which the unhappy sufferers in this and the Neighbouring
States can recover their property by thro your Justice your goodness will excuse the
application the pretence that some make of their being free and of their being the property
of the British is without foundation and is inculcated into them to serve the purposes of
detention. However convenient their services may be yet that rule of right that we ought
to observe to each other will not suffer us to avail ourselves unnecessary to You who
have at all Times manifested the most generous and upright principle, but they may not
be amiss to those concern‘d in the detention of the Negroes.
I have to request ye favour of your Excellency to give immediate orders for the
securing all the Negroes without distinction that are amongst your Troops and for their
being deliver‘d to officers that will be appointed to receive them. Those belonging to this
State will soon be reclaim‘d and those from North and South Carolina I will make it my
Business to have them sent back; this piece of Justice will do Honor to the French Troops
and will silence every clamour that has been rais‘d on this disagreeable subject. The
legion has also some Negroes with it that were deliver‘d once to me but being press‘d and
wearied out by frequent applications I order‘d them to be return‘d there are five of them
all of which belonged to South Carolina but three of them say they are free.
The letter that Harrison penned to General Washington on July 11, 1782 indicates that he
did not receive a favorable response from Rochambeau.
Many of the Negroes belonging to this State and the two Carolinas are carried off by the
French. I have written on the subject till I am wearied out without being able to procure

825
them. Some indeed have been sent me and it appears to me that most of the Officers of
distinction wish that all that do not really belong to the Army shou‘d be returned however
by one Means or other they are detain‘d either for want of the owners having proof at
hand or the negroes declaring themselves free &c. Our People are much disturbed at this
conduct and it will have a bad effect[.] And what makes the matters worse is that the
French will loose their services if ever they get so near the Enemy as to desert to them.
You saw the French Army when it came here when You see it again You will be able to
determine whether the Charge is just or not.
Source: McIlwaine, ed., Official Letters of the Governors of the State of Virginia, 3:257258, 266.

826

EPILOGUE:
NINETEENTH- AND TWENTIETH-CENTURY EVOCATIONS OF SLAVERY
Table of Contents

Introduction
1823 or 1824—African Americans and Native Americans Use Folklore to Try to
Understand
Slavery and the Slave Trade
1845—Frederick Douglass‘s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass
1852—Harriet Beecher Stowe‘s Uncle Tom‘s Cabin
1861—Harriet A. Jacobs‘s Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl
Early Twentieth Century—Virginia Slave Narratives
1936 and 1939—The Novel and Film Gone with the Wind
1954—C. Vann Woodward on the History of Jim Crow in the South
1957—The Novel and Blaxploitation Film Mandingo
1977—The Television Drama Roots
June 28, 1978—Justice Thurgood Marshall‘s Dissent in Regents of the University of
California
v. Allan Bakke
1987—Toni Morrison‘s Beloved
1997—Annette Gordon-Reed‘s Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American
Controversy
1998—DNA Evidence Links Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings

827

Introduction
For over two hundred years Americans have used folklore, memoirs, works of fiction,
and, more recently, films to try to understand slavery and to evoke life under slavery.
The first attempts to convey to a wide audience the horrors of enslavement and the quest
for freedom were the nineteenth-century narratives written by former slaves and
promoted by northern abolitionists. These stirring accounts, along with those given by
ex-slaves interviwed during the Great Depression, remain the touchstone of historical
understanding of slaves‘ experience of oppression.
Slave narratives are widely taught in colleges and universities, but they must compete
with the images of slavery found in popular works of fiction and on film. Particularly
influential bestsellers about slavery have been the sentimental novels Uncle Tom‘s Cabin
and Gone with the Wind, and, more recently, the postmodern novel Beloved. From the
film Gone with the Wind to the television miniseries Roots, celluloid images of slavery
probably have had even greater staying power in people‘s minds than portrayals found in
print.
Finally, young Americans sometimes confuse slavery with segregation; and for all
Americans the issue of slavery is often tied up with contemporary concerns about race.
Although the topic of segregation is beyond the scope of this resource book, a brief
overview of the relationship between slavery and segregation should be helpful. In
addition, Thurgood Marshall‘s dissent in the Bakke Supreme Court case provides a telling
reminder of how pertinent historical understanding of slavery remains to efforts to
overcome modern racial inequalities.

1823 or 1824—African Americans Use Folklore to Try to Understand Slavery and the
Slave Trade

William D. Pierson examines the ways in which Africans and African Americans tried
to make sense why God allowed slavery and the slave trade. He follows the
explanations that Africans developed in Africa across the Atlantic to folklore in the
Antebellum South.
Why were Africans rather than Europeans the ones to be taken away into
bondage? Why had God given superior technology and control of the Atlantic commerce
to white foreigners rather than to his own children? And why in the new lands to the
west did God permit white strangers to profit from black labor? These Job-like questions
demanded answers. Both in Africa and in America, blacks had to think about growing
inequalities of condition between the races.
…

828
For their part, Africans were already developing their own explanations for the
strange commerce moving inland from the sub-Saharan coast long before most had heard
anything of Christianity or the peculiar white rationalizations for European power. One
popular supposition, as we have seen, was that the overseas slave trade was required to
supply bloodthirsty white cannibals with an endless supply of sacrificial victims. And
given the death rate for new slaves in the Americas, this folk explanation was not that far
from the figurative truth. Beyond this, Africans also produced a more philosophical
analysis of the growing imbalance between the races and condensed this introspection
into an explanatory tale tradition that might be called ―God‘s Gifts to the Races.‖ These
latter tales, too, presented the slave trade and the growing imbalance of world power from
a black perspective; as the tales saw it, the inequalities between the races were caused not
by Europe‘s strength but, instead, by Africa‘s own shortsightedness and moral weakness.
William Bosman described the story as it was given to him on the African coast in
1698:
The Africans tell us that in the beginning God created black as well as white men;
thereby not only hinting but endeavoring to prove that their race was as soon in
the world as ours; and to bestow a yet greater horror on themselves, they tell us
that God, having created these two sorts of men, offered two sorts of gifts, to wit,
gold and the knowledge of arts and reading and writing, giving the blacks the first
election, who chose the gold and left the knowledge of letters to the white. God
granted their request, but being incensed at their avarice resolved that the whites
should for ever be their masters and they be obliged to wait on them as their
slaves.
…
When William Bosman first collected the tale in 1698, mercantilist theory in one form or
another ruled much of the world‘s economic thinking. Thus many West Africans, like
the Spanish in the Americas, were being undone by the belief that the accumulation of
gold and wealth was the true basis of power. But the tale of God‘s gifts demonstrates a
prescient understanding by others on the African coast that the new realities of the
Atlantic trade were suggesting something radically different. The mercantilists were
wrong. Power did not come through the dead weight of specie; instead, it was the almost
magnetic pull of technology that drew resources to Western Europe and its overseas
colonies.
One of the most interesting aspects of the mythic tale of God‘s gifts is that it did
not remain simply an African story. Like the peoples of Africa, it too crossed with the
slave ships into the Americas where it found new life as an African-American folktale
that offered an explanation as to why in a just world blacks ended up as laborers to white
masters.
…
The tale probably crossed to North America in the eighteenth century but made its
first recorded appearance in 1823 or 1824 in a Seminole creation myth. That it should

829
first resurface among Native Americans in Florida is not as peculiar as it might seem
since the Seminoles incorporated many black runaways into their society and adopted
much from African-American folklore. When Chief Neamathla offered up his version of
the origin myth, which he contended came from his forefathers, he introduced it with a
humorous explanation about how the various races were produced. God‘s first attempt,
he said, was an underdone white man, the second an overcooked black. Only on the third
attempt did God get it right, producing the red man:
In this way the Great Spirit made the white, the black, and the red man….Here
they were - but they were very poor. They had no lodges nor horses, no tools to
work with, no traps, nor anything with which to kill game. All at once, these three
men, looking up, saw three large boxes coming down from the sky. They
descended very slowly, but at last reached the ground….The Great Spirit spoke
and said, “White man, you are pale and weak, but I made you first, and will give
you the first choice; go to the boxes, open them and look in, and choose which
you will take for your portion.” The white man opened the boxes, looked in, and
said, “I will take this.” It was filled with pens, and ink, and paper, and compasses,
and such things as your people now use. The Great Spirit spoke again and said,
“Black man, I made you next, but I do not like you. You may stand aside. The
Red man is my favorite, he shall come forward and take the next choice; Red
man, choose your portion of the things of this world.” The Red man stepped
boldly up and chose a box filled with tomahawks, knives, war clubs, traps, and
such things as are useful in war and hunting. The Great Spirit laughed when he
saw how well his red son knew how to choose. Then he said to the Negro, “You
may have what is left, the third box is for you.” That was filled with axes and
hoes, with buckets to carry water in, and long whips for driving oxen, which
meant that the Negro must work for both the red and white man, and it has been
so ever since.
The Seminole used the tale to explain their own position in the world as well as to
explain the reason God gave whites their exceptional technological competence and
blacks their position of enslavement. In the Indian version, unlike the African and
African-American versions, the black man did nothing to deserve his fate.
Among North American blacks themselves, the gifts story was transformed into a
new version that could be more accurately called ―Why the Black Does All the Hard
Work.‖
Source: Pierson, Black Legacy, pp. 12, 14-15, 17, 19-21.
1845—Frederick Douglass‘s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass
The most famous of all antebellum slave narratives, Frederick Douglass‘s account chronicles his
experiences as a slave and charts the development of his consciousness that he must be free. Douglass (ca.
1817-1895) was born in Talbot County on Maryland‘s Eastern Shore to a slave named Harriet Bailey, who
died when he was about seven. His father may have been his master. Shortly after his mother died,
Douglass went to live in Baltimore, where he worked for his master‘s daughter‘s brother-in-law. His

830
mistress taught him the alphabet until her husband forbade further instruction. Douglass used these
rudiments of education to teach himself how to read and write with some assistance from children he knew.
As a teenager, he was sent back to the Eastern Shore to work as a field hand, and in 1833 his
insubordination led to his being hired out to a slave breaker named Covey. Douglass eventually prevailed
over Covey, however, by overpowering him before an attempted whipping. After an unsuccessful escape
attempt in 1835, Douglass was returned to Baltimore, where he worked as a ship‘s caulker. He escaped in
1838 by disguising himself as a free black seaman and taking a train from Baltimore to New York via
Philadelphia.

Douglass settled in New Bedford, Massachusetts, with his wife, Anna Murray, a free
black woman whom he had met in Baltimore. He soon became a powerful orator on the
anti-slavery lecture circuit. When questions were raised regarding the validity of his
identity as a former slave, he penned his narrative to record his history and to elicit
support for abolition. His Life became an international best-seller. After it was
published, he traveled to Great Britain to elude slave catchers. Only when a British
couple paid his former owner to secure his emancipation, did Douglass return to the
United States to become a distinguished journalist, reformer, and statesman.
In the following selections, Douglass recounts his relationship with his mother and his
views on master/slave sexual relations, his education by his former mistress, the
treatment of his grandmother as a slave, his altercation with the slave breaker Covey, and
his escape from slavery.
I never saw my mother, to know her as such, more than four or five times in my
life, and each of those times was very short in duration, and at night. She was hired by a
Mr. Stewart, who lived about twelve miles from my home. She made her journeys to see
me in the night, travelling the whole distance on foot, after the performance of her day‘s
work. She was a field hand, and a whipping is the penalty of not being in the field at
sunrise, unless a slave has special permission which they seldom get, and one that gives
to him that gives it the proud name of being a kind master. I do not recollect of ever
seeing my mother by the light of day. She was with me in the night. She would lie down
with me, and get me to sleep, but long before I waked she was gone. Very little
communication ever took place between us. Death soon ended what little we could have
while she lived, and with it her hardships and suffering. She died when I was about
seven years old, on one of my master‘s farms, near Lee‘s Mill. I was not allowed to be
present during her illness, at her death, or burial. She was gone long before I knew
anything about it. Never having enjoyed, to any considerable extent, her soothing
presence, her tender and watchful care, I received the tidings of her death with the same
emotions I should have probably felt at the death of a stranger.
Called thus suddenly away, she left me without the slightest intimation of who my
father was. The whisper that my master was my father, may or may not be true; and, true
or false, it is of but little consequence to my purpose whilst the fact remains, in all its
glaring odiousness, that slaveholders have ordained, and by law established, that the
children of slave women shall in all cases follow the condition of their mothers; and this
is done too obviously to administer to their own lusts, and make a gratification of their
wicked desires profitable as well as pleasurable; for by this cunning arrangement, the
slaveholder, in cases not a few, sustains to his slaves the double relation of master and
father.

831
I know of such cases; and it is worthy of remark that such slaves invariably suffer
great hardships, and have more to contend with, than others. They are, in the first place,
a constant offence to their mistress. She is ever disposed to find fault with them; they can
seldom do any thing to please her; she is never better pleased than when she sees them
under the lash, especially when she suspects her husband of showing to his mulatto
children favors which he withholds from his black slaves. The master is frequently
compelled to sell this class of his slaves, out of deference to the feelings of his white
wife; and, cruel as the deed may strike anyone to be, for a man to sell his own children to
human flesh-mongers, it is often the dictate of humanity for him to do so; for, unless he
does this, he must not only whip them himself, but must stand by and see one white son
tie up his brother, of but few shades darker complexion than himself, and ply the gory
lash to his naked back; and if he lisp one word of disapproval, it is set down to his
parental partiality, and only makes a bad matter worse, both for himself and the slave
whom he would protect and defend.
Every year brings with it multitudes of this class of slaves. It was doubtless in
consequence of a knowledge of this fact, that one great statesman of the south predicted
the downfall of slavery by the inevitable laws of population. Whether this prophecy is
ever fulfilled or not, it is nevertheless plain that a very different-looking class of people
are springing up at the south, and are now held in slavery, from those originally brought
to this country from Africa; and if their increase will do no other good, it will do away
the force of the argument, that God cursed Ham, and therefore American slavery is right.
If the lineal descendants of Ham are alone to be scripturally enslaved, it is certain that
slavery at the south must soon become unscriptural; for thousands are ushered into the
world, annually, who, like myself, owe their existence to white fathers, and those fathers
most frequently their own masters.
...
My new mistress proved to be all she appeared when I first met her at the door,–a
woman of the kindest heart and finest feelings. She had never had a slave under her
control previously to myself, and prior to her marriage she had been dependent upon her
own industry for a living. She was by trade a weaver; and by constant application to her
business, she had been in a good degree preserved from the blighting and dehumanizing
effects of slavery. I was utterly astonished at her goodness. I scarcely knew how to
behave towards her. She was entirely unlike any other white woman I had ever seen. I
could not approach her as I was accustomed to approach other white ladies. My early
instruction was all out of place. The crouching servility, usually so acceptable a quality
in a slave, did not answer when manifested toward her. Her favor was not gained by it;
she seemed to be disturbed by it. She did not deem it impudent or unmannerly for a slave
to look her in the face. The meanest slave was put fully at ease in her presence, and none
left without feeling better for having seen her. Her face was made of heavenly smiles,
and her voice of tranquil music.
But, alas! this kind heart had but a short time to remain such. The fatal poison of
irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work.
That cheerful eye, under the influence of slavery, soon became red with rage; that voice,

832
made all of sweet accord, changed to one of harsh and horrid discord; and that angelic
face gave place to that of a demon.
Very soon after I went to live with Mr. And Mrs. Auld, she very kindly
commenced to teach me the A, B, C. After I had learned this, she assisted me in learning
to spell words of three or four letters. Just at this point of my progress, Mr. Auld found
out what was going on, and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her,
among other things, that it was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read. To
use his own words, further, he said, ―If you give a nigger an inch, he will take an ell. A
nigger should know nothing but to obey his master—to do as he is told to do. Learning
would spoil the best nigger in the world. Now,‖ said he, ―if you teach that nigger
(speaking of myself) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit
him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his
master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make
him discontented and unhappy.‖ These words sank deep into my heart, stirred up
sentiments within that lay slumbering, and called into existence an entirely new train of
thought. It was a new and special revelation, explaining dark and mysterious things, with
which my youthful understanding had struggled, but struggled in vain. I now understood
what had been to me a most perplexing difficulty–to wit, the white man‘s power to
enslave the black man. It was a grand achievement, and I prized it highly. From that
moment, I understood the pathway from slavery to freedom. It was just what I wanted,
and I got it at a time when I the least expected it. Whilst I was saddened by the thought
of losing the aid of my kind mistress, I was gladdened by the invaluable instruction
which, by the merest accident, I had gained from my master. Though conscious of the
difficulty of learning without a teacher, I set out with high hope, and a fixed purpose, at
whatever cost of trouble, to learn how to read. The very decided manner with which he
spoke, and strove to impress his wife with the evil consequences of giving me instruction,
served to convince me that he was deeply sensible of the truths he was uttering. It gave
me the best assurance that I might rely with utmost confidence on the results which, he
said, would flow from teaching me to read. What he most dreaded, that I most desired.
What he most loved, that I most hated. That which to him was a great evil, to be
carefully shunned, was to me a great good, to be diligently sought; and the argument
which he so warmly urged, against my learning to read, only served to inspire me with a
desire and determination to learn. In learning to read, I owe almost as much to the bitter
opposition of my master, as to the kindly aid of my mistress. I acknowledge the benefit
of both.
...
If any one thing in my experience, more than another, served to deepen my
conviction of the infernal character of slavery, and to fill me with unutterable loathing of
slaveholders, it was their base ingratitude to my poor old grandmother. She had served
my old master faithfully from youth to old age. She had been the source of all his wealth;
she had peopled his plantation with slaves; she had become a great grandmother in his
service. She had rocked him in infancy, attended him in childhood, served him through
life, and at his death wiped from his icy brow the cold death-sweat, and closed his eyes
forever. She was nevertheless left a slave—a slave for life—a slave in the hands of

