“Free Negroes and Mulattoes”, 1/16/1822

[Page 1]

The Committee, directed by an order of the House of Representatives at the last session of the Legislature of this Commonwealth to report a bill concerning the admission into this State of free Negroes and mullatoes, have considered the matter referred to them and have agreed to the following report.

That the Committee since the last session of the Legislature have examined the laws of other States besides those mentioned in the former report, concerning that description of population which is now the subject of consideration, but as the spirit of those laws does not differ from the Statutes to which reference has already been made, the Committee forbear consuming the time of the Legislature in a detail of them provising.

[Page 2]

That this further examination of the statute of other states has served to confirm the Committee in an opinion expressed in the report of the last Session, and to convince them, of the necessity of [illegible] the increase of a species of population which threatens to be both injurious and bothersome of which circumstances the following facts furnish abundant evidence that the blacks convicts in the States [illegible] on the 1. of January 1821, formed 1461/2 part of the black population of the whole, while the white convicts at the same time formed but 2140 part of the white population.

That the Committee have never been ignorant of that feeling of tenderness and kindness which, awakened by most powerful and praise worthy causes has for a long time existed in this Commonwealth for that unhappy and degraded class of individuals whose colour alone has exposed them to the cruelties and miseries of the Slave trade. The Committee fully participate in that feeling and it is widely remote, indeed, from their purpose to endeavour to diminish or discourage it, but they consider it to be the duty of

[Page 2-note]

It is believed that a similar proportion will be found to exist in all Public establishments of this State, as well Prisons as Poor Houses.

[Page 3]

the Legislature, whatever pain or reluctance may accompany the exercise of such a power, to protect the population of this Commonwealth from all dangers and injuries whether affecting morals or health, whether introduced from foreign countries, or from the Sister States of these United States; and feeling a great degree of confidence in the results, which the Committee before stated, might be looked for from the operation of those laws, that have been passed within three years in many of the States of this Republic concerning free Negroes and Mullatoes they deemed it expedient to recommend the subject to the attention of the Legislature. They should believe themselves equally under the necessity of soliciting the intercession of the Legislature to provide for the security of this Commonwealth against the effect of laws which would drive into Massachusetts the white paupers of a majority of the other States. The Committee cannot doubt but

[Page 4]

that such a measure of self defence would be justified by the severest interpretation of the constitution and by the truest precepts of humanity. That the Committee would have been little justified by the circumstances of this Commonwealth at the present time in proposing coercive laws if that part of the population of this country, to which the subject of this report relates, had been left in its natural and original condition. But they believe the opinion well founded that the laws lately enacted in many of the States of this union will have an effect to drive to those States, where a universal civil + political toleration prevails, a large proportion of the persons against whom those laws are strongly and solely directed. The Committee are at a loss to understand why a political persecution should not be accompanied with the same emigrations, that have been observed

[Page 5]

always to attend religious persecutions and conceding every thing that shall be asked in favour of the argument grounded upon a difference of climate, character and condition, they still are of opinion that all facts and probabilities authorize the conclusion that persons of colour [sic] will hereafter increase in this State much beyond the proportion heretofore recorded in our books on population.

The Committee have been especially led to make the foregoing remarks, though in some degree repeated from the former report, inasmuch as they have found it impossible, after all the research and deliberation in their power to bestow upon the subject, to accomplish that duty which they undertook by the direction of the House of Representatives. They have not succeeded in preparing a bill the provisions of which they could conscientiously indicate to this House. They have already found in the Statute books of this Commonwealth a law passed in 1788 regulating the residence in this State of certain persons of colour, – they believe that this law has never been enforced and ineffectual it has proved, they would never

[Page 6]

have been the authors of placing among the Statutes a law so arbitrary in its principle and in its operation so little accordant with the institutions, feelings and practices of the people of this Commonwealth. The History of that law has well convinced the committee that no measure, which they could devise, would be attended with the smallest good consequence. That it would have been matter of satisfaction and congratulation to the committee if they had succeeded in framing a law, which should have received the approbation of this Legislature and should have promised to check and finally to overcome an evil upon which they have never been able to look with unconcern. But a law which should produce that effect would entirely depart from that love of humanity, that respect for hospitality and for the just rights of all classes of men in the constant and successful exercise and maintenance of which the inhabitants of Massachusetts have been singularly conspicuous.

