Jeffrey Richardson Brackett - The Negro in Maryland (1889)
Jeffrey Richardson Brackett - The Negro in Maryland (1889)
Jeffrey Richardson Brackett - The Negro in Maryland (1889)
IN
ADAMS, EDITOR
History
is
past Politics
and
Freeman
EXTRA VOLUME
VI
"With
public sentiment nothing can fail; without public sentiment nothing can
succeed.
He makes
statutes
impossible to be
executed."
Abraham
Lincoln.
THE
NEGRO
A
IN
MARYLAND
BY JEFFREY
R.
BRACKETT,
Ph. D.
BALTIMOEE
N. MURRAY, PUBLICATION AGENT, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
1889
LIBRARIAN S FUKD
COPYRIGHT,
1889,
BY N. MURRAY.
CO.,
PRINTERS.
BALTISIORE.
CONTENTS
CHAP
-
L
II.
INTRODUCTION,
III.
IV.
MANUMISSION,
V.
......... ........
143 175
218775
THE NEGRO
IN
MARYLAND.
I.
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION.
are not called on, happily, to bring up from our past politics those questions of slavery over which so many lances
We
were broken
until
object of this study is simply to trace, as clearly as possible, the growth of African slavery, as an institution, in
1
The
Maryland.
Nor
1
will
it
Maryland has not alone fixed this limited no doubt, that the lot of the slaves in Maryland was, as a rule, much better than that of those on the large plantations in the thinly settled portions of the Southern States. Thus, for instance, the
field of inquiry.
system of special magistrates courts, for trial of slaves for serious offences, was not known in Maryland. But Maryland was settled early its slave
;
code was rigorous becoming a Border State, its slave property became less secure the number of slaves remained large, while the free blacks
;
and earnest efforts A study of the growth of slavery in detail, were made for colonization. with reference to these conditions, may be of more value to the student, to-day, than a more general, and necessarily less accurate, study in a wider field, or one directed more to the severities to which slavery made the blacks liable which are already well known. Any work of such a nature must be very imperfect. The writer can give only what he has gathered, and asks any person who may be interested in the subject, to communicate to him any further facts.
;
the ancients, for the presumption is that the planters on the Chesapeake acted by their own impulses and for their own interests, with little knowledge of, or regard to, what other men had done, two thousand years before. But to begin
among
with the settlement of Maryland, without noticing the ideas of the age concerning slavery ideas which the settlers brought with them would be as unfair as to begin a history of the
The slavery of antiquity, the right to hold a person for debt, or as a captive taken in war, was based on no strict race or religious grounds. Romans enslaved captive Germans,
as
Germans, afterwards,
in the
and Christians ceased to enslave Christian captives. ; semi-servile condition of villeinage which grew up at that time, declined quickly with the decline of the feudal
Ages
The
* It is signifi system, long before the settlement of America. that just at the time when Columbus turned to the court cant,
of Spain, to become the discoverer of America, Ferdinand of Arragon had succeeded with some difficulty in bringing cer-
Villeinage varied somewhat in different parts of Europe, and has sur vived in some countries almost to our own day. In general, to all others but his lord, the serf was as a freeman. In England, villeinage died out early, the Peasants Wars of the fourteenth century giving the death blow. The last case, we are told, in which it was pleaded in the courts was in
1
1618.
That
class distinctions
easily to the
existence of any form of servitude is worthy of consideration, but villeinage cannot be said to have had any vital influence on the rise of African slavery.
The only
case in
which we
England on
find mention, in the early records of Maryland, villeinage, as affecting slavery, is the
answer of Lord Baltimore to the Lords of Trade, in 1678 (Md. Arch., V., 267), on the subject of conversion of the blacks. A law was made, he says, to encourage baptism of slaves, by which it was and is declared That as in former times The Baptizeing of Villaynes in England was not taken by the Lawe of England To be a Manumission or Infranchiseing of the Vil
"
laynes soe neither shall it be in this Provynce as to Negroes or Mulattoes," &c. See chapter on Slaves. The Court of Appeals declared, afterwards,
that slavery and villeinage were entirely different.