833
strangers; and in their hands she saw her children, her grandchildren, and her greatgrandchildren, divided, like so many sheep, without being gratified with the small
privilege of a single word, as to their or her own destiny. And, to cap the climax of their
base ingratitude and fiendish barbarity, my grandmother, who was now very old, having
outlived my old master and all his children, having seen the beginning and end of all of
them, and her present owners finding she was of but little value, her frame already racked
with the pains of old age, and complete helplessness fast stealing over her once active
limbs, they took her to the woods, built her a little hut, put up a little mud-chimney, and
then made her welcome to the privilege of supporting herself there in perfect loneliness;
thus virtually turning her out to die! If my poor old grandmother now lives, she lives to
suffer in utter loneliness; she lives to remember and mourn over the loss of children, the
loss of grandchildren, and the loss of great-grandchildren. . . .
The hearth is desolate. The children, the unconscious children, who once sang
and danced in her presence, are gone. She gropes her way, in the darkness of age, for a
drink of water. Instead of the voices of her children, she hears by day the moans of the
dove, and by night the screams of the hideous owl. All is gloom. The grave is at the
door. And, now, when weighed down by the pains and aches of old age, when the head
inclines to the feet, when the beginning and ending of human existence meet, and
helpless infancy and painful old age combine together—at this time, this most needful
time, the time for the exercise of that tenderness and affection which children only can
exercise towards a declining parent—my poor old grandmother, the devoted mother of
twelve children, is left all alone, in yonder little hut, before a few dim embers. She
stands–she sits–she staggers–she falls–she groans–she dies–and there are none of her
children or grandchildren present, to wipe from her wrinkled brow the cold sweat of
death, or to place beneath the sod her fallen remains. Will not a righteous God visit for
these things?
...
Long before daylight, I was called to go and rub, curry, and feed, the horses. I
obeyed, and was glad to obey. But whilst thus engaged, whilst in the act of throwing
down some blades from the loft, Mr. Covey entered the stable with a long rope; and just
as I was half out of the loft, he caught hold of my legs, and was about tying me. As soon
as I found what he was up to, I gave a sudden spring, and as I did so, he holding to my
legs, I was brought sprawling to the stable floor. Mr. Covey seemed now to think he had
me, and could do what he pleased; but at this moment–from whence came the spirit I
don‘t know–I resolved to fight; and, suiting my action to the resolution, I seized Covey
hard by the throat; and as I did so, I rose. He held on to me, and I to him. My resistance
was so entirely unexpected, that Covey seemed taken all aback. He trembled like a leaf.
This gave me assurance, and I held him uneasy, causing the blood to run where I touched
him with the ends of my fingers. Mr. Covey soon called out to Hughes for help. Hughes
came, and, while Covey held me, attempted to tie my right hand. While he was in the act
of doing so, I watched my chance, and gave him a heavy kick close under the ribs. This
kick fairly sickened Hughes, so that he left me at the hands of Mr. Covey. This kick had
the effect of not only weakening Hughes, but Covey also. When he saw Hughes bending
over with pain, his courage quailed. He asked me if I meant to persist in my resistance. I

834
told him I did, come what might; that he had used me like a brute for six months, and that
I was determined to be used so no longer. With that, he strove to drag me to a stick that
was lying just out of the stable door. He meant to knock me down. But just as he was
leaning over to get the stick, I seized him with both hands by his collar, and brought him
by a sudden snatch to the ground. By this time, Bill came. Covey called upon him for
assistance. Bill wanted to know what he could do. Covey said, ―Take hold of him, take
hold of him!‖ Bill said his master hired him out to work, and not to help whip me, so he
left Covey and myself to fight our own battle out. We were at it for nearly two hours.
Covey at length let me go, puffing and blowing at a great rate, saying that if I had not
resisted, he would not have whipped me half so much. The truth was, that he had not
whipped me at all. I considered him as getting entirely the worst end of the bargain; for
he had drawn no blood from me, but I had from him. The whole six months afterwards,
that I spend with Mr. Covey, he never laid the weight of his finger upon me in anger. He
would occasionally say, he didn‘t want to get hold of me again. ―No,‖ thought I, ―you
need not; for you will come off worse than you did before.‖
This battle with Mr. Covey was the turning-point in my career as a slave. It
rekindled the few expiring embers of freedom, and revived within me a sense of my own
manhood. It recalled the departed self-confidence, and inspired me again with a
determination to be free. The gratification afforded by the triumph was a full
compensation for whatever else might follow, even death itself. He only can understand
the deep satisfaction which I experienced, who has himself repelled by force the bloody
arm of slavery. I felt as I never felt before. It was a glorious resurrection, from the tomb
of slavery, to the heaven of freedom. My long-crushed spirit rose, cowardice departed,
bold defiance took its place; and I now resolved that, however long I might remain a
slave in form, the day had passed forever when I could be a slave in fact. I did not
hesitate to let it be known of me, that the white man who expected to succeed in
whipping, must also succeed in killing me.
From this time I was never again what might be called fairly whipped, though I
remained a slave four years afterwards. I had several fights, but was never whipped.
...
It is impossible for me to describe my feelings as the time of my contemplated
start drew near. I had a number of warm-hearted friends in Baltimore,–friends that I
loved almost as I did my life,–and the thought of being separated from them forever was
painful beyond expression. It is my opinion that thousands would escape from slavery,
who now remain, but for the strong cords of affection that bind them to their friends. The
thought of leaving my friends was decidedly the most painful thought with which I had to
contend. The love of them was my tender point, and shook my decision more than all
things else. Besides the pain of separation, the dread and apprehension of a failure
exceeded what I had experienced at my first attempt. The appalling defeat I then
sustained returned to torment me. I felt assured that, if I failed in this attempt, my case
would be a hopeless one—it would seal my fate as a slave forever. I could not hope to
get off with any thing less than the severest punishment, and being placed beyond the
means of escape. It requires no very vivid imagination to depict the most frightful scenes
through which I should have to pass, in case I failed. The wretchedness of slavery, and

835
the blessedness of freedom, were perpetually before me. It was life and death with me.
But I remained firm, and according to my resolution, on the third day of September,
1838, I left my chains, and succeeded in reaching New York without the slightest
interruption of any kind. How I did so,–what means I adopted,–what direction I
travelled, and by what mode of conveyance,–I must leave unexplained, for the reasons
before mentioned.
I have been frequently asked how I felt when I found myself in a free State. I
have never been able to answer the question with any satisfaction to myself. It was a
moment of the highest excitement I ever experienced. I suppose I felt as one may
imagine the unarmed mariner to feel when he is rescued by a friendly man-of-war from
the pursuit of a pirate. In writing to a dear friend, immediately after my arrival at New
York, I said I felt like one who had escaped a den of hungry lions. This state of mind,
however, very soon subsided; and I was again seized with a feeling of great insecurity
and loneliness. I was yet liable to be taken back, and subjected to all the tortures of
slavery. This in itself was enough to damp the ardor of my enthusiasm. But the
loneliness overcame me. There I was in the midst of thousands, and yet a perfect
stranger; without home and without friends, in the midst of thousands of my own
brethren–children of a common Father, and yet I dared not to unfold to any one of them
my sad condition. I was afraid to speak to any one for fear of speaking to the wrong one,
and thereby falling into the hands of money-loving kidnappers, whose business it was to
lie in wait for the panting fugitive, as the ferocious beasts of the forest lie in wait for their
prey. The motto which I adopted when I started from slavery was this–―Trust no man!‖ I
saw in every white man an enemy, and in almost every colored man cause for distrust. It
was a most painful situation; and, to understand it, one must needs experience it, or
imagine himself in similar circumstances.
Source: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, ed. Baker, pp. 48-50, 77-79, 91-93,
112-113, 142-144.
1852—Harriet Beecher Stowe‘s Uncle Tom‘s Cabin
Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom‘s Cabin in response to the Compromise of 1850,
which included a Fugitive Slave Law that mandated that Northerners assist in the
recovery of escaped slaves. Phenomenally successful in both the United States and
England, Stowe‘s book brought the inhumanity of slavery to the attention of hundreds of
thousands of people, reigniting the slavery question that U.S. lawmakers had hoped to put
to rest with the 1850 compromise. The novel was controversial in many respects,
particularly because of Stowe‘s gender; respectable women were not supposed to take
public positions on moral and political issues. Abolitionists disagreed with Stowe‘s
advocacy of colonization and her apparent depiction of slaves as docile. Prominent
twentieth-century black writers such as James Baldwin and Richard Wright would later
also criticize the novel for its characterization of black life. The term ―Uncle Tom,‖ in
fact, evolved into a moniker suggesting black complicity with racism. Stowe, however,
viewed the character of Uncle Tom as strong, not weak. For her, Tom‘s evangelical
Christianity made him a hero of strength and resistance to slavery.

836

In the following selections from Chapter IV, ―An Evening in Uncle Tom‘s Cabin,‖ Stowe
introduces the characters of Uncle Tom and his wife, Aunt Chloe, house slaves who
belong to the Shelby family of Kentucky. In her descriptions of Aunt Chloe and Uncle
Tom, Stowe emphasizes their blackness and sentimentalizes their simplicity. With Uncle
Tom, Stowe establishes the essential attributes that make his heroism in her eyes and in
the eyes of her Northern, Christian middle-class audience: deep spirituality, evangelical
righteousness, humble dignity, and unflagging benevolence. In addition, she lays out the
domestic tranquility of Uncle Tom‘s cabin, which later has its antithesis in the stark
inhumanity of Simon Legree‘s plantation.
The cabin of Uncle Tom was a small log building, close adjoining to ―the house,‖
as the negro par excellence designates his master‘s dwelling. In front it had a neat
garden-patch, where, every summer, strawberries, raspberries, and a variety of fruits and
vegetables, flourished under careful tending. The whole front of it was covered by a
large scarlet bignonia and a native multiflora rose, which, entwisting and interlacing, left
scarce a vestige of the rough logs to be seen. Here, also, in summer, various brilliant
annuals, such as marigolds, petunias, four-o‘clocks, found an indulgent corner in which
to unfold their splendors, and were the delight and pride of Aunt Chloe‘s heart.
Let us enter the dwelling. The evening meal at the house is over, and Aunt Chloe,
who presided over its preparation as head cook, has left to inferior officers its dishes, and
come out into her own snug territories, to ―get her old man‘s supper‖; therefore, doubt
not that it is her you see by the fire, presiding with anxious interest over certain frizzling
items in a stew-pan, and anon with grave consideration lifting the cover of a bake-kettle,
from whence steam forth indubitable intimations of ―something good.‖ A round, black,
shining face is hers, so glossy as to suggest the idea that she might have been washed
over with white of eggs, like one of her own tea rusks. Her whole plump countenance
beams with satisfaction and contentment from under her well-starched checked turban,
bearing on it, however, if we must confess it, a little of that tinge of self-consciousness
which becomes the first cook of the neighborhood, as Aunt Chloe was universally held
and acknowledged to be.
...
In one corner of [the cabin] stood a bed, covered neatly with a snowy spread; and
by the side of it was a piece of carpeting, of some considerable size. On this piece of
carpeting Aunt Chloe took her stand, as being decidedly in the upper walks of life, and it
and the bed by which it lay, and the whole corner, in fact, were treated with distinguished
consideration, and made, so far as possible, sacred from the marauding inroads and
desecrations of little folks. In fact, that corner was the drawing-room of the
establishment. In the other corner was a bed of much humbler pretensions, and evidently
designed for use. The wall over the fireplace was adorned with some very brilliant
scriptural prints, and a portrait of General Washington, drawn and colored in a manner
which would certainly have astonished that hero, if ever he happened to meet with its
like.
...

837

A table, somewhat rheumatic in its limbs, was drawn out before the fire, and
covered with a cloth, displaying cups and saucers of a decidedly brilliant pattern, with
other symptoms of an approaching meal. At this table was seated Uncle Tom, Mr.
Shelby‘s best hand, who, as he is to be the hero of our story, we must daguerreotype for
our readers. He was a large, broad-chested, powerfully-made man, of a full glossy black,
and a face whose truly African features were characterized by an expression of grave and
steady good sense, united with much kindliness and benevolence. There was something
about his whole air self-respecting and dignified, yet united with a confiding and humble
simplicity.
...
Uncle Tom was a sort of patriarch in religious matters, in the neighborhood.
Having, naturally, an organization in which the morale was strongly predominant,
together with a greater breadth and cultivation of mind than obtained among his
companions, he was looked up to with great respect, as a sort of minister among them;
and the simple, hearty, sincere style of his exhortations might have edified even better
educated persons. But it was in prayer that he especially excelled. Nothing could exceed
the touching simplicity, the child-like earnestness, of his prayer, enriched with the
language of Scripture, which seemed so entirely to have wrought itself into his being, as
to have become a part of himself, and to drop from his lips unconsciously; in the
language of a pious old negro, he ―prayed right up.‖ And so much did his prayer always
work on the devotional feelings of his audiences, that there seemed often a danger that it
would be lost altogether in the abundance of the responses which broke out everywhere
around him.
One of the best-known scenes from Uncle Tom‘s Cabin is the flight of Eliza and her
young son Harry over the Ohio River between Kentucky and Ohio. In the following
selection, Eliza, who had been a house slave for the Shelbys, describes her experience to
the owners of the house where she sought refuge. Her story illustrates one of Stowe‘s
central reasons for indicting slavery: the breakup of slave families.
[Eliza] was now sitting up on the settle, by the fire. She was looking steadily into
the blaze, with a calm, heart-broken expression, very different from her former agitated
wildness.
―Did you want me?‖ said Mrs. Bird, in gentle tones. ―I hope you feel better now,
poor woman!‖
A long-drawn, shivering sigh was the only answer; but she lifted her dark eyes,
and fixed them on her with such a forlorn and imploring expression, that the tears came
into the little woman‘s eyes.
―You needn‘t be afraid of anything; we are friends here, poor woman! Tell me
where you came from, and what you want,‖ said she.
―I came from Kentucky,‖ said the woman.
―When?‖ said Mr. Bird, taking up the interrogatory.

838
―To-night.‖
―How did you come?‖
―I crossed on the ice.‖
―Crossed on the ice!‖ said everyone present.
―Yes,‖ said the woman, slowly. ―I did. God helping me, I crossed on the ice; for
they were behind me–right behind–and there was no other way!‖
―Law, Missis,‖ said Cudjoe, ―the ice is all in broken-up blocks, a swinging and a
tetering up and down in the water!‖
―I know it was—I know it!‖ said she, wildly; ―but I did it! I wouldn‘t have
thought I could,–I didn‘t think I should get over, but I didn‘t care! I could die, if I didn‘t.
The Lord helped me; nobody knows how much the Lord can help ‘em till they try,‖ said
the woman, with a flashing eye.
―Were you a slave?‖ said Mr. Bird.
―Yes, sir; I belonged to a man in Kentucky.‖
―Was he unkind to you?‖
―No, sir; he was a good master.‖
―And was your mistress unkind to you?‖
―No, sir–no! my mistress was always good to me.‖
―What could induce you to leave a good home, then, and run away, and go
through such dangers?‖
The woman looked up at Mrs. Bird, with a keen, scrutinizing glance, and it did
not escape her that she was dressed in deep mourning.
―Ma‘am,‖ she said, suddenly, ―have you ever lost a child?‖
The question was unexpected, and it was thrust on a new wound; for it was only a
month since a darling child of the family had been laid in the grave.
Mr. Bird turned around and walked to the window, and Mrs. Bird burst into tears;
but, recovering her voice, she said,
―Why do you ask that? I have lost a little one.‖
―Then you will feel for me. I have lost two, one after another,–left ‘em buried
there when I came away; and I had only this one left. I never slept a night without him;
he was all I had. He was my comfort and pride, day and night; and, ma‘am, they were
going to take him away from me,–to sell him,–sell him down south, ma‘am, to go all
alone,–a baby that had never been away from his mother in his life! I couldn‘t stand it,
ma‘am. I knew I never should be good for anything, if they did; and when I knew the
papers were signed, and he was sold, I took him and came off in the night; and they
chased me,–the man that bought him, and some of Mas‘r‘s folks,–and they were coming
down right behind me, and I heard ‘em. I jumped right on to the ice; and how I got
across, I don‘t know,–but first I knew, a man was helping me up the bank.‖
In the following selection, Eliza‘s husband, George, who has also run away from his
owner, delivers a fiery speech on the degradation of slavery. George confronts Mr.
Wilson, the owner of a bagging factory where George used to work, with the fact that the
law allows slaveowners to separate families, ignore slave marriage ties, and take
advantage of slave women. Slavery has alienated George from Kentucky and from the
United States as a whole, and he seeks to make Canada his home.