And the Committee have agreed to this further report. That in these times when

[Page 7]

the Slave trade is matter of daily and anxious deliberation in foreign Courts, when in our own Country topicks [sic] connected with that subject have awakened the most protracted and fearful discussing and when nations already begin to point their efforts for the abolition of this hateful traffic as tokens of national superiority and triumph, it does not comport with the dignity of this State to withold [sic] that brief statement of facts, to be found in its annals, concerning the abolition of this trade in Massachusetts, – a statement which will prove both highly honorable and in perfect accordance with that remarkable spirit of wholesome and national liberty by which this Commonwealth has been greatly distinguished from the earliest period. But to the clearer understanding and better elucidation of this subject, the Committee think it useful to introduce the following short account of the existence of Slavery in Massachusetts.

The earliest mention of Slaves which the Committee have been able to discover is in the year 1639. – On the 20 of October of that year one of the early writers upon New England

[Page 8]

had occasion to go on shore upon Noddles Island in Boston harbour, at that time in possession of one Maverick, and there found a Negroe man and two Negroe women. From the circumstance that neither of the women could speak or understand English it is evident that they had been in this country only a short time. One of the women was said to have been a person of great rank in Africa and was treated by the others with great respect. The same writer in another place observes that “the people are well accommodated with servants, some of them are English and others Negroes.” The Negroes were doubtless Slaves. In the Journal of another author, whose published writings do not pass the year 1646 mention is made of two Negroe maids, one of whom was converted to Christianity, baptized and received into the Church. The only mention of Slaves upon the early records of the town of Boston is in the case of one Thomas Deane in 1661 who was prohibited from

[Page 9]

employing a Negroe in the “manufacture of hoops under a penalty of twenty shillings” for what reason is not stated. As so few references are made to Negroes in the early writers it is not probable that Slaves were numerous at this time. Thirtythree [sic] free Negroes are mentioned in the minutes of the Selectmen of Boston in 1708 to whom, according to a law of the Province, two hundred + eighteen days of labour were assigned upon the highways and other public works. In the years 1754 – 55 an enumeration was made by order of the Governor of all Slaves of and above the age of Sixteen years in the Province of Massachusetts Bay. One hundred and nineteen towns returned Two thousand seven hundred + twenty Slaves; but the returns of many towns have not been preserved. Of the above number of Slaves Twelve hundred + seventy were in the County of Suffolk. Four hundred + fortytwo in Essex. Three hundred + sixtyone in Middlesex. Eightyeight in Worcester. Seventyfour in Hampshire. One hundred thirtythree in Plymouth. One hundred and twentytwo in Bristol. Seventysix in Barnstable

[Page 10]

Seven in Dukes and one hundred + fortyseven in Yorke. In the year 1763, the number of blacks was Five thousand two hundred and fourteen and to the whites as one is to fortyfive.

In 1776, the numver of blacks was Five thousand two hundred + fortynine and to the whites as one is to Sixtyfive.

In 1784, the number of Blacks was Four thousand three hundred + ninetyseven, and to the whites as one is to eighty. From the above statement there is little doubt that the return of 1754 was very incomplete. A learned writer upon one of the New England States think that Slaves were more numerous before 1763, as many had enlisted in the preceeding [sic] French wars either in the Navy or the Army for the purpose of obtaining their freedom and this opinion was confirmed by the observations of Prince Hall “a very intelligent black man” whom the author consulted. The period of their greatest number was therefore in all probability between 1740 and 1750. It is well known that the Slaves were chiefly employed in the Maritime towns. Husbandmen in general