Introduction.
serfs, of European race and was also pushing vigorously the and Christian faith, conquest of Grenada, by which thousands of Saracens were
freedom to their
as a rule
Christians had ceased the enslavement of Christian captives, but the custom of ransom, of which we read in the ;
chronicles,
was a survival of slavery. The beaten warrior became subject to the terms of the victor. At the battle of
Poitiers, in 1356, the
English
had French prisoners twice as many in number as themselves, and deemed it advisable to ransom them on the for who Many were set at liberty and others kept spot. soever made any prisoners, they were solely at his disposal, Several of the English to ransom or not, as he pleased." archers had four or six prisoners, and a number of those who One Sir Edward could give no ransom were put to death. de Roucy felled to the ground an English knight who was following him from the field. Dismounting and placing his lance on the Englishman s breast, he called on him to sur render under penalty of death, as his prisoner, rescued or not.
sart tells us
"
The
defeated knight surrendered, accompanied Sir Edward, and afterwards ransomed himself. At the battle of Chevy
Chace, in 1388, one Sir Matthew Redman surrendered to a con Rescued or not?" cried the Scot. Scotch knight. answered Sir Matthew, "you will take good care of sent,"
"
"I
me?"
"That
will,"
Then
Sir
Matthew,
now, what do you require of putting up his sword, said ; me, for I am your prisoner by fair conquest?" "And what I should is it you would wish me to do," replied the Scot.
"
like,"
said Sir
fifteen days,
return to Newcastle; and, within Matthew, I will come to you in any part of Scotland you
"to
"I
shall
appoint."
agree,"
wherever you may go, you acknowledge yourself as my So they parted, and in a few moments, the Scot prisoner." himself was captured by the Bishop of Durham. He philo-
I have made a prisoner, and am now In 1441, Charles one myself: such is the chance of war." VII. of France brought a number of English prisoners to
sophically exclaimed
:
Paris. After suffering shocking treatment, those who could not pay their ransom, by far the largest number, were bound hand and foot, and thrown into the Seine. Not till the sev
enteenth century were agreements entered into by the nations 2 of Europe for the regulation and exchange of prisoners.
was in Christ only that all men were brethren. The heathen or infidel became usually the slave of his captive It was due chiefly to the conquest of Christian conqueror.
But
it
Moors and to the rising trade of the and Portuguese with Africa, that there grew up for Spaniards Europe a new form of chattel slavery. And if the zeal of the earlier church had helped the fall of the old slavery, the zeal and bigotry of good churchmen of this age certainly had
a part, conscious or unconscious, in the rise of the new. "Whole droves of slaves," wrote Bodin, in 1576, "are sold
By
parts of Portugal, as if they were the trade with Africa, negro slaves were brought,
all
Prince Henry to a limited extent, to Portugal and Spain. of Portugal, in 1442, insisted that negroes should be brought
there
"
for
whatever number he should get, he would gain might be converted to the faith, which
"
4 "And could not be managed with the Moors." certainly," his thought was not vain, for as adds the old chronicler,
soon as they had knowledge of our language, they readily It is not necessary to dwell on the became Christians."
opinion,"
says Prescott,
Johnes Trans., Vol. I, 219, &c. II, 373. For much of interest on this subject see Ward s Inquiry into the Law
Froissart,
;
of Nations (R.
3
Ward, London, 1795). Commonweale, Knolles Translation, * The Conquerors of The New World
p. 43.
Introduction.
"
among good
barous nations were placed by the circumstance of their infi * delity without the pale both of spiritual and civil rights."
the discovery of America, Europeans met a people, the Indians, not akin to them in race or religion. Columbus, in
By
Ferdinand and Isabella Your as Catholic Christians and princes, lovers and highnesses furtherers of the Christian faith, and enemies of the sect of Mahomet, and of all idolatries and heresies, thought to send
his diary, speaks thus of
"
and lands, and the dis position of them and of everything about them, and the way 2 that should be taken to convert them to the sacred faith."
to see the aforesaid princes, the cities
It
is
true,
was
steadfastly enjoined by the sovereigns, and carried out by cer tain of their subjects. But in the treatment of the Indians
by the Spaniards we see plainly the spirit of the times. A number of Indian slaves were soon sent to Spain, some of Isabella ordered back those who had them by Columbus.