839

―See here, now, Mr. Wilson,‖ said George, coming up and sitting himself
determinately down in front of him; ―look at me, now. Don‘t I sit before you, every way,
just as much a man as you are? Look at my face,–look at my hands,–look at my body,‖
and the young man drew himself up proudly; ―why am I not a man, as much as
anybody?‖ Well, Mr. Wilson, hear what I can tell you. I had a father—one of your
Kentucky gentlemen—who didn‘t think enough of me to keep me from being sold with
his dogs and horses, to satisfy the estate, when he died. I saw my mother put up at
sheriff‘s sale, with her seven children. They were sold before her eyes, one by one, all to
different masters; and I was the youngest. She came and kneeled down before old Mas‘r,
and begged him to buy her with me, that she might have at least one child with her; and
he kicked her away with his heavy boot. I saw him do it; and the last that I heard was her
moans and screams, when I was tied to his horse‘s neck, to be carried off to his place.‖
―Well, then?‖
―My master traded with one of the men, and bought my oldest sister. She was a
pious, good girl,–a member of the Baptist church,–and as handsome as my poor mother
had been. She was well brought up, and had good manners. At first, I was glad she was
bought, for I had one friend near me. I was soon sorry for it. Sir, I have stood at the door
and heard her whipped, when it seemed as if every blow cut into my naked heart, and I
couldn‘t do anything to help her; and she was whipped, sir, for wanting to live a decent
Christian life, such as your laws give no slave girl a right to live; and at last I saw her
chained with a trader‘s gang, to be sent to market in Orleans,–sent there for nothing else
but that,–and that‘s the last I know of her. Well, I grew up,–long years and years,–no
father, no mother, no sister, not a living soul that cared for me more than a dog; nothing
but whipping, scolding, starving. Why, sir, I‘ve been so hungry that I have been glad to
take the bones they threw to their dogs, and yet, when I was a little fellow, and laid
awake whole nights and cried, it wasn‘t the hunger, it wasn‘t the whipping, I cried for.
No, sir, it was for my mother and my sisters,–it was because I hadn‘t a friend to love me
on earth. I never knew what peace or comfort was. I never had a kind word spoken to
me till I came to work in your factory. Mr. Wilson, you treated me well; you encouraged
me to do well, and to learn to read and write, and to try to make something of myself; and
God knows how grateful I am for it. Then, sir, I found my wife; you‘ve seen her,–you
know how beautiful she is. When I found she loved me, when I married her, I scarcely
could believe I was alive, I was so happy; and, sir she is as good as she is beautiful. But
now what? Why, now comes my master, takes me right away from my work, and my
friends, and all I like, and grinds me down into the very dirt! And why? Because, he
says, I forgot who I was; he says, to teach me that I am only a nigger! After all, and last
of all, he comes between me and my wife, and says I shall give her up, and live with
another woman. And all this your laws give him power to do, in spite of God or man.
Mr. Wilson, look at it! There isn‘t one of all these things, that have broken the hearts of
my mother and my sister, and my wife and myself, but that your laws allow, and give
every man power to do, in Kentucky, and none can say to him nay! Do you call these the
laws of my country? Sir, I haven‘t any country, anymore than I have any father. But I‘m
going to have one. I don‘t want anything of your country, except to be let alone,–to go
peaceably out of it; and when I get to Canada, where the laws will own me and protect
me, that shall be my country, and its laws I will obey. But if any man tries to stop me, let

840
him take care, for I am desperate. I‘ll fight for my liberty to the last breath I breathe.
You say your fathers did it; if it was right for them, it is right for me.‖

Tom, first sold to New Orleans by Mr. Shelby to pay off some debts, is later sold again
after the death of his benevolent but irresponsible young master, Augustine St. Clare.
Tom is purchased by Simon Legree, a brutal, Northern-born man who runs an isolated
cotton plantation in Arkansas. In the following passages, Legree decides to try to harden
Tom so that he can become a driver. But Tom refuses Legree‘s order that he whip a
woman who has not picked enough cotton. Tom is savagely beaten, but draws on his
Christian faith to continue to resist Legree‘s commands. Ultimately, of course, Legree
beats Tom to death, but not before Tom has converted Legree‘s two drivers to
Christianity.
It took but a short time to familiarize Tom with all that was to be hoped or feared
in his new way of life. He was an expert and efficient workman in whatever he
undertook; and was, both from habit and principle, prompt and faithful. Quiet and
peaceable in his disposition, he hoped, by unremitting diligence, to avert from himself at
least a portion of the evils of his condition. He saw enough of abuse and misery to make
him sick and weary; but he determined to toil on, with religious patience, committing
himself to Him that judgeth righteously, not without hope that some way of escape might
yet be opened to him.
Legree took a silent note of Tom‘s availability. He rated him as a first-class hand;
and yet he felt a secret dislike to him,–the native antipathy of bad to good. He saw,
plainly, that when, as was often the case, his violence and brutality fell on the helpless,
Tom took notice of it; for, so subtle is the atmosphere of opinion, that it will make itself
felt, without words; and the opinion even of a slave may annoy a master. Tom in various
ways manifested a tenderness of feeling, a commiseration for his fellow-sufferers, strange
and new to them, which was watched with a jealous eye by Legree. He had purchased
Tom with a view of eventually making him a sort of overseer, with whom he might, at
times, intrust his affairs, in short absences; and, in his view, the first, second, and third
requisite for that place, was hardness. Legree made up his mind, that, as Tom was not
hard to his hand, he would harden him forthwith; and some few weeks after Tom had
been on the place, he determined to commence the process.
...
―And now,‖ said Legree, ―come here, you Tom. You see I telled ye I didn‘t buy
ye jest for the common work; I mean to promote ye, and make a driver of ye; and to-night
ye may jest as well begin to get yer hand in. Now, ye jest take this yer gal and flog her;
ye‘ve seen enough on‘t to know how.‖
―I beg Mas‘r‘s pardon,‖ said Tom; ―hopes Mas‘r won‘t set me at that. It‘s what I
an‘t used to, –never did,–and can‘t do, no way possible.‖
―Ye‘ll larn a pretty smart chance of things ye never did know, before I‘ve done
with ye!‖ said Legree, taking up a cowhide, and striking Tom a heavy blow cross the
cheek, and following up the infliction by a shower of blows.

841
―There!‖ he said, as he stopped to rest; ―now, will ye tell me ye can‘t do it?‖
―Yes, Mas‘r,‖ said Tom, putting up his hand, to wipe the blood, that trickled
down his face. ―I‘m willin‘ to work, night and day, and work while there‘s life and
breath in me; but this yer thing I can‘t feel it right to do;–and, Mas‘r, I never shall do it,–
never!‖
Tom had a remarkably smooth, soft voice, and a habitually respectful manner,
that had given Legree an idea that he would be cowardly, and easily subdued. When he
spoke these last words, a thrill of amazement went through every one; the poor woman
clasped her hands, and said, ―O Lord!‖ and every one involuntarily looked at each other
and drew in their breath, as if to prepare for the storm that was about to burst.
Legree looked stupefied and confounded; but at last burst forth,—
―What! Ye blasted black beast! Tell me ye don‘t think it right to do what I tell
ye! What have any of you cussed cattle to do with thinking what‘s right? I‘ll put a stop
to it! Why, what do ye think ye are? May be ye think ye‘r a gentleman master, Tom, to
be a telling your master what‘s right, and what ain‘t! So you pretend it‘s wrong to flog
the gal!‖
―I think so, Mas‘r,‖ said Tom; ―the poor crittur‘s sick and feeble; ‘t would be
downright cruel, and it‘s what I never will do, nor begin to. Mas‘r, if you mean to kill
me, kill me; but, as to my raising my hand agin any one here, I never shall,–I‘ll die first!‖
Tom spoke in a mild voice, but with a decision that could not be mistaken.
Legree shook with anger; his greenish eyes glared fiercely, and his very whiskers seemed
to curl with passion; but, like some ferocious beast, that plays with its victim before he
devours it, he kept back his strong impulse to proceed to immediate violence, and broke
out into bitter raillery.
―Well, here‘s a pious dog, at last, let down among us sinners!–a saint, a
gentleman, and no less, to talk to us sinners about our sins! Powerful holy crittur, he
must be! Here, you rascal, you make believe to be pious,–didn‘t you never hear, out of
yer Bible, ‗Servants, obey yer masters‘? An‘t I yer master? Didn‘t I pay down twelve
hundred dollars, cash, for all there is inside yer old cussed black shell? An‘t yer mine,
now, body and soul?‖ he said, giving Tom a violent kick with his heavy boot; ―tell me!‖
In the very depth of physical suffering, bowed by brutal oppression, this question
shot a gleam of joy and triumph through Tom‘s soul. He suddenly stretched himself up,
and, looking earnestly to heaven, while the tears and blood that flowed down his face
mingled, he exclaimed,
―No! no! no! my soul an‘t yours, Mas‘r! You haven‘t bought it ,–ye can‘t buy it!
It‘s been bought and paid for, by one that is able to keep it;–no matter, no matter, you
can‘t harm me!‖
―I can‘t!‖ said Legree, with a sneer; ―we‘ll see,–we‘ll see! Here, Sambo, Quimbo,
give this dog such a breakin‘ in as he won‘t get over, this month!‖
The two gigantic negroes that now laid hold of Tom, with fiendish exultation in
their faces, might have formed no unapt personification of the powers of darkness. The
poor woman screamed with apprehension, and all rose, as by a general impulse, while
they dragged him unresisting from the place.
Source: Stowe, Uncle Tom‘s Cabin, pp. 66-68, 79, 148-150, 185-187, 467-468, 500-501,
507-509.

842

1861—Harriet A. Jacobs‘s Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl
While never as famous as Frederick Douglass‘s account of his life as a slave, Harriet
Jacobs‘s memoir has gained considerable attention in the last fifteen years as one of the
few slave narratives penned by a woman. Jacobs, who used the pseudonym Linda Brent
in her account, was born in Edenton, North Carolina, in about 1813. Her parents died
when she was young, but her grandmother, who was free, looked after Jacobs and her
brother. Jacobs worked as a house servant for Dr. James Norcom (named Dr. Flint in the
book) and his wife and belonged to their young daughter. When Jacobs reached age
fifteen, Dr. Norcom began to subject her to intense sexual harassment, but she rebuffed
his repeated attempts to make her his concubine. In part to get back at Norcom, Jacobs
entered into a sexual relationship with a white lawyer, by whom she had two children.
Throughout her narrative, she expresses guilt over this relationship because of her
grandmother‘s disapproval of her actions. Meanwhile, Norcom continued to pursue
Jacobs.
In 1835, Jacobs believed that running away would prompt the doctor to sell her children
to their father, who had promised to free them. For seven years, Jacobs hid in a small
crawlspace over her grandmother‘s storeroom. In 1842, she escaped to the North, where
she was soon reunited with her children and where she became involved in the
abolitionist movement. Jacobs worked as a nursemaid, and her employer eventually
purchased and manumitted her. This was bittersweet for Jacobs, who cherished her
freedom but was deeply resentful that she had achieved it by being purchased like ―an
article of property‖ from her former oppressors. With the encouragement of Quaker
reformer Amy Post, Jacobs wrote her narrative, which was edited by Lydia Maria Child
and published in Boston in 1861. During and after the Civil War, Jacobs worked as an
agent for the Quakers, assisting freedpeople in Washington, D.C., Alexandria, and
Savannah. She died in 1897.
Jacobs, who believed that ―slavery is terrible for men; but it is far more terrible for
women,‖ directed her book to a female audience. In the preface, she wrote ―I do
earnestly desire to arouse the women of the North to a realizing sense of the condition of
two millions of women at the South, still in bondage, suffering what I suffered, and most
of them far worse.‖ In the following selections, Jacobs describes the sexual harassment
she experienced and her hiding place above her grandmother‘s storeroom. The final
selection is an excerpt from a letter Jacobs wrote to Amy Post in 1857, regarding the
manuscript and the endorsement of it that Post planned to write.
During the first years of my service in Dr. Flint‘s family, I was accustomed to
share some indulgences with the children of my mistress. Though this seemed to me no
more than right, I was grateful for it, and tried to merit the kindness by the faithful
discharge of my duties. But I now entered on my fifteenth year–a sad epoch in the life of
a slave girl. My master began to whisper foul words in my ear. Young as I was, I could
not remain ignorant of their import. I tried to treat them with indifference or contempt.

843
The master‘s age, my extreme youth, and the fear that his conduct would be reported to
my grandmother, made him bear this treatment for many months. He was a crafty man,
and resorted to many means to accomplish his purposes. Sometimes he had stormy,
terrific ways, that made his victims tremble; sometimes he assumed a gentleness that he
thought must surely subdue. Of the two, I preferred his stormy moods, although they left
me trembling. He tried his utmost to corrupt the pure principles my grandmother had
instilled. He peopled my young mind with unclean images, such as only a vile monster
could think of. I turned from him with disgust and hatred. But he was my master. I was
compelled to live under the same roof with him–where I saw a man forty years my senior
daily violating the most sacred commandments of nature. He told me I was his property;
that I must be subject to his will in all things. My soul revolted against the mean tyranny.
But where could I turn for protection? No matter whether the slave girl be as black as
ebony or as fair as her mistress. In either case, there is no shadow of law to protect her
from insult, from violence, or even from death; all these are inflicted by fiends who bear
the shape of men. The mistress, who ought to protect the helpless victim, has no other
feelings towards her but those of jealousy and rage. The degradation, the wrongs, the
vices, that grow out of slavery, are more than I can describe. They are greater than you
would willingly believe. Surely, if you credited one half the truths that are told you
concerning the helpless millions suffering in this cruel bondage, you at the north would
not help to tighten the yoke. You surely would refuse to do for the master, on your own
soil, the mean and cruel work which trained bloodhounds and the lowest class of whites
do for him at the south.
Every where the years bring to all enough of sin and sorrow; but in slavery the
very dawn of life is darkened by these shadows. Even the little child, who is accustomed
to wait on her mistress and her children, will learn, before she is twelve years old, why it
is that her mistress hates such and such a one among the slaves. Perhaps the child‘s own
mother is among the hated ones. She listens to violent outbreaks of jealous passion, and
cannot help understanding what is the cause. She will become prematurely knowing in
evil things. Soon she will learn to tremble when she hears her master‘s footfall. She will
be compelled to realize that she is no longer a child. If God has bestowed beauty upon
her, it will prove her greatest curse. That which commands admiration in the white
woman only hastens the degradation of the female slave. I know that some are too much
brutalized by slavery to feel the humiliation of their position; but many slaves feel it most
acutely, and shrink from the memory of it. I cannot tell how much I suffered in the
presence of these wrongs, nor how I am still pained by the retrospect. My master met me
at every turn, reminding me that I belonged to him, and swearing by heaven and earth
that he would compel me to submit to him. If I went out for a breath of fresh air, after a
day of unwearied toil, his footsteps dogged me. If I knelt by my mother‘s grave, his dark
shadow fell on me even there. The light heart which nature had given me became heavy
with sad forebodings. The other slaves in my master‘s house noticed the change. Ma[n]y
of them pitied me; but none dared to ask the cause. They had no need to inquire. They
knew too well the guilty practices under that roof; and they were aware that to speak of
them was an offence that never went unpunished.
I longed for some one to confide in. I would have given the world to have laid
my head on my grandmother‘s faithful bosom, and told her all my troubles. But Dr. Flint
swore he would kill me, if I was not as silent as the grave. Then, although my

844
grandmother was all in all to me, I feared her as well as loved her. I had been
accustomed to look up to her with a respect bordering upon awe. I was very young, and
felt shamefaced about telling her such impure things, especially as I knew her to be very
strict on such subjects. Moreover, she was a woman of a high spirit. She was usually
very quiet in her demeanor; but if her indignation was once roused, it was not very easily
quelled. I had been told that she once chased a white gentleman with a loaded pistol,
because he had insulted one of her daughters. I dreaded the consequences of a violent
outbreak; and both pride and fear kept me silent. But though I did not confide in my
grandmother, and even evaded her vigilant watchfulness and inquiry, her presence in the
neighborhood was some protection to me. Though she had been a slave, Dr. Flint was
afraid of her. He dreaded her scorching rebukes. Moreover, she was known and
patronized by many people; and he did not wish to have his villainy made public. It was
lucky for me that I did not live on a distant plantation, but in a town not so large that the
inhabitants were ignorant of each other‘s affairs. Bad as are the laws and customs of a
slaveholding community, the doctor, as a profession man, deemed it prudent to keep up
some outward show of decency.
O, what days and nights of fear and sorrow that man caused me! Reader, it is not
to awaken sympathy for myself that I am telling you truthfully what I suffered in slavery.
I do it to kindle a flame of compassion in your hearts for my sisters who are still in
bondage, suffering as I once suffered.
...
A small shed had been added to my grandmother‘s house years ago. Some boards
were laid across the joists at the top, and between these boards and the roof was a very
small garret, never occupied by any thing but rats and mice. It was a pent roof, covered
with nothing but shingles, according to the southern custom for such buildings. The
garret was only nine feet long and seven wide. The highest part was three feet high, and
sloped down abruptly to the loose board floor. There was no admission for either light or
air. My uncle Phillip, who was a carpenter, had very skillfully made a concealed trapdoor, which communicated with the storeroom. He had been doing this while I was
waiting in the swamp. The storeroom opened upon a piazza. To this hole I was
conveyed as soon as I entered the house. The air was stifling; the darkness total. A bed
had been spread on the floor. I could sleep quite comfortably on one side; but the slope
was so sudden that I could not turn on the other without hitting the roof. The rats and
mice ran over my bed; but I was weary, and I slept such a sleep as the wretched may,
when a tempest has passed over them. Morning came. I knew it only by the noises I
heard; for in my small den day and night were all the same. I suffered for air even more
than for light. But I was not comfortless. I heard the voices of my children. There was
joy and there was sadness in the sound. It made my tears flow. How I longed to speak to
them! I was eager to look on their faces; but there was no hole, no crack, through which I
could peep. This continued darkness was oppressive. It seemed horrible to sit or lie in a
cramped position day after day, without one gleam of light. Yet I would have chosen
this, rather than my lot as a slave, though white people considered it an easy one; and it
was so compared with the fate of others. I was never cruelly over-worked; I was never
lacerated with the whip from head to foot; I was never so beaten and bruised that I could

845
not turn from one side to the other; I never had my heel-strings cut to prevent my running
away; I was never chained to a log and forced to drag it about, while I toiled in the fields
from morning till night; I was never branded with hot iron, or torn by bloodhounds. On
the contrary, I had always been kindly treated, and tenderly cared for, until I came into
the hands of Dr. Flint. I had never wished for freedom till then. But though my life in
slavery was comparatively devoid of hardships, God pity the woman who is compelled to
lead such a life!
My food was passed up to me through the trap-door my uncle had contrived; and
my grandmother, my uncle Phillip, and aunt Nancy would seize such opportunities as
they could, to mount up there and chat with me at the opening. But of course this was not
safe in the daytime. It must all be done in darkness. It was impossible for me to move in
an erect position, but I crawled about my den for exercise. One day I hit my head against
something, and found it was a gimlet. My uncle had left it sticking there when he made
the trap-door. I was as rejoiced as Robinson Crusoe could have been at finding such a
treasure. It put a lucky thought into my head. I said to myself, ―Now I will have some
light. Now I will see my children.‖ I did not dare to begin my work during the daytime,
for fear of attracting attention. But I groped round; and having found the side next the
street, where I could frequently see my children, I stuck the gimlet in and waited for
evening. I bored three rows of holes, one above another; then I bored out the interstices
between. I thus succeeded in making one hole about an inch long and an inch broad. I
sat by it till late into the night, to enjoy the little whiff of air that floated in. In the
morning I watched for my children. The first person I saw in the street was Dr. Flint. I
had a shuddering, superstitious feeling that it was a bad omen. Several familiar faces
passed by. At last I heard the merry laugh of children, and presently two sweet little
faces were looking up at me, as though they knew I was there, and were conscious of the
joy they imparted. How I longed to tell them I was there!
...
June 21st [1857]
My Dear Friend . . .
I have My dear friend – Striven faithfully to give a true and just account of my
own life in Slavery—God knows I have tried to do it in a Christian spirit—there are
somethings that I might have made plainer I know—Woman can whisper—her cruel
wrongs into the ear of a very dear friend—much easier than she can record them for the
world to read—I have left nothing out but what I thought—the world might believe that a
Slave Woman was too willing to pour out—that she might gain their sympathies I ask
nothing—I have placed myself before you to be judged as a woman whether I deserve
your pity or contempt—I have another object in view—it is to come to you just as I am a
poor Slave Mother—not to tell you what I have heard but what I have seen—and what I
have suffered—and if there is any sympathy to give—let it be given to the thousands—of
of [sic] Slave Mothers that are still in bondage—suffering far more than I have—let it
plead for their helpless Children that they may enjoy the same liberties that my Children
now enjoy—Say nothing of me that you have had from a truthful source that you think
best—ask me any question you like—in regard to the father of my Children I think I have

846
stated all perhaps I did not tell you that he was a member of Congress at that time all of
this I have written—I think it would be best for you to begin with our acquaintance and
the length of time that I was in your family your advice about giving the history of my
life in Slavery mention that I lived in service all the while I was striving to get the Book
out but do not say with whom I lived as I would not use the Willis name neither would I
like to have people think that I was living an Idle life—and had got this book out merely
to make money—my kind friend I do not restrict you in anything for you know far better
than I do what to say I am only too happy to think that I am going to have it from you–
...
HARRIET
Source: Jacobs, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, ed. Child, pp. 27-29, 114-115, 242.