[Page 11]

preferring white to black labourers. The same author remarks that Negroe children were reckoned an incumbrance in a family and when weaned were given away like “puppies.” They have been publickly [sic] advertised in the news Papers to be given away. These Slaves were procured in several ways – either from the Dutch in New York, from the Southern Provinces of North America into one of which Provinces 20 Slaves were imported as early as 1620, and it is probable that the greatest supply came in this manner as many instances are mentioned of vessels, having sold all that the market required in the South, arriving with the remained of the Cargo in New England. Few came by direct trade, for according to the best authorities it appears that not more than three Slave Ships were ever owned at one time in Boston, though the colony of Massachusetts Bay, had a great trade with Africa, in the article of Rum of which in the year 1769, Two hundred ninetytwo thousand nine hundred + sixtysix gallons were exported to that Country, and in the products of

[Page 12]

the Sea. These articles were exchanged for Slaves, Gold dust etc. But a sufficient supply could always gave been procured from the west Indies as the Slaves trade even in the year 1639 had already continued a hundred + thirty years and the English themselves had been engaged in it for Seventyseven years.

The English begun this trade in 1562 under John Hawkins, afterwards made a Knight by Queen Elizabeth. The next year he was appointed to a Ship called the [blank] and owned by the Queen herself – he was joined at sea by another vessel also owned by the Queen called the Jerusalem. The English conducted this trade with great profit till 1768, when owing to some accidents it totally failed. John Hawkins was made a Knight by Queen Elizabeth and it is a little remarkable that the crest which he assumed greatly resembled the device adopted by the abolition Society in London in 1787, vist [sic], a Moor in his proper colour bound with a cord.

The Colony as early as 1641, ordained that “that none shall be held in bond, slavery, villanage  [sic]

[Page 13]

or captivity unless it be lawful captives taken in just wars or willingly sell themselves and are sold to us and such shall have the liberty and Christian usage which the law of God, established in Israel concerning such persons, doth morally require” – This law applied to Indians as well as to Negroes for the Colonists were in the habit of holding the Indians as Slaves and even of selling those taken in war to tribes with whom the Colony was at peace.

In the year 1646 an event took place that every inhabitant of this State will always regard with a just pride and admiration. It is the earliest public manifestation of the sense which our ancestors had of the freedom and personal rights of every man, whatever might be his country or complexion and it is more worthy of notice in the present day inasmuch as the Slave trade was not at that time regarded by Nations with the abhorrence which has been manifested concerning it within the last fifty years.

The Committee have attained a history of the interesting transaction which led to the ordinance they are about to quote from the unpublished journal of Governor Winthrop, for the use of which they are indebted to the kind attention of a learned gentleman in this town.

[Page 14]

One James Smith with his mate Keysar sailed from Boston in the year 1644, for the coast of Guinea “there to trade for Negroes” – Falling into the company of some Londoners they landed and stormed a village, killed many of the natives, but the country being alarmed and coming down upon them they were compelled to retreat with little booty and the loss of one man killed. Smith soon after sailed for Madeira, took on board a quantity of wine and thence sailed for Barbados to put off his cargo, but in consequence of a quarrel with his mate Keysar he was left on shore and the vessel returned safely to Boston – “For the matter of the Negroes whereof two were brought home in the Ship and near one hundred slain by the confession of some of the mariners, the magistrates took order to have these two set at liberty. But for the slaughter committed they were in great doubt what to do in it, seeing it was in another Country and the Londoners pretended a just revenge, so they called the Elders + desired their advice.

[Page 15]

In relation to this matter the General Court of Elections passed the following order in 1646.

“The Gennerall Courte [sic] concerning themselves bound by the first opportunity to bear witness against the hainous [sic] and crying sin of man- stealing, as also to prescribe such timely redresse [sic] for what is part and such a law for the future as may sufficiently deter all those belonging to us to have to do in such vile and most odious conduct justly abhorred of all good and just men do order that the Negro interpreter with others unlawfully taken be by the first opportunity at the charge of the countiey [sic]for the present sent to his native country of Gyrmy [sic] and a letter with him of the indignation of the Court thereabout and justice thereof. The execution of this order is left to the care of our Honoured Governor for the present. By both Houses” – It is however proper to remark that this was a declaration against man stealing and not against slavery which it has been seen was tolerated by our ancestors in certain cases.