Early Twentieth Century—Virginia Slave Narratives
Of all the materials historians use to interpret slavery, interviews given by ex-slaves in
the early twentieth century have come under the closest scrutiny as sources. While the
old age of the former slaves, as well as the often marked class and race differences
between them and the interviewers, certainly influenced the conversations that took
place, the interviews unquestionably provide unparalleled insight into the institution of
slavery from the perspective of those who lived through it. They also contain numerous
perceptions about life under segregation.
Most interviews with former slaves in Virginia were conducted by interviewers for the
Virginia Writers‘ Project, which was part of the Federal Writers‘ Project established by
the Works Progress Administration in 1935. The Virginia program, along with those in
Louisiana and Florida, was one of the few WPA offices to employ significant numbers of
African-American interviewers. Of the 159 extant Virginia Writers‘ Project ex-slave
interviews, 100 are known to have been completed by blacks and nine by whites. Most
of the other fifty are thought to have been done by African Americans. Comparison of
WPA interviews conducted by whites and ex-slave interviews completed by blacks for
the WPA, Fisk University, and Southern University between 1929 and 1938 has
demonstrated that those conducted by black interviewers contain fuller information about
family life, slave resistance, cruelty by owners, and other aspects of slave life.
The following selections include memories of family life, punishment, escape, work,
slave sales, the Civil War, and emancipation. The dialect used by the interviewees is
unsettling to late twentieth-century readers but is an integral part of the historical record.
Both Claude W. Anderson and Susie R.C. Byrd were African Americans.
Cornelia Carney (b. 1838)
Williamsburg, Va.
Interviewer: Claude W. Anderson
Date of interview: Unknown

847
Source: Negro in Virginia, MS version, draft no. 1, chap. 13, pp. 8-9.
Now my father was de purties‘ black man you ever saw. Name was John Jones Littleton.
Had a long thin nose like a white man, an‘ had de lovelies‘ white teef, an‘ hones‘ chile,
de purties‘ mouf. Father could make anything. Made dat ches‘ over dere in de corner.
White folks been trying to buy it, but ain‘t gonna sell it to no white folks, ‘cause dey
treated my father so mean. Ole Marsa Littleton used to beat father all de time. His back
was a sight. It was scarred up an‘ brittled fum shoulder to shoulder. Ole Marse didn‘t
like father always whittlin‘ wid his jackknife. Wanted him to work in de fiel‘, same as de
other slaves.
Father got beat up so much dat arter while he run away an‘ lived in de woods.
Used to slip back to de house Saddy nights an‘ sometime Sunday when he knowed Marse
and Missus done gone to meetin‘. Mama used to send John, my oldes‘ brother, out to de
woods wid food fo‘ father, an‘ what he didn‘t git fum us de Lawd provided. Never did
ketch him, though old Marse search real sharp.
Father wasn‘t de onlies‘ one hidin‘ in de woods. Dere was his cousin, Gabriel,
dat was hidin‘ an‘ a man name Charlie. Niggers was too smart fo‘ white folks to git
ketched. White folks was sharp too, but not sharp enough to git by ole Nat. Nat? I don‘t
know who he was. Ole folks used to say it all de time. De meanin‘ I git is dat de niggers
could always out-smart de white folks. What you git fum it?
[It seems likely that the above reference to ―old Nat‖ is to Nat Turner.–Ed.]

Mrs. Louise Jones (b. ca. 1855)
501 Clinton St., Petersburg, Va.
Interviewer: Susie R. C. Byrd
Date of interview: February 12, 1937
Source: Va. State Lib.
I couldn‘ tell you how long I been here, but I was here fo‘ dis here Petersburg Depot was
built. Bread an‘ born in Dinwiddie County. I b‘long to Louis Merriday. From dat I fell
to his daughter, Mary Sydnor. All us slaves was ‘vided up; yes, chil‘ some o‘ ‘em sol‘
‘way fo‘ the ole heads died. Lord! Lord! Dem times was times! Um, um! Yes, honey
when ole mass an‘ mistess pas‘ out, things change. Dey start ‘vidin‘ us slave up ‘mongst
de heirs.
I uster set on a pallet an‘ tend to de babies. Yes, some dem white babies an‘
nigger babies too would cry. . . .
No, I didn‘t have uh bit o‘ whippin‘ on my back; no more than my grandma
gimme. Mistess didn‘t ‘low it.
Slaves was sol‘ like dis. Dey carry dem to de block. Dis block was where dey
was put on an‘ sol‘ to the highes‘ bidder; you know like people sell cattle, horses an‘
cows. Dem was sad times. Some times we would hear de white folks plan de sale an‘
call slave names dat dey want to carry to de block de day b‘fo‘. Den honey, we prayed,
sang an‘ call on my God dat we git good massa an‘ mistess. You know, honey, some

848
mistess an‘ massas was mean to dey slaves an‘ dey would beat ‘em. Den de poor things
would run away.
When I was a slave I didn‘t know what church was. We talk to God an‘ prayed
by ourselves jes‘ wharever we was workin‘. ‘Course de white folks didn‘t hear us. Chil‘,
look right now I can hear some o‘ dem mournful voices; ‘specially brother John. He
would always sing an‘ pray. Um! Um! He was sol‘, den I los‘ track o‘ him. De man dat
bought him took his slaves ‘way down South. Dat‘s right fer, ain‘t it?
...
My mistess slaves, like lan‘ an‘ property, went to de heirs. An‘ when things was
settle up dey didn‘ give me ―sweat off de black cat‘s eye.‖ No didn‘ gimme nottin‘.
Slaves call demselves married when dey jump over uh broom stick. But I was
married by a preacher.
...

War
I ‘member the very night de soldiers took Petersburg, I recollec‘ ‘twas jes‘ ‘bout de
breakin‘ o‘ day. We lived on Canal Street. I could hear de guns. All o‘ a sudden three
soldiers ‘peared an‘ start knockin‘ an‘ beatin‘ on de door, askin‘ if our white folks was
good to us. If we had said ―no‖ dem Yankees would a-kill mistess and massa.
Dem soldiers dey kep‘ comin‘ to town ‘til night. Mother made coffee an‘ I toted
water from de spring. De soldiers would give me money. Man, sir, when dey lef‘ I had
uh whole hat full o‘ money. Do you know my daddy took all my money. No, didn‘t give
me one brass cent. Chil‘ like, I cried an‘ jes‘ bellowed ‘til old lady spank me. Dat was a
spankin‘ I ‘member ‘till dis day.
When Yankees came to a store dey would break it open, an‘ give you all you
could toat. Dey broke into smoke houses an‘ dey would throw de bigges‘ hams, whole
meat sides, an‘ de lak. Flour, meal, corn, an‘ everything was yours, and if de niggers
didn‘ git what dey want, ‘twas dey own fault.

Charlotte Brown (b. ca. 1855)
Woods Crossing, Virginia
Interviewer: Unknown
Date of interview: Unknown
Source: Negro in Virginia, published version, p. 212
De news come on a Thursday, an‘ all de slaves been shoutin‘ an‘ carryin‘ on tell
ev‘ybody was all tired out. ‘Member de fust Sunday of freedom. We was all sittin‘ roun‘
restin‘ an‘ tryin‘ to think what freedom meant an‘ ev‘ybody was quiet an‘ peaceful. All
at once ole Sister Carrie who was near ‘bout a hundred started to talkin‘:
Tain‘t no mo‘ sellin‘ today,

849
Tain‘t no mo‘ hirin‘ today,
Tain‘t no pullin‘ off shirts today,
Its stomp down freedom today.
Stomp it down!
An‘ when she says, ―Stomp it down,‖ all de slaves commence to shoutin‘ wid her:
Stomp down Freedom today–
Stomp it down!
Stomp down Freedom today.
Wasn‘t no mo‘ peace dat Sunday. Ev‘ybody started in to sing an‘ shout once mo‘. Fust
thing you know dey done made up music to Sister Carrie‘s stomp song an‘ sang an‘
shouted dat song all de res‘ de day. Chile, dat was one glorious time!
Source: Perdue, Barden, and Phillips, eds., Weevils in the Wheat, pp. 66-67, 185-187, 5859; see also Berlin, ed., Remembering Slavery.

1936 and 1939—The Novel and Film Gone with the Wind
With the release of a digitized version of the film Gone with the Wind in the summer of
1998, Americans across the country have become reacquainted with this cinematic
melodrama. While the black roles in the film seem acutely stereotypical today, when the
film was originally released they were actually an improvement over the typical celluloid
portrayals of slaves and freedpeople. David O. Selznick‘s film version was considerably
more moderate, in fact, than Margaret Mitchell‘s novel. Selznick reacted against the
image of nineteenth-century racial issues in the South epitomized by D.W. Griffith‘s
1915 film, Birth of a Nation. Griffith‘s film, while a major technological and artistic
advance for the infant film industry, set extremely low initial standards for the visual
media‘s portrayals of African-Americans. Celebrating the post-Civil War Ku Klux Klan
as a brotherhood of chivalrous freedom fighters, Birth of a Nation mocked the ambitions
of freedpeople with crude stereotypes. While Selznick was able to advance from
Griffith‘s racist vulgarity, Gone with the Wind still endorsed many of the stereotypes that
made up the ―plantation myth.‖ As portrayed in the film, owners were paternalistic,
kindly and caring toward their slaves. The slaves, in turn, were docile, simple-minded,
loyal to their owners, and happy with their lot in life. Black and white southerners lived
together in a state of mutual harmony and affection until Yankee invaders destroyed the
idyll by turning the heads of freed slaves with impossible promises of social, economic,
and political equality. Despite the strength of several of the black roles in Gone with the
Wind, the endorsement of so many demeaning stereotypes attracted considerable
opposition to the movie from within the black community.
In the following discussion, Thomas Cripps reviews the major roles played by AfricanAmericans in Gone with the Wind and places the film in historical perspective.

850
Malcolm X grew into manhood with a vivid memory of Gone with the Wind. As
a teenager, he went to see the film in his Michigan hometown: ―I remember one thing
that marred that time for me. . . . I was the only Negro in the theatre, and when Butterfly
McQueen [Prissy] went into her act, I felt like crawling under the rug.‖ In December
1939, a few weeks earlier, 300,000 Atlantans, most of them white, had filled the streets
for the premiere that simultaneously celebrated the release of the movie and a revival of
Southern consciousness. Wherever Margaret Mitchell's 1000-page novel was sold and
wherever the movie version played, the story was the same: audiences were divided
along racial lines.
But to see Gone with the Wind only as the center of a racial debate is to miss
much. In addition to its obvious socially divisive ingredients of sectionalism and racism,
it contained elements calculated by its makers, Mitchell and producer David O. Selznick,
to temper and modulate high-running racial feelings. Indeed, their half-formed liberal
assumptions that contributed to the political texture of the film anticipated the more
sharply focused racial liberalism of World War II.
...
The book's reception by the American public and critics pointed toward its
eventual success as a film but also toward the problems Selznick faced in producing it.
Sales ran into the millions, as friendly critics praised it as a vast tapestry of antebellum
Southern life. And yet on the flanks of the great audience were critics for whom Gone
with the Wind was a failure: on the right, doctrinaire Southerners expecting a
reflowering of the old myths; on the left, critics joining in Malcolm Cowley's blast at the
refurbishing of ―the plantation legend.‖ Selznick's job as a producer necessarily included
taking into account the spectrum of criticism with a view to bringing a Southern novel
into the center of American popular opinion.
For Selznick and the first of his scriptwriters, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright
Sidney Howard, the initial task was to shift the perspective of the film toward their own
liberal politics. As Selznick wrote in a memorandum, ―I, for one, have no desire to
produce an anti-Negro film either. In our picture I think we have to be awfully careful
that the Negroes come out decidedly on the right side of the ledger.‖ Such liberalism
helped eliminate a Ku Klux Klan episode. ―I personally feel quite strongly that we
should cut out the Klan entirely,‖ wrote Selznick; otherwise, the film ―might come out as
an unintentional advertisement for intolerant societies in these fascist-ridden times.‖
Their best liberal intentions lacked consistency, however. Howard, for example,
as a way of praising Mitchell's honesty, used an old Southern term that was insultingly
nettlesome to blacks: her blacks were ―the best written darkies, I believe, in all of
literature . . . the only ones I have ever read which seem to come through uncolored by
white patronizing.‖ In another instance, Selznick insisted that ―the picture must not
emerge as anything offensive to negroes,‖ or throw ―too bad a light on even the negroes
of the reconstruction period.‖ A typical solution was to reconstruct a rape scene by
making ―the negro little more than a spectator,‖ which put aside rather than solved the
problem of how to depict the free and politically and socially assertive blacks of
Reconstruction.

851
Selznick and Howard also shared an ignorance of the details of plantation life and
the slavery system, which they hoped to correct by hiring a consultant. At first, they
sought Mitchell herself as a historical adviser but, failing that, turned to two white
Southerners whom Mitchell had recommended: Wilbur Kurtz, an Atlanta architect, and
Susan Myrick, a reporter for the Macon Telegraph. Earlier, Selznick had approached
Walter White of the NAACP to join them as adviser but without success.
Kurtz, a Northerner by birth and an avid Civil War buff, counseled on manners,
dress, architecture, weaponry, and ambience--and eventually on black accents, garments,
and society. His carefully worded memoranda, augmented by his reading of black
historian William Still's Underground Railroad , provided details of plantation activity,
equipage, and personnel that black critics could not effectively challenge. In Tara's
washyard, for example, he missed nothing: the little Negro girl who swept it; the old
pipe-smoking woman who presided over the boiling clothes in the iron washpot; the
black boy who stoked the fire and fetched the water. Every black resident of Tara was
the subject of a sketch. Not only Mammy, Pork, Dilcey, and Prissy, but also the cobblers,
wheelwrights, barbers, drivers, herders, flyswishers, and black foreman received at least a
line of type. As the Civil War came to Atlanta, drying up the labor pool, Kurtz's
memoranda caught the motley black labor gangs marching in their tatters through the
city, pickaxes on their shoulders, under the eyes of the old men of the Home Guard. Yet
Kurtz's point of view, like that of Mitchell and Selznick, was of a narrow gauge that
missed details such as whips and chains--no surviving memorandum recorded them.
...
Although Selznick International turned out one of the great events of film history,
for blacks Gone with the Wind remained an ambiguity caught between old dying black
images and as yet unformed new images. While no Klansmen appeared, neither did a
single rebellious slave or black soldier. No black characters shared any emotional bonds,
except those of loyalty to whites, and those few who left the plantation in favor of
freedom were depicted as shantytown renegades. Yet Mammy grew from her stolid
presence on Mitchell‘s pages into a heroic, rocklike figure on whom the defeated whites
relied. Other blacks, though lacking depth, conveyed a plodding resilience and warmth.
Thus, if McQueen's comic bits caused blacks to wince, other actors maintained a studied
dignity that pleased black audiences and confounded black critics.
Predictably, leftists branded such accomplishments as no more than bourgeois
opportunism and damned the entire production as a racist tract. Throughout the winter of
1939-40, the Daily Worker, led by its critic, David Platt, nagged at the movie. The organ
of the American Communist Party deviated only once from its persistent campaign, when
Howard Rushmore gave it a mixed review flecked with a few admissions of merit. . . .
The broad center of Negro opinion represented in the monthlies either generally
admired the film for its modest revisions of ancient stereotypes or considered it an
irrelevancy. [W.E.B.] DuBois, for example, dismissed it as a ―conventional
provincialism about which Negroes need not get excited.‖ Crisis shared his view,
pointing out that the film ―eliminated practically all the offensive scenes and dialogue so
that there is little material, directly affecting Negroes as a race, to which objection can be
entered.‖ The Urban League‘s Opportunity made no direct reference to the movie. . . .

852
Newspaper critics dismissed the servile roles as predictable elements of a period
film and hailed each break with old convention as a triumph. The Norfolk Journal and
Guide, for example, admired the modernity of the relationship between Rhett and
Mammy. Several critics agreed that ―there was no reason for Negroes to feel indignant
about this film.‖ A few, like Lillian Johnson in the Baltimore Afro-American, even found
it ―magnificently done‖ and ―truly the greatest picture ever made.‖
Thus, at the height of national excitement over Gone with the Wind, organized
blacks spoke with many voices, ranging from the temperate responses of the NAACP and
the black press to the barely controlled rage of the black left that spoke through the Daily
Worker and the National Negro Congress. As though accommodating the breadth of the
spectrum, the black press sometimes balanced hostile critics by running their columns in
tandem with friendlier observers or by printing readers‘ letters that reflected the range of
praise and calumny or by running ―boilerplate‖ generated by wire services and studio
press agents as counterweights to negative stories filed by staff writers.
Almost always, this evenhandedness extended to balancing rave reviews against
equally kind words for the black protesters and pickets who sometimes marked local
premieres. In Washington, Cleveland, Richmond, Norfolk, and other cities, local theaters
held dressy premieres that attracted opposites--formally dressed black bourgeoisie and
the black protesters whose picket lines they crossed, sometimes guiltily. . . .
...
What did all this mean to blacks? What social forces were released and
symbolized by Gone with the Wind? Most significantly, the film clearly was not a revival
of the mystical, repellant, Kulturkampf image conjured among blacks by Birth of a
Nation. On the contrary, it foreshadowed a decline in racism of that sort, a decline seen
in the integrity of the film's black actors, their recognition by the white community, and
the related black-led victory over the Birth of a Nation remake project. . . .‖
Source: Cripps, "Winds of Change: Gone with the Wind and Racism as a National
Issue," pp. 137-152.

1954—C. Vann Woodward on the History of Jim Crow in the South
While many Americans can identify slavery, the Civil War, segregation, and the Civil
Rights Movement as significant events in American history, they often have little sense
of the relationship of these events to each other. Indeed, people born since the
elimination of Jim Crow even confuse slavery and segregation. In 1954, C. Vann
Woodward delivered a series of lectures at the University of Virginia in which he
outlined the history of segregation in the South and argued that Jim Crow laws were not
immutable laws of nature but the result of human decisions made at the turn of the
nineteenth century. He demonstrated that, relative to the first half of the twentieth
century, there had been considerable flexibility in race relations during the two decades
after the Civil War. Woodward published the lectures as The Strange Career of Jim
Crow in 1955 and came out with revised editions in 1966 and 1974. As he had hoped,

853
the book generated substantial scholarship on the history of segregation. Although dated
in its use of the term ―Negro‖ and in its tendency to underestimate the agency of black
Americans in the struggle against segregation, the book remains a classic work of
historical insight into race relations.
Woodward sought to provide Southerners with an informed historical context so they
could better evaluate the rapid changes in race relations underway in the region during
the mid-twentieth century. The first selection below, which comes from Woodward‘s
introduction, places the development and demise of de jure segregation within the
context of Southern history as a whole. The remaining selections, which come from the
first chapter, entitled ―Of Old Regimes and Reconstructions,‖ sketches the relationship
between slavery and segregation.
The people of the South should be the last Americans to expect indefinite
continuity of their institutions and social arrangements. Other Americans have less
reason to be prepared for sudden change and lost causes. Apart from Southerners,
Americans have enjoyed a historical continuity that is unique among modern peoples.
The stream of national history, flowing down from seventeenth-century sources, reaches
a fairly level plain in the eighteenth century. There it gathered mightily in volume and
span from its tributaries, but it continued to flow like the Mississippi over an even bed
between relatively level banks.
Southern history, on the other hand, took a different turn in the nineteenth
century. At intervals the even bed gave way under the stream, which sometimes plunged
over falls or swirled through rapids. These breaks in the course of Southern history go by
the names of slavery and secession, independence and defeat, emancipation and
reconstruction, redemption and reunion. Some are more precipitous and dramatic than
others. Some result in sheer drops and falls, others in narrows and rapids. The distance
between them, and thus the extent of smooth sailing and stability, varies a great deal.
Considerably the longest of the stretches of relative stability between major
historic faults over which Southern history flows has been that since the break that goes
under several names, among them Redemption, or the Compromise of 1877. It will
doubtless occur to some that in fixing upon this period as the longest I may have
overlooked the ‗Old South‘–the South of the Cotton Kingdom and plantation slavery.
But the Old South, so far as the Cotton Kingdom was concerned, was ‗old‘ only by
courtesy, or to distinguish it from a ‗New South.‘ Purely on the ground of longevity the
Old South did not really last long enough in the larger part of the region to deserve the
name ‗old.‘ And in some states it scarcely attained a respectable middle age. By
comparison with the Old South, the New South, already well past the three-score-and-ten
mark, is very old indeed. There is, in fact, reason for believing that its life span fell
somewhat short of the three-score-and-ten years, that its demise may now be recorded,
and that the so-called ‗New‘ South should really be regarded as one of the several ‗Old‘
Souths.
Lacking the tradition of historical continuity possessed by their fellow
countrymen, more familiar through experience with the shifting fortunes of history,
Southerners have less reason to expect the indefinite duration of any set of social
institutions. Their own history tells them of a well-established society whose institutions

854
were buttressed by every authority of learning, law, and constitution, supported by the
church, the schools, and the press, and cherished devotedly by the people. In spite of all
this they know that this old order and its institutions perished quite completely. It was
replaced by a new order that had behind it all the authority and confidence of a victorious
North, a Constitution newly revised by the victors, and the force of the national army.
The social and political changes were inspired by a North that was in a revolutionary
mood, temporarily determined to stop at nothing short of a complete and thoroughgoing
reformation. Yet this new order disappeared even more swiftly than its predecessor and
was in turn replaced by a third, now crumbling before our eyes.
Each successive regime in the South had had its characteristic economic and
industrial organization, its system of politics, and its social arrangements. It is difficult to
assign priority of importance to any one aspect of a particular regime, for all aspects were
part of a whole and it is hard to imagine one without the other. The peculiarity most
often used to distinguish one order from another, however, has been the relation between
races, or more particularly the status of the Negro. This is not to contend that the Negro‘s
status has been what one historian has called the ‗central theme‘ or basic determinant of
Southern history. There is in fact an impressive amount of evidence indicating that the
Negro‘s status and changes therein have been the product of more impersonal forces.
Such forces have been discovered at work behind the conflicts that resulted in the
overthrow of slavery, the frustration of the Lincoln and Johnson plan of Reconstruction,
the overthrow of Reconstruction, and the foundation of the new order. In fixing upon the
Negro‘s status and race relations, therefore, I am not advancing a theory of historical
causation but adopting common usage in characterizing the successive phases of
Southern history.
The phase that began in 1877 was inaugurated by the withdrawal of federal troops
from the South, the abandonment of the Negro as a ward of the nation, the giving up of
the attempt to guarantee the freedman his civil and political equality, and the
acquiescence of the rest of the country in the South‘s demand that the whole problem be
left to the disposition of the dominant Southern white people. What the new status of the
Negro would be was not at once apparent, nor were the Southern white people
themselves so united on that subject at first as has been generally assumed. The
determination of the Negro‘s ‗place‘ took shape gradually under the influence of
economic and political conflicts among divided white people–conflicts that were
eventually resolved in part at the expense of the Negro. In the early years of the
twentieth century, it was becoming clear that the Negro would be effectively
disfranchised throughout the South, that he would be firmly relegated to the lower rungs
of the economic ladder, and that neither equality nor aspirations for equality in any
department of life were for him.
The public symbols and constant reminders of his inferior position were the
segregation statutes or ‗Jim Crow‘ laws. They constituted the most elaborate and formal
expression of sovereign white opinion upon the subject. In bulk and detail as well as in
effectiveness of enforcement the segregation codes were comparable with the black codes
of the old regime, though the laxity that mitigated the harshness of the black codes was
replaced by a rigidity that was more typical of the segregation code. That code lent the
sanction of law to a racial ostracism that extended to churches and schools, to housing
and jobs, to eating and drinking. Whether by law or by custom, that ostracism extended

855
to virtually all forms of public transportation, to sports and recreations, to hospitals,
orphanages, prisons, and asylums, and ultimately to funeral homes, morgues, and
cemeteries.
The new Southern system was regarded as the ‗final settlement,‘ the ‗return to
sanity,‘ the ‗permanent system.‘ Few stopped to reflect that previous systems had also
been regarded as final, sane, and permanent by their supporters. The illusion of
permanency was encouraged by the complacency of a long-critical North, the propaganda
of reconciliation, and the resigned compliance of the Negro. The illusion was
strengthened further by the passage of several decades during which change was averted
or minimized. Year after year spokesmen of the region assured themselves and the world
at large that the South had taken its stand, that its position was immovable, that alteration
was unthinkable, come what might. As late as 1928, Professor Ulrich B. Phillips
described the South as ‗a people with a common resolve indomitably maintained–that it
shall be and remain a white man‘s country.‘ And that conviction, he observed, ‗whether
expressed with a frenzy of a demagogue or maintained with a patrician‘s quietude, is the
cardinal test of a Southerner and the central theme of Southern history.‘ Whether it was
the ‗central theme‘ or not, both demagogue and patrician continued to express it in
varying degrees of frenzy or quietude.
Yet in the face of apparent solidarity of Southern resistance to change, a
resistance that continued to receive firm and eloquent expression in some quarters, it has
become increasingly plain that another era of change is upon the South and that the
changes achieved or demanded are in the very area traditionally held most inviolable to
alteration. Not since the First Reconstruction has this area been invaded from so many
quarters, with such impatience of established practice and such insistent demand for
immediate reform. Beginning earlier, but reaching full momentum only in the decades
since the Second World War, the Second Reconstruction shows no signs of having yet
run its course or even of having slackened its pace.
It had not one but many sources. Perhaps the most conspicuous was the United
States Supreme Court and its succession of dramatic decisions down to 1954. But in
addition there were many others, including the pressure and propaganda organizations for
civil rights–both Negro and white, Northern and Southern. There were also executive
orders of Presidents, acts of Congress, policy decisions of federal agencies, actions by
labor unions, professional organizations, churches, corporation executives, and
educational leaders. Perhaps the most unusual agencies of radical change were the
officers of the army, navy, and air force, acting under orders of both Democratic and
Republican administrations. The Second Reconstruction, unlike the old, was not the
monopoly of one of the great political parties. Behind these conscious and deliberate
agencies of change were such great impersonal forces of history as lay behind
emancipation, the First Reconstruction, and Redemption. They included economic
revolution, rapid urbanization, and war–war in a somewhat new dimension, called total
war.
The Second Reconstruction addressed itself to all the aspects of racial relations
that the first one attacked and even some the First Reconstruction avoided or neglected.
These included political, economic, and civil rights. Few sections of the segregation code
have escaped attack, for the assault has been leveled at the Jim Crow system in trains,
buses, and other common carriers; in housing and working conditions; in restaurants,

856
theaters, and hospitals; in playgrounds, public parks, swimming pools, and organized
sports, to mention a few examples. The attack has also been carried into two areas in
which the First Reconstruction radicals made no serious effort: segregation in the armed
services and in the public schools.
...
The long experience of slavery in America left its mark on the posterity of both
slave and master and influenced relations between them more than a century after the end
of the old regime. Slavery was only one of several ways by which the white man has
sought to define the Negro‘s status, his ‗place,‘ and assure his subordination.
Exploitation of the Negro by the white man goes back to the beginning of relations
between the races in modern times, and so do the injustices and brutalities that
accompany exploitation. Along with these practices and in justification and defense of
them, were developed the old assumptions of Anglo-Saxon superiority and innate African
inferiority, white supremacy and Negro subordination. In so far as segregation is based
on these assumptions, therefore, it is based on the old pro-slavery argument and has its
remote ideological roots in the slavery period.
In most aspects of slavery as practiced in the ante-bellum South, however,
segregation would have been an inconvenience and an obstruction to the functioning of
the system. The very nature of the institution made separation of the races for the most
part impracticable. The mere policing of slaves required that they be kept under more or
less constant scrutiny, and so did the exaction of involuntary labor. The supervision,
maintenance of order, and physical and medical care of slaves necessitated many contacts
and encouraged a degree of intimacy between the races unequaled, and often held
distasteful, in other parts of the country. The system imposed its own type of interracial
contact, unwelcome as it might be on both sides.
...
Segregation in complete and fully developed form did grow up
contemporaneously with slavery, but not in its midst. One of the strangest things about
Jim Crow was that the system was born in the North and reached an advanced age before
moving South in force. Without forgetting evils peculiar to the South, one might
consider Northern conditions with profit.
By 1830 slavery was virtually abolished by one means or another throughout the
North, with only about 3500 Negroes remaining in bondage in the nominally free states.
No sectional comparison of race relations should be made without full regard for this
difference. The Northern free Negro enjoyed obvious advantages over the Southern
slave. His freedom was circumscribed in many ways, as we shall see, but he could not be
bought or sold, or separated from his family, or legally made to work without
compensation. He was also to some extent free to agitate, organize, and petition to
advance his cause and improve his lot.
For all that, the Northern Negro was made painfully and constantly aware that he
lived in a society dedicated to the doctrine of white supremacy and Negro inferiority.
The major political parties, whatever their position on slavery, vied with each other in

857
their devotion to this doctrine, and extremely few politicians of importance dared
question them. Their constituencies firmly believed that the Negroes were incapable of
being assimilated politically, socially, or physically into white society. They made sure
in numerous ways that the Negro understood his ‗place‘ and that he was severely
confined to it. One of these ways was segregation, and with the backing of legal and
extra-legal codes, the system permeated all aspects of Negro life in the free states by
1860.
...
In the South the traumatic experiences of Civil War, invasion, defeat,
emancipation, occupation, and reconstruction had profound and complex–sometimes
contradictory–effects on racial relations. The immediate response to the collapse of
slavery was often a simultaneous withdrawal of both races from the enforced intimacy
and the more burdensome obligations imposed by the old regime on each. Denied the
benefits of slavery, whites shook off its responsibilities–excess hands, dependents too old
or too ill or too young to work, tenants too poor to pay rent. Freedmen for their part often
fled old masters and put behind them old grievances, hatreds, and the scene of old
humiliations. One of the most momentous of racial separations was the voluntary
withdrawal of the Negroes from the white-dominated Protestant churches, often over
white protest, in order to establish and control their own separate religious institutions. In
these and other ways the new order added physical distance to social distance between
the races.
The separations were not all voluntary. Whites clung unwaveringly to the old
doctrine of white supremacy and innate Negro inferiority that had been sustained by the
old regime. It still remained to be seen what institutions or laws or customs would be
necessary to maintain white control now that slavery was gone. Under slavery, control
was best maintained by a large degree of physical contact and association. Under the
strange new order the old methods were not always available or applicable, though the
contacts and associations they produced did not all disappear at once. To the dominant
whites it began to appear that the new order required a certain amount of compulsory
separation of the races.
...
Racial relations of the old-regime pattern often persisted stubbornly into the new
order and met head-on with interracial encounters of an entirely new and sometimes
equalitarian type. Freedman and white man might turn from a back-door encounter of the
traditional sort to a strained man-to-man contact of the awkward new type within the
same day. Black faces continued to appear at the back door, but they also began to
appear in wholly unprecedented and unexpected places–in the jury box and on the
judge‘s bench, in council chamber and legislative hall, at the polls and the market place.
Neither of these contrasting types of contact, the old or the new, was stable or destined to
endure for very long, but for a time old and new rubbed shoulders–and so did black and
white–in a manner that differed significantly from Jim Crow of the future or slavery of
the past.

858

...
It would be wrong to exaggerate the amount of interracial association and
intimacy produced during Reconstruction or to misconstrue its character and meaning. If
the intimacy of the old regime had its unhappy and painful aspects, so did that of the new
order. Unlike the quality of mercy, it was strained. It was also temporary, and it was
usually self-conscious. It was a product of contrived circumstances, and neither race had
time to become fully accustomed to the change or feel natural in the relationship.
Nevertheless, it would be a mistaken effort to equate this period in racial relations with
either the old regime of slavery or with the future rule of Jim Crow. It was too
exceptional. It is impossible to conceive of innumerable events and interracial
experiments and contacts of the 1860s taking place in the 1900s. To attempt that would
be to do violence to the nuances of history.
Source: Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, pp. 3-12, 17-18, 22, 25-26, 29.
1957—The Novel and ―Blaxploitation Film‖ Mandingo
The term ―blaxploitation film‖ refers to a genre of low-budget, highly stereotypical
movies produced in the 1960s and 1970s featuring black actors. Although the movies
earned the ―blaxploitation‖ label by including little of artistic merit, they did represent a
significant break in Hollywood depictions of black Americans. Unlike the previous
movie portrayals of agreeable, unthreatening African-Americans, lead characters in
blaxploitation films were independent, intelligent, and aggressive (often violently so),
and struggled against various forms of racist oppression. Most of the movies were set in
the northern urban ghetto, but some, such as Mandingo, focused on the rural South.
Mandingo the novel was mainly a low-brow, exploitive rip-off of William Faulkner‘s
studies of the dark, violent underside of Southern race relations, particularly Absalom,
Absalom. Mandingo set the fashion for sexually charged, romance-novel portrayals of
the plantation South. The movie version, starring Perry King and Ken Norton, equaled
the book‘s artistic quality. The following discussion from the Encyclopedia of Southern
Culture argues that despite their low standards, both book and film created an influential
image within popular fiction of a sadistic plantation South.
Mandingo, a novel written by Kyle Onstott (1887-1966) and originally published
by Denlinger's, a small Virginia publishing house, significantly recast the portrayal of the
antebellum South in American popular fiction. The widely popular 1957 work, which
one reviewer called ―a slimy mess,‖ eschewed the moonlight-and-magnolias vision of the
Old South in favor of an image liberally spiced with violence, racism, and miscegenation.
The plot centered on the Maxwells, Warren and his son Hammond, and their interactions
with slaves and neighbors. The Maxwell estate, the fictional Falconhurst Plantation, was,
to quote the book, ―the most unusual plantation in Alabama.‖ The unique nature of
Falconhurst derived from its cash crop: instead of cotton or some other staple, slave
breeding provided the Maxwells with a marketable commodity.

859
The Mandingo storyline, which became the standard for plantation fiction ever
since, had Hammond Maxwell court and marry Blanche Woodford, a stereotype of the
belle on the pedestal. Although Blanche was attractive, Hammond continued to lust after
young slave women. Rejected by Hammond, Blanche sought sexual gratification with
Mede, the pure Mandingo breeding stud whose only responsibilities on the plantation
were impregnating slave women and wrestling for the amusement of his owners. When
Hammond discovered the liaison between Blanche and Mede, he sadistically murdered
both of them. In the world of Falconhurst Plantation it was acceptable for white men to
share sexuality with black women, but it remained a sin of the gravest sort for a black
man to so much as look at a white woman with desire in his eyes.
Wildly inaccurate from a historical perspective, Mandingo nevertheless remains
one of the most popular plantation novels of all time. It is still in print, was made into a
film in 1975, spawned scores of imitations, and, at last count, had inspired eight sequels.
Collectively known as the ―Falconhurst Series,‖ Mandingo and its sequels sold at least 30
million copies through 1980. Onstott's son once said that Mandingo had no significance
and that it was ―like eating peanuts.‖ Because of the book's overwhelming influence
upon popular fiction, however, the mass understanding (or, rather, mass
misunderstanding) of the nature of the antebellum South and of the American slave
system has been greatly shaped by Onstott's vision of the Old South as a miasmic
wasteland of vast plantations on which both masters and slaves engaged in orgiastic sex
and sadistic violence.
Source: Geist, ―Mandingo,‖ 3:221-222.