The quotation from the colony laws just

[Page 16]

made and the early history of the Country clearly prove that our ancestors were much governed in their nations concerning bondage by the doctrines of the Levitical code. The same influence may be discovered in all their proceedings and it is probably owing to the provisions made by Moses in favor of Slavery that they themselves were afterwards made to regard it with some degree of complacency. For it appears that all the acts respecting capital offences passed before 1646 were grounded upon the same text of the Pentateauch. That relating to man stealing was expressed in these words, almost copied to a syllable from a verse in Exodus – “If any man stealeth a man or mankind he shall surely be put to death” – But the entire severity of the Levitical law was far from being imitated, for the Israelites made it only death to steal an Israelite but our ancestors made it death to steal a man of any nation whatsoever.

Other persons are mentioned in these early times as consenting to a toleration of slavery from a religious motive of a still more exhalted [sic] kind in hopes in the words of a writer of that

[Page 17]

day, “to lead them to a land of Gospel light from heathenish darkness” –

In a country where owing to the nature of the soil and climate the labour of Slaves had little value, where from a peculiar organization of body the deaths were more numerous amongst that description of persons than amongst the whites and where a proper knowledge of the just rights of men and the enjoyment of a reasonable liberty and independence were the study and aim of all classes of individuals, it cannot be matter of wonder that Slavery should never have been much encouraged and that a desire to effect an abolition should have been early expressed. As early as the year 1701, the following vote was entered upon the minutes of the Selectmen of the Town of Boston “The Representatives are desired to promote the encouraging the bringing of white servants and to put a period to Negroes being slaves” –

Without referring to the decrees + declarations of the Emperor Charles the 5th – Pope Leo the Xth of Queen Elizabeth and of a distinguished

[Page 18]

Statesman of the same century concerning Slavery decrees made remarkable by the inconsistent conduct of those Sovereigns, one whom early in the 16th century had sold a license to export Four thousand Negroes to the West Indies and a Second was personally engaged in the Slave trade, decrees neither dictated by the voice of their people nor followed by other acts restraining or even discouraging that practice, it may be doubted if there exists upon Record an earlier testimony given by a body of men than this vote of the Town of Boston, at any rate the greatest emphasis may most deservedly be placed upon this record and the highest and truest compliment be paid to the generous and just feeling which prevailed at so early a period in this State, as no formal resolution either of governments or individuals, since become so conspicuous in this undertaking, can be traced back to within twenty six years of this time. But the Committee have not been able to discover that any order was passed upon this subject either by the Council or Representatives.

[Page 19]

In 1705, a law was passed imposing a duty of L4- upon every Negro imported into the Province. The whole duty was allowed in draw-back, provided the Negro was exported within twelve months or died within Six weeks.

And in 1712 the importation of Indians as servants or slaves was strictly forbidden under a penalty of forfeiture of the subject this introduced.

But this subject awakened but little warmth or anxiety in the community till about the middle of the last century. At that time it was coupled with great propriety and success with that controversy which concerned the most precious interests of the Country. In most of the political writings of the day the rights of the blacks are blended with those of the whites and in the course of a few years it was deemed a subject worthy of being recommended to the attention of the Government of the Province.

In 1767 a Bill was brought into the “Great and General Court” to prevent the unwarrantable and unnatural system of enslaving mankind and

[Page 20]

prevent the importation of Slaves into the Province. Doubtless evidence may be found upon the Records of many of the towns of this Commonwealth of that feeling in the People which led to the framing of this bill, but the Committee deem it sufficient to copy into their report a vote of this town in instructions to their Representatives passed in March 1767, to wit, “And for the total abolishing of Slavery among us, that you move for a law to prohibit the importation and the purchasing of Slaves for the future” – This Bill in its progress was altered into the imposing an impost [sic] upon Negroes. It only passed the lower House, but even if it had also passed the Council, Governor Bernard was particularly instructed by his Government to check and oppose all endeavours leading to the abolition of the Slave trade. Though unsuccessful, this bill was introduced into the assembly of this colony five years before the Burgesses of Virginia petitioned his

[Page 21]

Majesty to remove all impediments in the instructions of the Royal Governors “to the checking that inhuman and impolitic commerce the Slave trade” – and nine years before Mr. Hartley made his celebrated motion in the British Parliament that “the Slave trade was contrary to the laws of God and the rights of man.” –