1977—The Television Drama Roots
In the 1960s, writer Alex Haley began a twelve-year quest to learn more about his
maternal ancestors. He traced his lineage back to his fourth great-grandfather, Kunte
Kinte, who had been kidnapped by slave traders in Gambia, West Africa, in 1767. Based
on his research, Haley wrote the novel Roots: The Saga of an American Family (1976).
The book became a best-seller, won a Pulitzer Prize, and inspired the influential
television drama, Roots. Both novel and miniseries depicted slavery as a cruel labor
system. A new set of negative images of black Americans had been emerging in the
national media since the 1960s – particularly focusing on the supposed laziness,
immorality, and criminality of African-Americans. In response, Roots emphasized the
strong familial ties and will to survive that developed among the oppressed. The
following selection from the Encyclopedia of Southern Culture provides an overview of
the phenomenal success of Roots and reviews the controversies surrounding its portrayal
of slavery.
Roots, a landmark event in the history of television and in the media portrayal of
the South, was based on Alex Haley's 1976 best-selling book of ―faction‖ (Haley's words
for his blend of fiction and history). Haley recounted his family's descent from Kunta
Kinte, an African stolen into slavery in the 1760s. The 12-hour, ABC teleplay was
presented on consecutive evenings, 23-30 January 1977.

860
Roots dramatized the social history of slavery and its impact on both master and
slave as seen through the eyes of four generations of Haley ancestors. Never before had a
mass audience been treated to such a realistic—and controversial—representation of
slavery. Kinte, kidnapped from an Africa too idyllic in its portrayal, endured the
debilitating passage on a slave ship only to be faced with additional cruelty while
adjusting to enslavement on a Virginia plantation. He was viciously whipped until he
renounced his African name in favor of ―Toby,‖ and after he made an abortive escape
attempt, his foot was severed by poor-white slave catchers. Over the generations, Kinte's
progeny faced rape, beatings, family separations, insensitive masters, and numerous
instances of degradation and racist brutality. Even after emancipation Haley's ancestors
were tormented by sadistic Klansmen and the vagaries of the sharecropping system. Yet
in the face of all this, their sense of familial continuity and pride endured and ultimately
triumphed.
The success of the ―miniseries‖ was enormous. ABC programming director Fred
Silverman had scheduled the series over consecutive evenings for fear of low ratings, but
he need not have worried. A.C. Nielson estimated that about 130 million Americans saw
some portion of Roots. Astonishingly, the audience for the final episode was nearly half
the population of the United States. Each program ranked in the top 13 most-viewed
programs of all time, with the 30 January episode ironically unseating the 1976 telecast
of Gone with the Wind for first place. Thus, Roots‘ neoabolitionist version of southern
history symbolically and literally replaced the romantic and apologetic moonlight-andmagnolias imagery, which undoubtedly reached its zenith in Gone with the Wind. There
is considerable disagreement over the cause of the unprecedented interest in Roots.
Coming in the wake of the bicentennial celebrations, Roots may have touched a
responsive chord in an audience predisposed to an interest in history. Haley's emphasis
on tracing his family's origins, and his successful, though painstaking, efforts to uncover
a personal heritage clouded by generations of enslavement demonstrated that genealogy
was a fruitful and rewarding pursuit; thousands of Americans, urged on by Roots, began
seeking their own family histories. Finally, as several television critics noted, Roots was
a very gripping drama that synthesized several popular television formulas; the
presentation, with its similarities to television soap opera particularly evident, was simply
very fine television entertainment.
It is more difficult to assess the cultural meaning of the Roots phenomenon.
Some, particularly black intellectuals, charged that Roots merely provided a rather
painless means to expiate white guilt tied to generations of racism without confronting
the audience with the complex of issues that continues to bedevil race relations in this
country. Others criticized Roots as a corrective that went too far, a version of the past in
which white characters were stereotyped even as earlier media presentations had
stereotyped black characters and had trivialized the situations they faced. Although the
audience was certainly treated to vivid and brutal scenes depicting slavery as a
dehumanizing situation (Time magazine referred to Roots as ―middle-of-the-road
Mandingo‖), many critics argued that slavery was even worse than the teleplay
suggested. For example, slave quarters were depicted as rather more substantial and
comfortable than most slaves would have known; then, too, the life of the field hands—
the most common of American slaves—was almost totally missing from the
presentations.

861
Still other observers worried that Roots had the uncanny impact of strengthening
traditional stereotypes of black people, especially those that suggested a tendency toward
resignation to misfortune and mistreatment. One black scholar, Robert Chrisman, noted
that the final message of Roots seemed to suggest that survival by any means is the
ultimate goal of life. The episodes certainly demonstrated the manner in which the slaves
adopted masks in certain situations (some referred to this as ―Tomming‖), and it may
indeed have been possible for viewers to misinterpret this intentional posturing as
personal weakness rather than as attempts to ―put one over on the master.‖
The success of Roots led naturally to a sequel. Although Haley's book rapidly
skimmed over the post-1880 years, he agreed to cooperate with executive producer David
L. Wolper and producer Stan Margulies—both of whom worked on the original project—
to develop Roots: The Next Generations. This 12-hour continuation, telecast 18-25
February 1979, was not as successful as the original but nonetheless fostered
considerable viewer interest. Roots II remained the story of one family, but it was a bit
more conscious of connecting the Haley history to social and cultural issues. Both
miniseries were repeated on network television, were widely viewed in syndicated rerun
and as part of college and public school courses, and were distributed in scores of other
nations. Together these telecasts represent one of the most important forces in shaping
the popular images of the American South in media history.
Source: Geist, "Roots," 3:232-234.
June 28, 1978—Justice Thurgood Marshall‘s Dissent in Regents of the University of
California v. Allan Bakke
In the mid-1970s, the first major legal challenge to race-based affirmative action
programs was made by Allan Bakke, a white applicant to the medical school of the
University of California who was refused admission. Bakke sued, arguing that the
admission of applicants of color with lower grade point averages and test scores
constituted racial discrimination under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and other applicable legislation. The Supreme
Court, which ruled on the case in 1978, did not offer a unified majority opinion, but did
hand down Justice Lewis Powell‘s decision that while rigid racial quotas like the one
being used by the University of California were unconstitutional, other mechanisms
employed to consider race in the admissions process might be legal. Thurgood Marshall,
the Court‘s first black Justice and the long-time leader in American civil rights law, wrote
a dissenting opinion that defended affirmative action programs. Marshall argued that the
long history of racial oppression in America had left blacks, despite better protection for
their civic rights in recent years, in such a state of economic and social inferiority that
vigorous state action was fully justified in remedying it. The following selection from
Marshall‘s opinion summarizes the history of racial oppression in the United States
beginning with slavery, and bitterly recalls the complicity of past Supreme Courts in
upholding or encouraging it.

862
Three hundred and fifty years ago, the Negro was dragged to this country in
chains to be sold into slavery. Uprooted from his homeland and thrust into bondage for
forced labor, the slave was deprived of all legal rights. It was unlawful to teach him to
read; he could be sold away from his family and friends at the whim of his master; and
killing or maiming him was not a crime. The system of slavery brutalized and
dehumanized both master and slave.
The denial of human rights was etched into the American colonies‘ first attempts
at establishing self-government. When the colonists determined to seek their
independence from England, they drafted a unique document cataloguing their grievances
against the King and proclaiming as ―self-evident‖ that ―all men are created equal‖ and
are endowed ―with certain unalienable Rights,‖ including those to ―Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.‖ . . .
The implicit protection of slavery embodied in the Declaration of Independence
was made explicit in the Constitution, which treated a slave as being equivalent to threefifths of a person for purpose of appointing representatives and taxes among the states.
The Constitution also contained a clause ensuring that the ―migration or importation‖ of
slaves into the existing states would be legal until at least 1808, and a fugitive slave
clause requiring that when a slave escaped to another State, he must be returned on the
claim of the master. In their declaration of the principles that were to provide the
cornerstone of the new Nation, therefore, the Framers made it plain that ―we the people,‖
for whose protection the Constitution was designed, did not include those whose skins
were the wrong color . . . .
The individual States likewise established the machinery to protect the system of
slavery through the promulgation of the Slave Codes, which were designed primarily to
defend the property interest of the owner in his slave. The position of the Negro slave as
mere property was confirmed by this Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, holding that the
Missouri Compromise – which prohibited slavery in the portion of the Louisiana
Purchase Territory north of Missouri – was unconstitutional because it deprived slave
owners of their property without due process. The Court declared that under the
Constitution a slave was property, and ―[t]he right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article
of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States.‖ The
Court further concluded that Negroes were not intended to be included as citizens under
the Constitution but were ―regarded as beings of an inferior order ... altogether unfit to
associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that
they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect . . . .‖
B
The status of the Negro as property was officially erased by his emancipation at the end
of the Civil War. But the long awaited emancipation, while freeing the Negro from
slavery, did not bring him citizenship or equality in any meaningful way. Slavery was
replaced by a system of ―laws which imposed upon the colored race onerous disabilities
and burdens, and curtailed their rights in the pursuit of life, liberty, and property to such
an extent that their freedom was of little value.‖ Despite the passage of the Thirteenth,
Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, the Negro was systematically denied the rights
those amendments were supposed to secure. The combined actions and inactions of the

863
State and Federal Government maintained Negroes in a position of legal inferiority for
another century after the Civil War.
The Southern States took the first steps to re-enslave the Negroes. Immediately
following the end of the Civil War, many of the provisional legislatures passed Black
Codes, similar to Slave Codes, which, among other things, limited the rights of Negroes
to own or rent property and permitted imprisonment for breach of employment contracts.
Over the next several decades the South managed to disenfranchise the Negroes in spite
of the Fifteenth Amendment by various techniques, including poll taxes, deliberately
complicated balloting process, property and literacy qualifications, and finally the white
primary.
Congress responded to the legal disabilities being imposed in the Southern States
by passing the Reconstruction Acts and the Civil Rights Acts. Congress also responded
to the needs of the Negroes at the end of the Civil War by establishing the Bureau of
Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, better known as the Freedmen‘s Bureau, to
supply food, hospitals, land and education to the newly freed slaves. Thus for a time it
seemed as if the Negro might be protected from the continued denial of his civil rights
and might be relieved of the disabilities that prevented him from taking his place as a free
and equal citizen.
That time, however, was short-lived. Reconstruction came to a close, and, with
the assistance of this Court, the Negro was rapidly stripped of his new Civil Rights . . . .
The Court began by interpreting the Civil War Amendments in a manner that
sharply curtailed their substantive protections . . . . [I]n the notorious Civil Rights Cases,
the Court strangled Congress‘ efforts to use its power to promote racial equality. In those
cases the Court invalidated sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that made it a crime
to deny equal access to ―inns, public conveyances ... theaters, and other places of public
amusement.‖ According to the Court, the Fourteenth Amendment gave Congress the
power to prescribe only discriminatory action by the State. The Court ruled that the
Negroes who were excluded from public places suffered only an invasion of their social
rights at the hands of private individuals, and Congress had no power to remedy that.
―When a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficent legislation has
shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state,‖ the Court concluded, ―there must
be some state in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen,
and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws . . . . ‖ As Justice Harlan noted in dissent,
however, the Civil War Amendments and Civil Rights Acts did not make the Negroes the
―special favorite‖ of the laws but instead ―sought to accomplish in reference to that race
... what had already been done in every State of the Union for the White race – to secure
and protect rights belonging to them as freemen and citizens; nothing more.‖
The Court‘s ultimate blow to the Civil War Amendments and to the equality of
Negroes came in Plessy v. Ferguson. In upholding a Louisiana law that required railway
companies to provide ―equal but separate‖ accommodations for whites and Negroes, the
Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended ―to abolish distinctions
based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a
commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.‖ Ignoring totally the
realities of the positions of the two races, the Court remarked:

864
We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff‘s argument to consist in the
assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored
race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything
found in the act but solely because the colored race chooses to put that
construction upon it.
Mr. Justice Harlan‘s dissenting opinion recognized the bankruptcy of the Court‘s
reasoning. He noted that the ―real meaning‖ of the legislation was ―that colored citizens
are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied
by white citizens.‖ He expressed his fear that if like laws were enacted in other States,
―the effect would be in the highest degree mischievous.‖ Although slavery would have
disappeared, the States would retain the power ―to interfere with the full enjoyment of the
blessings of freedom; to regulate civil rights, common to all citizens, upon the basis of
race; and to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens.‖
The fears of Mr. Justice Harlan were soon to be realized. In the wake of Plessy,
many States expanded their Jim Crow laws, which had up until that time been limited
primarily to passenger trains and schools. The segregation of the races was extended to
residential areas, parks, hospitals, theaters, waiting rooms and bathrooms. There were
even statutes and ordinances which authorized separate phone booths for Negroes and
whites, which required that textbooks used by children of one race be kept separate from
those used by the other, and which required that Negro and white prostitutes be kept in
separate districts . . . .
Nor were the laws restricting the rights of Negroes limited solely to the Southern
States. In many of the Northern States, the Negro was denied the right to vote, prevented
from serving on juries and excluded from theaters, restaurants, hotels, and inns. Under
President Wilson, the Federal Government began to require segregation in Government
buildings; desks of Negro employees were curtained off; separate bathrooms and separate
tables in the cafeteria were provided; and even the galleries of the Congress were
segregated. When his segregationist policies were attacked, President Wilson responded
that segregation as ―not humiliating but a benefit‖ and that he was ―rendering [the
Negroes] more safe in their possession of office and less likely to be discriminated
against . . . .‖
The enforced segregation of the races continued into the middle of the 20th
Century. In both World Wars, Negroes were for the most part confined to separate
military units; it was not until 1948 that an end to segregation in the military was ordered
by President Truman. And the history of the exclusion of Negro children from white
public schools is too well known and recent to require repeating here. That Negroes were
deliberately excluded from public graduate and professional schools – and thereby denied
the opportunity to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, and the like – is also well
established. It is of course true that some of the Jim Crow laws (which the decisions of
this Court had helped to foster) were struck down by this Court in a series of decisions
leading up to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka . . . . Those decisions, however, did
not automatically end segregation, nor did they move Negroes from a position of legal
inferiority to one of equality. The legacy of years of slavery and of years of second-class
citizenship in the wake of emancipation could not be so easily eliminated.

865
II
The position of the Negro today in America is the tragic but inevitable consequence of
centuries of unequal treatment. Measured by any benchmark of comfort or achievement,
meaningful equality remains a distant dream for the Negro.
A Negro child today has a life expectancy which is shorter by more than five
years than that of a white child. The Negro child‘s mother is over three times more likely
to die of complications in childbirth, and the infant mortality rate for Negroes is nearly
twice that for whites. The median income of the Negro family is only 60% that of the
median of a white family, and the percentage of Negroes who live in families with
incomes below the poverty line is nearly four times greater than that of whites.
When the Negro child reaches working age, he finds that America offers him
significantly less than it offers his white counterpart. For Negro adults, the
unemployment rate is twice that of whites, and the unemployment rate for Negro
teenagers is nearly three times that of white teenagers. A Negro male who completes
four years of college can expect a median annual income of merely $110 more than a
white male who has only a high school diploma. Although Negroes represent 11.5% of
the population, they are only 1.2% of the lawyers and judges, 2% of the physicians, 2.3%
of the dentists, 1.1% of the engineers and 2.6% of the college and university professors.
The relationship between those figures and the history of unequal treatment
afforded to the Negro cannot be denied. At every point from birth to death the impact of
the past is reflected in the still disfavored position of the Negro.
In the light of the sorry history of discrimination and its devastating impact on the
lives of Negroes, bringing the Negro into the mainstream of American life should be a
state interest of the highest order. To fail to do so is to ensure that America will forever
remain a divided society.
III
I do not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment requires us to accept that fate. Neither
its history nor our past cases lend any support to the conclusion that a University may not
remedy the cumulative effects of society‘s discrimination by giving consideration to race
in an effort to increase the number and percentage of Negro doctors.
Source: Carson et al., eds., The Eyes on the Prize Civil Rights Reader, pp. 639-646.
1987—Toni Morrison‘s Beloved
Toni Morrison did not expect her fifth novel, Beloved, to become a best-seller. Based
loosely on a true account of an escaped slave woman‘s experience, Beloved is a haunting
story about slavery and infanticide that emphasizes the emotional scars left by slavery.
The central character is a woman named Sethe. When the book begins, it is 1873 and
Sethe, a former slave, lives with her daughter Denver outside of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Shortly after Sethe arrived there as a nineteen-year-old fugitive in 1855, she killed her
infant daughter and attempted to murder her two young sons when slave catchers showed
up to return them all to ―Sweet Home,‖ their former plantation in Kentucky. Before
Sethe escaped, ―Sweet Home‖ had fallen under the direction of a cruel man

866
(―schoolteacher‖) who viewed and literally treated the slaves as animals. Needless to
say, during the eighteen years since her escape, Sethe has attempted to forget the trauma
of enslavement and murder, but has not been wholly successful, in large part because her
house is occupied by a ghost believed to be the spirit of her murdered baby.
As the book opens, Paul D, another former slave from ―Sweet Home,‖ arrives on the
scene. With Paul D, Sethe reluctantly and haltingly recalls her days at ―Sweet Home‖
and her escape from slavery. Paul D, who was sold after his planned escape from ―Sweet
Home‖ was uncovered, also relives his past. In addition, he apparently manages to
banish the baby-spirit from Sethe‘s house. The spirit returns, however, in the form of a
young woman named Beloved—the one word that Sethe put on her deceased baby‘s
gravestone. Yet, at the same time, the character of Beloved is meant to represent an
African woman who survived the Middle Passage. (Morrison dedicated her novel to the
―Sixty Million and more‖ who died while waiting to board slave ships or perished during
the Middle Passage.) Sethe becomes obsessed with Beloved, but finally reluctantly gives
her up and is no longer consumed by guilt over the murder. Having shared their sorrows
rooted in slavery, Sethe and Paul D are ready to build a life together as the novel ends.
The following selection takes place after Sethe‘s reunion with Paul D. He has suggested
that she leave her haunted house, and she thinks about why she could never do that. Her
thoughts jump to memories of ―Sweet Home,‖ her former mistress Mrs. Garner, her
husband Halle, and her mother-in-law Baby Suggs, whose freedom Halle purchased by
working extra on Saturdays, Sundays, and in the evenings.
This house he told her to leave as though a house was a little thing–a shirtwaist or
a sewing basket you could walk off from or give away any old time. She who had never
had one but this one; she who left a dirt floor to come to this one; she who had to bring a
fistful of salsify into Mrs. Garner‘s kitchen every day just to be able to work in it, feel
like some part of it was hers, because she wanted to love the work she did, to take the
ugly out of it, and the only way she could feel at home on Sweet Home was if she picked
some pretty growing thing and took it with her. The day she forgot was the day butter
wouldn‘t come or the brine in the barrel blistered her arms.
At least it seemed so. A few yellow flowers on the table, some myrtle tied around
the handle of the flatiron holding the door open for a breeze calmed her, and when Mrs.
Garner and she sat down to sort bristle, or make ink, she felt fine. Fine. Not scared of
the men beyond. The five who slept in quarters near her, but never came in at night. Just
touched the raggedy hats then they saw her and stared. And if she brought food to them
in the fields, bacon and bread wrapped in a piece of clean sheeting, they never took it
from her hands. They stood back and waited for her to put it on the ground (at the foot of
a tree) and leave. Either they did not want to take anything from her, or did not want her
to see them eat. Twice or three times she lingered. Hidden behind honeysuckle she
watched them. How different they were without her, how they laughed and played and
urinated and sang. All but Sixo, who laughed once–at the very end. Halle, of course,
was the nicest. Baby Suggs‘ eighth and last child, who rented himself all over the county
to buy her away from there. But he too, as it turned out, was nothing but a man.

867
―A man ain‘t nothing but a man,‖ said Baby Suggs. ―But a son? Well now, that‘s
somebody.‖
It made sense for a lot of reasons because in all of Baby‘s life, as well as Sethe‘s
own, men and women were moved around like checkers. Anybody Baby Suggs knew, let
alone loved, who hadn‘t run off or been hanged, got rented out, loaned out, bought up,
brought back, stored up, mortgaged, won, stolen, or seized. So Baby‘s eight children had
six fathers. What she called the nastiness of life was the shock she received upon
learning that nobody stopped playing checkers just because the pieces included her
children. Halle she was able to keep the longest. Twenty years. A lifetime. Given to
her, no doubt, to make up for hearing that her two girls, neither of whom had their adult
teeth, were sold and gone and she had not been able to wave goodbye. To make up for
coupling with a straw boss for four months in exchange for keeping her third child, a boy,
with her–only to have him traded for lumber in the spring of the next year and to find
herself pregnant by the man who promised not to and did. That child she could not love
and the rest she would not. ―God take what He would,‖ she said. And He did, and He
did, and He did and then gave her Halle who gave her freedom when it didn‘t mean a
thing.
Sethe had the amazing luck of six whole years of marriage to that ―somebody‖
son who had fathered every one of her children. A blessing she was reckless enough to
take for granted, lean on, as though Sweet Home really was one. As though a handful of
myrtle stuck in the handle of a pressing iron propped against the door in a whitewoman‘s
kitchen could make it hers. As though mint sprig in the mouth changed the breath as well
as its odor. A bigger fool never lived.
Before she escaped from ―Sweet Home,‖ Sethe sent ahead her two sons and baby
daughter to her mother-in-law, Baby Suggs, in Ohio. Although six months pregnant and
recently sexually assaulted by two white boys (who took the milk out of her leaking
breasts while ―schoolteacher‖ made notes) and then whipped so hard that she bit off part
of her tongue, Sethe fled shortly after sending her children off. Her husband, Halle, and
the other male slaves at ―Sweet Home,‖ however, did not make it out. While en route to
freedom, Sethe gave birth to her daughter, Denver. In the following selection, Denver
immerses herself in the story of her mother‘s escape and her encounter with the young
white girl, Amy Denver, who helped deliver the baby.
And to get to the part of the story she liked best, she had to start way back: hear
the birds in the thick woods, the crunch of leaves underfoot; see her mother making her
way up into the hills where no houses were likely to be. How Sethe was walking on two
feet meant for standing still. How they were so swollen she could not see her arch or feel
her ankles. Her leg shaft ended in a loaf of flesh scalloped by five toenails. But she
could not, would not, stop, for when she did the little antelope rammed her with horns
and pawed the ground of her womb with impatient hooves. While she was walking, it
seemed to graze, quietly–so she walked, on two feet meant, in this sixth month of
pregnancy, for standing still. Still, near a kettle; still, at the churn; still, at the tub and
ironing board. Milk, sticky and sour on her dress, attracted every small flying thing from
gnats to grasshoppers. By the time she reached the hill skirt she had long ago stopped

868
waving them off. The clanging in her head, begun as a churchbell heard from a distance,
was by then a tight cap of pealing bells around her ears. She sank and had to look down
to see whether she was in a hole or kneeling. Nothing was alive but her nipples and the
little antelope. Finally, she was horizontal–or must have been because blades of wild
onion were scratching her temple and her cheek. Concerned as she was for the life of her
children‘s mother, Sethe told Denver, she remembered thinking: ―Well, at least I don‘t
have to take another step.‖ A dying thought if ever there was one, and she waited for the
little antelope to protest, and why she thought of an antelope Sethe could not imagine
since she had never seen one. She guessed it must have been an invention held on to
from before Sweet Home, when she was very young. Of that place where she was born
(Carolina maybe? or was it Louisiana?) she remembered only song and dance. Not even
her own mother, who was pointed out to her by the eight-year-old child who watched
over the young ones–pointed out as the one among many backs turned away from her,
stooping in a watery field. Patiently Sethe waited for this particular back to gain the
row‘s end and stand. What she saw was a cloth hat as opposed to a straw one, singularity
enough in that world of cooing women each of whom was called Ma‘am.
―Seth–thuh.‖
―Ma‘am.‖
―Hold on to the baby.‖
―Yes, Ma‘am.‖
―Seth–thuh.‖
―Ma‘am.‖
―Get some kindlin in here.‖
―Yes, Ma‘am.‖
Oh but when they sang. And oh but when they danced and sometimes they
danced the antelope. The men as well as the ma‘ams, one of whom was certainly her
own. They shifted shapes and became something other. Some unchained, demanding
other whose feet knew her pulse better than she did. Just like this one in her stomach.
―I believe this baby‘s ma‘am is gonna die in wild onions on the bloody side of the
Ohio River.‖ That‘s what was on her mind and what she told Denver. Her exact words.
And it didn‘t seem such a bad idea, all in all, in view of the step she would not have to
take, but the thought of herself stretched out dead while the little antelope lived on–an
hour? a day? a day and a night?–in her lifeless body grieved her so she made the groan
that made the person walking on the path not ten yards away halt and stand right still.
Sethe had not heard the walking, but suddenly she heard the standing still and then she
smelled the hair. The voice, saying, ―Who‘s in there?‖ was all she need to know that she
was about to be discovered by a whiteboy. That he too had mossy teeth, an appetite.
That on a ridge of pine near the Ohio River, trying to get to her three children, one of
whom was starving for the food she carried; that after her husband had disappeared; that
after her milk had been stolen, her back pulped, her children orphaned, she was not to
have an easeful death. No.
She told Denver that a something came up out of the earth into her–like a
freezing, but moving too, like jaws inside. ―Look like I was just cold jaws grinding,‖ she
said. Suddenly she was eager for his eyes, to bite into them; to gnaw his cheek.
―I was hungry,‖ she told Denver, ―just as hungry as I could be for his eyes. I
couldn‘t wait.‖

869
So she raised up on her elbow and dragged herself, one pull, two, three, four,
toward the young white voice talking about ―Who that back in there?‖
―‗Come see,‘ I was thinking,. ‗Be the last thing you behold,‘ and sure enough
here come the feet so I thought well that‘s where I‘ll have to start God do what He would,
I‘m gonna eat his feet off. I‘m laughing now, but it‘s true. I wasn‘t just set to do it. I
was hungry to do it. Like a snake. All jaws and hungry.
―It wasn‘t no whiteboy at all. Was a girl. The raggediest-looking trash you ever
saw, saying, ‗Look there. A nigger. If that don‘t beat all.‘‖
And now the part Denver loved best:
Her name was Amy and she need beef and pot liquor like nobody in this world.
Arms like cane stalks and enough hair for four or five heads. Slow-moving eyes. She
didn‘t look at anything quick. Talked so much it wasn‘t clear how she could breathe at
the same time. And those cane-stalk arms, as it turned out, were as strong as iron.
―You ‘bout the scariest-looking something I ever seen. What you doing back up
in here?‖
Down in the grass, like the snake she believed she was, Sethe opened her mouth,
and instead of fangs and a split tongue, out shot the truth.
―Running,‖ Sethe told her. It was the first word she had spoken all day and it
came out thick because of her tender tongue.
After he was caught trying to escape ―Sweet Home,‖ Paul D was shackled and had a bit
placed in his mouth and a spiked collar latched around his neck. In the following
selection, he tells Sethe about it, recounting for the first time his experience of being led
off the plantation. What had galled him the most was his realization that an ornery
rooster was freer than he was.
He wants to tell me, she thought. He wants me to ask him about what it was like
for him–about how offended the tongue is, held down by iron, how the need to spit is so
deep you cry for it. She already knew about it, had seen it time after time in the place
before Sweet Home. Men, boys, little girls, women. The wildness that shot up into the
eye the moment the lips were yanked back. Days after it was taken out, goose fat was
rubbed on the corners of the mouth but nothing to soothe the tongue or take the wildness
out of the eye.
Sethe looked up into Paul D‘s eyes to see if there was any trace left in them.
―People I saw as a child,‖ she said, ―who‘d had the bit always looked wild after
that. Whatever they used it on them for, it couldn‘t have worked, because it put a
wildness where before there wasn‘t any. When I look at you, I don‘t see it. There ain‘t
no wildness in your eye nowhere.‖
―There‘s a way to put it there and there‘s a way to take it out. I know em both
and I haven‘t figured out which is worse.‖ He sat down beside her. Sethe looked at him.
In that unlit daylight his face, bronzed and reduced to its bones, smoothed her heart
down.
―You want to tell me about it?‖ she asked him.
―I don‘t know. I never have talked about it. Not to a soul. Sang it sometimes,
but I never told a soul.‖

870
―Go ahead. I can hear it.‖
―Maybe. Maybe you can hear it. I just ain‘t sure I can say it. Say it right, I mean,
because it wasn‘t the bit–that wasn‘t it.‖
―What then?‖ Sethe asked.
―The roosters,‖ he said. ―Walking past the roosters looking at them look at me.‖
Sethe smiled. ―In that pine?‖
―Yeah,‖ Paul D smiled with her. ―Must have been five of them perched up there,
and at least fifty hens.‖
―Mister, too?‖
―Not right off. But I hadn‘t took twenty steps before I seen him. He come down
off the fence post there and sat on the tub.‖
―He loved that tub,‖ said Sethe, thinking, No, there is no stopping now.
―Didn‘t he? Like a throne. Was me took him out the shell, you know. He‘d a
died if it hadn‘t been for me. The hen had walked on off with all the hatched peeps
trailing behind her. There was this one egg left. Looked like a blank, but then I saw it
move so I tapped it open and here come Mister, bad feet and all. I watched that son a
bitch grow up and whup everything in the yard.‖
―He always was hateful,‖ Sethe said.
―Yeah, he was hateful all right. Bloody too, and evil. Crooked feet flapping.
Comb as big as my hand and some kind of red. He sat right there on the tub looking at
me. I swear he smiled. My head was full of what I‘d seen of Halle a while back. I
wasn‘t even thinking about the bit. Just Halle and before him Sixo, but when I saw
Mister I knew it was me too. Not just them, me too. One crazy, one sold, one missing,
one burnt and me licking iron with my hands crossed behind me. The last of the Sweet
Home men.
―Mister, he looked so . . . free. Better than me. Stronger, tougher. Son a bitch
couldn‘t even get out of the shell by hisself but he was still king and I was . . . .‖ Paul D
stopped and squeezed his left hand with his right. He held it that way long enough for it
and the world to quiet down and let him go on.
―Mister was allowed to be and stay what he was. But I wasn‘t allowed to be and
stay what I was. Even if you cooked him you‘d be cooking a rooster named Mister. But
wasn‘t no way I‘d ever be Paul D again, living or dead. Schoolteacher changed me. I
was something else and that something was less than a chicken sitting in the sun on a tub.
Sethe put her hand on his knee and rubbed.
Paul D had only begun, what he was telling her was only the beginning when her
fingers on his knee, soft and reassuring, stopped him. Just as well. Just as well. Saying
more might push them both to a place they couldn‘t get back from. He would keep the
rest where it belonged: in that tobacco tin buried in his chest where a red heart used to be.
Its lid rusted shut. He would not pry it loose now in front of this sweet sturdy woman, for
if she got a whiff of its contents it would shame him. And it would hurt her to know that
there was no red heart bright as Mister‘s comb beating in him.
Sethe rubbed and rubbed, pressing the work cloth and the stony curves that made
up his knee. She hoped it calmed him as it did her. Like kneading bread in the half-light
of the restaurant kitchen. Before the cook arrived when she stood in a space no wider
than a bench is long, back behind and to the left of the milk cans. Working dough.

871
Working, working dough. Nothing better than that to start the day‘s serious work of
beating back the past.

In the following selection, Sethe relates to Paul D how sweet her successful escape from
slavery had been. He in turn is prompted to think of his days on a chain gang in Georgia,
where he slept in a tiny cell and was brutally treated by the guards. Sethe tries to explain
why she could not let her children return to ―Sweet Home,‖ as she relives the day she
killed her daughter.
―I don‘t have to tell you about Sweet Home–what it was–but maybe you don‘t
know what it was like for me to get away from there.‖
Covering the lower half of her face with her palms, she paused to consider again
the size of the miracle; its flavor.
―I did it. I got us all out. Without Halle too. Up till then it was the only thing I
ever did on my own. Decided. And it came off right, like it was supposed to. We was
here. Each and every one of my babies and me too. I birthed them and I got them out
and it wasn‘t no accident. I did that. I had help, of course, lots of that, but still it was me
doing it; me saying, Go on, and Now. Me having to look out. Me using my own head.
But it was more than that. It was a kind of selfishness I never knew nothing about before.
It felt good. Good and right. I was big, Paul D, and deep and wide and when I stretched
out my arms all my children could get in between. I was that wide. Look like I loved em
more after I got here. Or maybe I couldn‘t love em proper in Kentucky because they
wasn‘t mine to love. But when I got here, when I jumped down off that wagon–there
wasn‘t nobody in the world I couldn‘t love if I wanted to. You know what I mean?‖
Paul D did not answer because she didn‘t expect or want him to, but he did know
what she meant. Listening to the doves in Alfred, Georgia, and having neither the right
nor the permission to enjoy it because in that place mist, doves, sunlight, copper dirt,
moon–everything belonged to the men who had the guns. Little men, some of them, big
men too, each one of whom he could snap like a twig if he wanted to. Men who knew
their manhood lay in their guns and were not even embarrassed by the knowledge that
without gunshot fox would laugh at them. And these ―men‖ who made even vixen laugh
could, if you let them, stop you from hearing doves or loving moonlight. So you
protected yourself and loved small. Picked the tiniest stars out of the sky to own; lay
down with head twisted in order to see the loved one over the rim of the trench before
you slept. Stole shy glances at her between the trees at chain-up. Grass blades,
salamanders, spiders, woodpeckers, beetles, a kingdom of ants. Anything bigger
wouldn‘t do. A woman, a child, a brother–a big love like that would split you wide open
in Alfred, Georgia. He knew exactly what she meant: to get to a place where you could
love anything you chose–not to need permission for desire–well now, that was freedom.
Circling, circling, now she was gnawing something else instead of getting to the
point.
―There was this piece of goods Mrs. Garner gave me. Calico. Stripes it
had with little flowers in between. ‘Bout a yard–not enough for more ‘n a head
tie. But I been wanting to make a shift for my girl with it. Had the prettiest
colors. I don‘t even know that you call that a color: a rose but with yellow in it.

872
For the longest time I been meaning to make it for her but do you know like a fool
I left it behind? No more than a yard, and I kept putting it off because I was tired
or didn‘t have the time. So when I got here, even before they let me get out of
bed, I stitched her a little something from a piece of cloth Baby Suggs had. Well,
all I‘m saying is that‘s a selfish pleasure I never had before. I couldn‘t let all that
go back to where it was, and I couldn‘t let her nor any of em live under
schoolteacher. That was out.‖
Sethe knew that the circle she was making around the room, him, the subject,
would remain one. That she could never close in, pin down for anybody who had to ask.
If they didn‘t get it right off–she could never explain. Because the truth was simple, not a
long drawn-out record of flowered shifts, tree cages, selfishness, ankle ropes and wells.
Simple: she was squatting in the garden and when she saw them coming and recognized
schoolteacher‘s hat, she heard wings. Little hummingbirds stuck their needle beaks right
through her headcloth into her hair and beat their wings. And if she thought anything, it
was No. No. Nono. Nonono. Simple. She just flew. Collected every bit of life she had
made, all the parts of her that were precious and fine and beautiful, and carried, pushed,
dragged them through the veil, out, away, over there where no one could hurt them. Over
there. Outside this place, where they would be safe. And the hummingbird wings beat
on.
Source: Morrison, Beloved, pp. 22-24, 29-32, 71-73, 161-163.

1997—Annette Gordon-Reed‘s Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American
Controversy
In 1997 Annette Gordon-Reed published a thorough analysis of the controversy over
whether or not Thomas Jefferson had a long-term sexual relationship with Sally
Hemings, a mulatto slave who was his deceased wife's half-sister, and fathered five
children by her. A legal scholar, Gordon-Reed reviewed how historians have treated
allegations of the liaison, which first surfaced during Jefferson's lifetime. She determined
that most historians who had discussed the subject in depth had failed to give all of the
evidence surrounding the controversy due consideration. In particular, she argued that
the oral history of the Hemings family had been routinely dismissed by historians who
claimed that no relationship existed.
Believing that only DNA research could settle the matter, Gordon-Reed did not set out to
prove or disprove that a liaison took place, but to present as strongly as possible the
evidence that supports the possibility of a long-term affair, including Madison Hemings's
claim to be the son of Thomas Jefferson, Israel Jefferson's corroboration of Madison
Hemings's statement, John Hartwell Cocke's statement that Jefferson had a slave mistress,
James Callender's assertion corroborating Madison Hemings's statement, Hemings's
conceptions and Jefferson's proximity, the resemblance of Sally Hemings's children to
Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's indulgent treatment of Sally Hemings's children, and the
freeing of Sally Hemings.
The following excerpts from Gordon-Reed's book summarize her arguments about historical treatment of

873
the issue and review some of the evidence in favor of a relationship between Jefferson and Hemings.