In 1770 Negroes began to sue their masters for their freedom and for payment of all services rendered after the age of twentyone. Many actions for that purpose were brought between this time and the Revolution all of which were successful. The Committee fortunately have it in their power to relate the circumstance leading to the first act of emancipation in this commonwealth in consequence of the verdict of a Jury. These circumstances were obtained from a venerable and most respectable gentleman now living in New Bedford and still an active member of that Religious Society which has truly merited the respect and gratitude of all good men for its unequalled labours in the most Christian, salutary and memorable

[Page 22]

work undertaken by man. This Gentleman while living in Nantucket, confident that no law of the Colony justified Slavery, received on board a vessel called the Friendship at that time engaged in the Whale Fishery and commanded by Elisha Folger, a young man by the name of “Boston” held as a Slave by the heirs of William Swain and at the termination of the voyage paid this young man his proportion of the proceeds. This circumstance took place between the years 1769 and 1770. In the mean time his reputed master, John Swain brought an action against the captain of the vessel in the Court of Common Pleas at Nantucket for the recovery of his slave, but the Jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant and the slave called Prince Boston was manumitted by the Magistrates. Swain appealed from this judgment to the Supreme Court at Boston. Mr. Rotch thought it advisable to retain John Adams as his counsel in the case but Swain discouraged by the feelings of the people and the circumstances of the Country never prosecuted the appeal. After that period

[Page 23]

all the Slaves on the Island of Nantucket obtained their freedom. It adds greatly to the satisfaction which this event inspires to be assured that Prince Boston was a respectable and industerious [sic] man and conducted himself with such prudence and economy as to be possessed at an early period in his life of one hundred pounds Sterling in the English funds.

The decisions in these trials furnish undoubted evidence of the sentiments of the people, in the highest degree honourable to them, but it is difficult to reconcile such decisions either with that principle of the Charter, which conveyed only to native born subjects in the Province the rights and immunities of subjects born within the “realm of England” – or with that principle upon which rested the immortal judgment in the case of Sommersett, because not only had Slavery always existed in New England, but there was a positive law of the colony establishing it in certain cases. But as a manifestation of public feeling and as production of the

[Page 24]

most valuable results, it is not in our power to bestow too great commendation upon the sublime and eternal principles to which these juries appealed, and they are therefore entitled to the remarkable praise of having not only anticipated that decision of Lord Mansfield, which forever put at rest this great question in England, but of having first established in Courts of law those doctrines which have since been incorporated into all the Bills of Rights of the State Governments of this Country. However an excellent historian of one of the New England States mentions a fact highly honorable to this State, that several towns passed votes abolishing Slavery within their precincts and discharging the Masters of Slaves thus emancipated from all liability to charges for the support of the slave – a very meritorious proceeding but a certain confession that Slavery was recognized by the laws of the Commonwealth.

[Page 25]

In 1773 a petition was presented by the Negroes praying for the abolition of Slavery. This petition was read and referred to the next Session; but it does not appear to have been called up at that time.

In January 1774, A Bill “to prevent the importation of Negroes and others as slaves into this Province” – passed both the Council and the House of Representatives and on the 8th day of March it was presented to Governor Hutchinson for his signature but the nest day the House was prorogued. The Governor however informed a deputation of Negroes, who had gone to his house to solicit his approbation of the bill that his instructions strictly forbade him from approving any bill which should have a tendency to check the Slave trade. His Successor Governor Gage used language equally decided and emphatic, and no doubt was entertained to resist all endeavours to abolish Slavery as to remove those other acts by which this Country was at that time oppressed.

[Page 26]

Separate from the influence possessed by the West India merchants in the cabinet at home the Government was resolved to offer no encouragement whatever to those principles of freedom and independence which were maintained at the time in the colonies with great boldness and success.

The Historian already referred to makes the following important remark that the principle inserted in the constitution of this State in 1780, that all men are born free and equal, applied particularly to the Blacks and in confirmation of that observation he mentions the following singular fact. A man tried in Worcester in 1783, for beating a black whom he called his Slave, was found guilty and fined forty shillings by an application by the Judge of this principle.