When all of the items of evidence offered to support Thomas Jefferson's
involvement with Sally Hemings have been examined, it appears that the standard for
judging them has been manipulated. As a result, the quantum of evidence that exists to
support the notion has been seriously underestimated. At the same time, an alternative
theory--that the Carr brothers were responsible--has been offered to counter the claim that
Jefferson fathered Hemings's children, and the worth of the evidence cited to support that
claim has been overestimated. By comparing historians' treatment of the two theories,
one can assess the wisdom of trusting their pronouncements that Thomas Jefferson and
Sally Hemings were not involved in a long-term relationship. The extent to which
individual prejudices and preferences influence the writing of history also becomes
evident.
Proponents of the Carr brothers theory and opponents of the notion that Jefferson
fathered Sally Hemings's children have had their say to the fullest extent. The opposing
viewpoint, for fairness' sake, needs to be summarized. This is done not to prove or
disprove the allegation definitively, because I do not believe that can be accomplished
through this medium. Nor do I believe that definitive proof is required, for it is plainly
not the case that all things taken as historical truths are based upon what could be called
definitive proof. The purpose of this summary is to try to present the strongest case to be
made that the story might be true. Doing this serves to demonstrate the lack of
seriousness and care with which Jefferson scholars approached the task of considering
this issue. As a result of their efforts over the past thirty-odd years, members of the
public who know anything at all about this matter probably believe that the sum total of
the evidence that supports the story is:
1. The statement of a disgruntled office seeker who invented the story that Thomas
Jefferson had a slave mistress.
2. The memoirs of a simpleminded black man induced by a northern carpetbagger to say
that he was the son of Thomas Jefferson.
3. Fawn Brodie's assertion that she thought that Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings had
a long-term liaison because Thomas Jefferson used the word mulatto an inordinate
number of times in the travel diary he kept on a trip through Europe after Sally Hemings
joined him in Paris in 1787.
But that is not all there is.
Items Supporting the Assertion That Thomas Jefferson
Fathered Sally Hemings's Children
Madison Hemings's Claim to Be the Son of Thomas Jefferson
As we approach the beginning of a new century, it is time to lay to rest the allegation that
an individual who had been involved with the abolitionist movement either invented the
notion that Madison Hemings was the son of Thomas Jefferson or put Madison Hemings
up to saying that he was. That myth, dubious to begin with, can now be established as
having no historical validity.
A newspaper report shows that as early as the 1840s, three decades before S.F.
Wetmore interviewed Madison Hemings, the alleged parentage of Eston Hemings and

874
Madison Hemings was spoken of in the area of Ohio where the two men lived. There are
reports of conversations that members of the community had with Eston Hemings about
the matter during that same period. Eston Hemings was a celebrity there as the leader of
a small band, before he left Ohio for Wisconsin in 1852. The talk of his parentage arose,
not as part of an abolitionist strategy, but for the same reason that people gossip about
celebrities today: curiosity about the private lives of entertainers.
Not only did Madison Hemings claim to be Jefferson's son; his brother Eston did
as well. The evidence indicates that the claim was made long before S.F. Wetmore made
contact with Madison Hemings. Eston Hemings had left Ohio and been dead almost
twenty years before Wetmore arrived in Pike County. Moreover, oral history from both
men's families, individuals who had lost touch with one another from one side vaulted
over the color line, establishes that this story was a part of Hemings family history and
did not originate with S.F. Wetmore.
...
Hemings's Conceptions and Jefferson's Proximity
Hemings's pattern of conceiving children (and not conceiving them) can be tied to
Jefferson's presence at and absences from Monticello. Jefferson can be placed at
Monticello during the time periods when Sally Hemings conceived each of her children.
This is an item of circumstantial evidence that should be weighed along with the items of
direct evidence. It is only circumstantial because even if we know that this [is] true, there
are additional steps of reasoning or items of information that must be advanced before
those circumstances can be said to prove the proposition.
There is no evidence placing the other putative lovers of Hemings--the Carr
brothers--at Monticello during the relevant time periods when the children would most
likely have been conceived, although the Carr brothers did live in the vicinity of the
plantation. Hemings never conceived a child when Jefferson was not in residence at
Monticello. During the years that she was having children, Jefferson was often away
from Monticello for many consecutive months, usually between six to eight months at a
time. This raises the questions of why over a fifteen-year-period the Carr brothers were
unable to father children during those months, and why they regained that capacity to do
so only upon Jefferson's return to Monticello, even for short visits. The improbability of
that scenario advances the circumstantial evidence about the relationship between
Jefferson's presence at Monticello and Hemings's conceptions of children toward proof of
Madison Hemings's proposition.
...
The Treatment of Sally Hemings's Children
One of the first things anyone would want to know is whether Jefferson treated the
children of Sally Hemings any differently. When one says differently, one means to ask
if they were treated any better. The answer appears to be yes. With Sally Hemings's
children, Jefferson seems to have strayed from his work plan for young slaves. Madison

875
Hemings stated that until they were put to a trade, he and his siblings spent their time
running errands or with their mother. There is no evidence that Beverley Hemings, the
son who would have been eligible to work in Jefferson's nail factory when he turned ten,
did so before he was listed as a tradesman at age twelve. Jamey Hemings, son of Sally
Hemings's sister Critta and grandson of Elizabeth Hemings, did work in the nail factory,
one of the most debilitating tasks on the plantation. Instead, Beverley, Madison, and
Eston went to early apprenticeships with the best slave artisan at Monticello, John
Hemings.
Beverley was seven years older than Madison and ten years older than Eston, and
at the appropriate time Jefferson made the same decision for each one, despite the
passage of years. It seems as though Jefferson had a definite plan for these young people
that did not vary. Harriet Hemings did not begin to work as a weaver until age fourteen,
four years after other girls on the plantation. Even though these four people were
individuals, they were also part of a single unit, a group of siblings.
The timing of the freeing of Sally Hemings's children tracks strongly with the
alleged promise that Madison Hemings said Jefferson made to Hemings about when her
children would be freed. The strongest evidence for a relationship between Jefferson and
Hemings is what happened to Hemings's children. They all left Monticello at age twentyone or, in the case of Beverley, two years after his twenty-first birthday, the same year
that Harriet Hemings turned twenty-one. Beverley's delay may provide an answer to the
concern about whether the extremely paternalistic Jefferson would have sent a twentyone-year-old woman who had lived on a farm all of her life off alone to a big city.
Jefferson's records indicate that Beverley left in 1822 before Harriet; she may have been
sent to meet her older brother.
That these four siblings' freedom was tied to their coming of age is significant
because Jefferson freed no other slave in this fashion. The other people he freed were
older men who had rendered valuable services to him over the years. Jefferson's freeing
of Harriet Hemings, the lone female among the group, was carried out under
circumstances that suggest a high degree of involvement on his part. The only female
slave that Jefferson ever freed was the daughter of Sally Hemings.
...
The Freeing of Sally Hemings
It is unclear how Sally Hemings obtained her freedom. Madison Hemings did not
mention any promise on the part of Jefferson to free her, simply saying that shortly after
Jefferson's death, he and his brother took their mother to live with them. Perhaps her
freedom was never an issue. In any event, it is not difficult to understand why it would
make more sense for Sally Hemings's freedom to be achieved through informal means.
Why reopen a scandal in so spectacular a fashion as putting Sally Hemings's name in
Jefferson's will, when the desired result could be achieved by other means? The most
important thing that Jefferson did in his will with respect to the Hemingses was to ensure
that Madison and Eston would have the legal right to remain in Virginia. They could
work and move about without fear of exile. Their freedom and status gave protection to

876
their mother, who by the standards of the day was an old woman and therefore much less
likely to be bothered.
...
Jefferson and Hemings: The Public View
At various times since James Callender first published the allegation that Sally Hemings
was Thomas Jefferson's mistress, historians and commentators have noted with dismay
that Americans appeared to be on the verge of accepting the story as a part of history.
Henry Randall, in his three-volume biography of Jefferson published in 1858, voiced the
concern that the story was "beginning to pass into pseudo 'history.'" During the 1950s
and 1960s, as blacks began to question the available version of United States history, they
looked to the testimony of blacks as a way of creating a more balanced view of that
history. Madison Hemings's statement, along with those of various other descendants of
the Hemings family, provided that kind of evidence. With the appearance of these
statements, the story of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings gained currency among
some blacks and other supporters of the idea that history should include the perspectives
of blacks and other minorities. Douglas Wilson has noted that college professors of
today are surprised to find that their students accept the story of the Jefferson-Hemings
relationship as fact.
Indeed, it appears that there have been, probably from 1802 until today, a number
of Americans who want to believe the story is true. Randall's statement, the reemergence
of the story in the 1960s, and the speed with which Fawn Brodie's biography of Jefferson
and Barbara Chase-Riboud's novel about Sally Hemings flew off the bookshelves support
this. For whatever reason, the desire to believe this story persists.
While writing this book, I had a conversation with a journalist who had written a
critical review of the movie Jefferson in Paris, which accepted the truth of the JeffersonHemings liaison. After he had, without realizing it, confirmed all of my suspicions about
the way members of the public have been misled about this story, he asked me why I
thought that the story had survived, despite all efforts of Jefferson scholars to kill it. I
could only reply that I didn't know why members of the public seem so attached to the
story. I said something about metaphors and Jefferson as representative of the American
psyche at given periods in history, basically a quick version of Merrill Peterson's
Jefferson Image in the American Mind.
After more thought on the matter, I have come to the conclusion that one answer
to this question, with different components, stands out to me. It seems that some people
may believe in the Jefferson-Hemings liaison because they have a particular view of
human beings, and they seem determined to see Thomas Jefferson as a part of the species
both as a slaveholder and as a man. It is possible that most people do not accept the
romantic vision of the southern slaveholding gentleman that some modern historians
claim to discount but rely upon much more than they may realize. The image of a set of
gentlemen with particularly heightened sensibilities and characters is hard to reconcile
with these men's involvement with a degrading and cruel social and economic system.
This does not mean that there was no such thing as a southern gentleman. It means that
even those who fit that term were human beings in whom the capacity for good and for

877
bad was always present and those capacities must be considered in light of the society in
which they lived.
Source: Gordon-Reed, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, pp. 210-229.

1998—DNA Evidence Links Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings
In late October 1998 Eugene A. Foster and others issued a report on the findings of their
study to determine if Thomas Jefferson father any or all of Sally Hemings‘s children.
Foster notes that ―Because most of the Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to
son, apart from occasional mutations, DNA analysis of the Y chromosome can reveal
whether or not individuals are likely to be male-line relatives. We therefore analysed
DNA from the Y chromosomes of: five male-line descendants of two sons of the
president‘s paternal uncle, Field Jefferson; five male-line descendants of two sons of
Thomas Woodson; one male-line descendant of Eston Hemings Jefferson; and three
male-line descendants of three sons of John Carr, grandfather of Samuel and Peter Carr.
No Y-chromosome data were available from male-line descendants of President Thomas
Jefferson because he had no surviving sons.
The following essay by Eric S. Lander and Joseph J. Ellis appears in the November 5,
1998 issue of the journal Nature.
Almost two hundred years ago Thomas Jefferson was alleged to have fathered a
child by his slave Sally Hemings. The charges have remained controversial. Now,
DNA analysis confirms that Jefferson was indeed the father of at least one of
Hemings’ children.
For two centuries Thomas Jefferson‘s legacy has been haunted by the first U.S.
presidential sex scandal—the charge of an illicit relationship with his mulatto slave Sally
Hemings. From the day the story broke in a Richmond newspaper in 1802, ‗Tom and
Sally‘ has become the longest running mini-series in American history. Because the
evidence was all circumstantial, no authoritative resolution has been possible. Until
today, that is. On page 27 of this issue, Foster et al. report that DNA testing of Y
chromosomes offers strong evidence that Jefferson fathered at least one of Hemings‘
children.
The sage begins in the mid-1780s in Paris, where Jefferson served as ambassador to
France after the death of his wife. Sally Hemings, then 14 years old, was sent to
accompany Jefferson‘s youngest daughter to Paris in 1786. There is no evidence of what
transpired there, but Hemings returned to the United States with Jefferson in 1789, and
she eventually bore at least five children, starting with Tom in 1790 and ending with
Eston in 1808.
At least three pieces of evidence support a relationship with Jefferson and Hemings.
First, several of the children bore a striking physical resemblance to Jefferson. Second,

878
Sally‘s fourth child, Madison, testified late in life that Sally had identified Jefferson as
the father of all her children. Finally, Jefferson was in residence at this mansion in
Monticello in Virginia at the time when each of the children was conceived. But many
historians have expressed doubts, and Jefferson family tradition has implicated a maternal
cousin as the likely father.
To a geneticist, the obvious solution—short of exhuming the principals—is to compare Y
chromosomes from modern-day male-line descendants. Most of the Y chromosome is
passed intact from father to son, so it can be used to trace paternal lineages. However,
such studies require enough polymorphic markers (small regions of DNA that very
among individuals) so that Y chromosomes can be distinguished by the haplotype (set of
specific variants) that they carry. Researchers from several laboratories have identified a
collection of suitable markers from the Y chromosome over the past two years, and this
collection is now fuelling an explosion in male-line genetic studies.
Foster et al. examined a haplotype containing 19 polymorphic markers. Jefferson‘s
haplotype (inferred from male-line descendants of his paternal grandfather) seems to be
quite rare, inasmuch as it was not seen among a sample of 670 Europeans or 1,200 people
worldwide. The authors found that this rare haplotype matches that of Eston Hemings‘
male-line descendant. The probability of such a match arising by chance is low—safely
less than 1%. Together with the circumstantial evidence, it seems to seal the case that
Jefferson was Eston Hemings‘ father.
Interestingly, Jefferson‘s haplotype does not match male descendants of Sally‘s first son,
Tom Woodson. The simplest explanation is that Jefferson was not Tom‘s father. An
alternative explanation would require non-paternities among Tom‘s offspring. The jury
remains out with respect to Sally‘s other children, but the burden of proof has clearly
shifted.
Nothing in Foster and colleagues‘ study, and nothing in the vast historical literature,
sheds any light on the character of the relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings.
Was it, as his contemporary critics charged, a tale of lust and rape? Was it, as several
twentieth-century scholars and novelists have suggested, a love story rooted in mutual
affection? Or was it something in-between? These questions are open to endless
interpretation but, in a broader sense, the new findings give blacks and whites alike an
opportunity to confront a largely secret, shared history.
Politically, the Thomas Jefferson verdict is likely to figure in upcoming impeachment
hearings on William Jefferson Clinton‘s sexual indiscretions, in which DNA testing has
also play a role. The parallels are hardly perfect, but some are striking. Both ‗improper‘
relationships involved women about 28 years younger—although there is a world of
difference between a slave and master at the close of the eighteenth century, and a White
House intern and a married man at the end of the twentieth. Both presidents seem to have
engaged in politically reckless conduct; in Jefferson‘s case, fathering Eston six years after
allegations appeared in the national press. And both offered evasive denials to the
charge. In 1805 the Massachusetts legislature staged a mock impeachment trial of

879
Jefferson, citing several grievances including the accusations about Sally Hemings.
Jefferson acknowledged one charge (propositioning a married woman in his youth), but
asserted that all the others were false. Otherwise he remained silent, leaving denials to
political supporters and family. Nor did the scandal affect Jefferson‘s popularity. He
won the 1804 election by a landslide, and his abiding position was that his private life
was nobody else‘s business, and should have no bearing on his public reputation.
Foster and colleagues‘ findings renew questions about Jefferson‘s tortured position on
slavery. If Jefferson‘s relationship with Hemings began in the late 1780s, it would mean
that he began to back away from a leadership position in the anti-slavery movement just
around the time that his affair with Sally Hemings started. Jefferson‘s stated reservations
about ending slavery included a fear that emancipation would lead to racial mixing and
amalgamation. His own inter-racial affair now personalizes this issue, while adding a
dimension of hypocrisy.
Over the past 30 years, research into Jefferson has cast a shadow over his credibility as
America‘s prophet of freedom and equality. Recent work has also emphasized his
massive personal contradictions and his dexterity at playing hide-and-seek with himself.
The new evidence only deepens the paradoxes. Jefferson is, with Abraham Lincoln and
George Washington, one of America‘s secular saints. His face looks out from the nickel,
the two-dollar bill, the memorial near the Tidal Basin, and Mount Rushmore. His unique
capacity to project inspirational words and ideas onto American public life has made him
all things to all people. As an icon, Jefferson‘s legacy has been reinterpreted by every
generation. Now, with impeccable timing, Jefferson reappears to remind us of a truth
that should be self evident. Our heroes—and especially presidents—are not gods or
saints, but flesh-and-blood humans, with all the frailties and imperfections that this
entails.
Source: Foster et al., ―Jefferson Fathered Slave‘s Last Child‖ and Lander and Ellis,
―Founding Father‖ in Nature.

880

Sources Cited in the
Epilogue

Berlin, Ira, ed. Remembering Slavery: African American Talk About Their Personal
Experiences of Slavery. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1998.
Carson, Clayborne et al., eds. The Eyes on the Prize Civil Rights Reader: Documents,
Speeches, and Firsthand Accounts from the Black Freedom Struggle, 1954-1990.
New York: Penguin Books, 1991.
Cripps, Thomas. ―Winds of Change: Gone with the Wind and Racism as a National
Issue,‖ in Recasting: Gone with the Wind in American Culture. Miami:
University Presses of Florida, 1983.
Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave,
Written by Himself (1845), ed. Houston A. Baker. Repr., New York: Penguin
Books, 1984.
Foster, Eugene A., et al. ―Jefferson Fathered Slave‘s Last Child.‖ Nature, November 5,
1998.
Geist, Christopher D. ―Mandingo,‖ in Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, eds. Charles
Wilson Reagan and William Ferris, 4 vols. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press, 1991.
Geist, Christopher D. ―Roots,‖ in Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, eds. Charles Wilson
Reagan and William Ferris, 4 vols. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press, 1991.
Gordon-Reed, Annette. Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American
Controversy. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1997.
Jacobs, Harriet A. Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Written By Herself (1861), ed. L.
Maria Child. Repr., Jean Fagan Yellin, ed., Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1987.
Lander, Eric S. and Joseph J. Ellis. ―Founding Father.‖ Nature, November 5, 1998.
Morrison, Toni. Beloved. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987.
Perdue, Charles L., Thomas E. Barden, and Robert K. Phillips, eds. Weevils in the
Wheat: Interviews with Virginia Ex-Slaves. Charlottesville: University Press of
Virginia, 1976.

881
Pierson, William D. Black Legacy: America‘s Hidden Heritage. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press, 1993.
Stowe, Harriet Beecher. Uncle Tom‘s Cabin; or, Life Among the Lowly. 1852; repr.,
New York: Penguin Classics, 1986.
Woodward, C. Vann. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. 3rd rev. ed. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1974.