It may be observed in this place that the constitution of this State is the only one among the early constitutions except the constitution of New Hampshire in which this language can be found, though the

[Page 27]

substance of it is strongly expressed in the declaration of Independence. The construction given to this phrase in New Hampshire, is this, that all blacks born since the formation of the constitution are free but not those born before that event. The doctrine of Massachusetts was however acknowledged in Pennsylvania.

It may therefore be properly considered that Slavery was effectually abolished in this State just before the declaration of independence, though the law by which this event was officially and formerly made known was not passed till the 26th March 1788, Seventeen years before the abolition in Denmark, the earliest European abolition. This law imposed a penalty of L50 upon every citizen or person residing in this Commonwealth for each Slave bought or transported and L200 upon every vessel engaged in the Slave trade, and it is said that the law was especially enacted at that time in consequence of the wicked and base conduct of an individual, who was engaged in loading a vessel in Boston

[Page 28-29]

harbour, having decoyed three black men on board under pretence of work and having secured them in the hold, sailed away for the West Indies. This proceeding being made known, public indignation was infinitely excited and the Governor and French consul immediately wrote letters to the Governor of the Island of St. Bartholomew where the vessel was bound. These unhappy men were offered for sale in that Island, but the Governor having received the letters from Boston prohibited the sale. The blacks were soon after released and sent home to Boston where they arrived on the 29th of July which on that account was made a day of great rejoicing.

In the first census of the inhabitants of the United States in the year 1790, no other than free persons were returned from Massachusetts, the only State in the Union, which at that time did not contain Slaves and the only State represented in the first congress held at

[Page 30]

Philadelphia in 1788 which had finally abolished Slavery.

In concluding this report there remains to the committee the single duty of submitting the following remarks. The feelings of the people disclosed since the year 1760 in the votes of towns, and in the verdicts of Juries – the compositions of many learned and enlightened individuals published just before the declaration of independence for the purpose of explaining and interpreting the just principles of a proper freedom – the fact that there is no law at present in force which makes a distinction between white and black persons. (rejection from the militia being derived from a law of the United States) the restriction as to marriage between whites and blacks equally affecting whites as well as blacks – the same law, which allows Justices to expel blacks from the State after a certain notice expressly recognizing the right of blacks to become citizens – a law, the constitutionality of which has been called in question and which it is well known was passed on the same day as the abolition act of March 1788 in order to prevent the

[Page 31]

State from being overrun with runaway Slaves – Blacks having the same public provisions for education and the same public support in case of sickness and poverty. Many blacks before and during the Revolution having obtained their freedom by a legal process, and as the spirit of the constitution of this State abrogates all exclusive laws thereby becoming invested with all the rights of freemen and with a capability of becoming freeholders, and the constitution distinctly declares that a freeholder without other exception than relates to religion and property and age is capable of being elected or appointed to any office or place under the State – and above all the constitution given to the first principle in the declaration of rights at the time of the adoption of this constitution both in the public mind and in the courts of law clearly manifest and demonstrate that the people of this Commonwealth have always believed Negroes and Mullattoes [sic] to possess the same right and capabilities to become citizens as white persons. In giving this account of the existence of

[Page 32]

Slavery and its abolition in Massachusetts, the Committee have not been insensible to the great merits of other States in this particular. They remember with gratitude and admiration the solemn agreement entered into by all the States then assembled in the first continental congress held in Philadelphia wholly to discontinue the Slave trade, and as a farther evidence of the high sense which the committee entertain of the endeavours of other States in this great work, they shall finish this portion of the Report by extracting the following remarkable expression from a petition presented to his Majesty in 1772 by the House of Burgesses of Virginia – “The importation of Slaves into the colonies made under its present encouragements, we have too much reason to fear, will endanger the very existence of your Majestys American Dominions –

And the Committee prays now to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject committed to them by an order of the House of Representatives of June [illegible]

            For the Committee

            Theodore Lyman Jr.

            House of Representatives January 15, 1822

            Read + accepted.

            Josiah Quincy [illegible]

[Page 33]

The Committee on Negroes and Mulattoes have directed me to make the enclosed report.

            For the Committee

            Theodore Lyman Jr.

            H. Representatives

            Jan. 16. – 1822