The Spaniards were little suited not been taken in just war. to work the mines in the Indies. They had gone out expect to pick up precious metals ; they found by expe ing largely
rience that riches were to be
won only by
toil.
The
natives
were soon impressed into their service. The matter was carried to Spain, and the right to enslave the unoffending heathen was debated there by learned men. It was finally determined that a qualified servitude would be beneficial to both Spaniard and Indian ; the former might the better work
his plantation or his mine, the latter might gain from the The rights religious and social influences of his employer.
*
.:
Ferdinand and
felt
Europe
The Mahometans enslaved John Smith was a slave among the Turks. the converse working of her old rule, later, when the Barbary
Isabella, Part II, ch. 8.
;
Capt.
States exacted tribute, as ransoms. 2 The Conquerors of The New World, p. 102.
thus granted were terribly abused ; in a few years, from over work and ill-treatment, the numerous populations, of men unaccustomed to toil, had dwindled away. At first, the cap
ture of cannibal Indians
persisted in idolatry, they too
as they
At
had been given to carry to the Indies such negro slaves as had been born in the power of Christians that is, negroes from Southern Europe. The rapid decrease of the Indians, and the cruelties practised on them, had roused a number of zealous friends to them, among the Spaniards. About 1511,
the King of Spain issued fresh says the chronicler Herrera, Orders for promoting the Conversion of the Indians, and their being well instructed in the Christian Eeligion. Nor
"
did he take less care of the civil Government, directing among other things, that those People should not be oppressed, and
that for easing of them,
rule.
proclamation was addressed to the Indians not under the Spanish They were called on to acknowledge the grant of the new world by
the Pope to the Crown a grant made in certain writings which they might see if they wished. They were to acknowledge the Church, the Crown, and to receive the ministration of the priests. Due time was given them
to consider this.
If they
rule,
greet them with all love and affection and leave them their wives and children free, and give them many privileges and exemptions. But if they
God I will enter with power into your land," and will subdue you, and will take your wives and chil dren and make slaves of them, and sell them as such, and take all your goods and do all the mischief I can, as to vassals that do not obey and will not receive their Lord, and I protest that all the death and destruction which may come from this is your fault, and not his Majesty s or mine or
did not,
"by
the help of
"
that of
my
men."
And we
how
the Spaniards
would sometimes halt in the dark before an Indian village, and the com mander would read this to his men and the trees of the forest, as a prelude An officer was afterward employed by the King to pillage and slaughter. barbarous People, Enemies to report which of the Indians were cannibals, Certain ones could not be determined, to Christians, and Man Eaters." but it was declared that those named as cannibals might be attacked, taken, and sold as slaves. (Herrera, Stevens Trans., I, 1, 14; II, 8, 6).
"
Introduction.
over to work in the Mines, because one of them l negro slave) did more than four of the Natives."
(i.
e.
one
The pro
duction of sugar increased the desire for negroes. Soon, with the entire sympathy of the court and by the advice of those friendly to the Indians, negroes were extensively introduced.
The service of Indians was thus supplanted by African slaves. With the demand for negro labor in the New World,
the slave trade increased, and soon extended from the Portu "Although guese and Spaniards to the Dutch and English. servitude in these latter times was left off," wrote Bodin in
1576,
all
"for
is it
now
The
spirit
early treatises on
war
reflect
plainly,
no doubt, the
Victoria, professor at Salamanca, writes, a few years before Bodin, that in wars between Christians although, by the law of nature, warriors
of the times.
The Spaniard
who
surrender or are captured might be slain the usage and custom of war, which had become a part of the law of nations, had ordered that prisoners might be redeemed by ransom.
But
mitigation of the extreme rights of war was not It was not lawful to kill or carry into applicable to infidels.
this
captivity innocent
persons,
even in wars with the Turks ; but presumed in a war against pagans, which might be said to be perpetual and without hope of obtaining satisfaction, doubtless the women and children captured from the Saracens could be
to be innocent,
detained as slaves. 2
Spanish army in the Netherlands, says in his Treatise on War, in 1581, that an ancient and laudable custom had sub stituted for enslavement the practice of ransoming prisoners
of war
tians
;
still
and such
1 2
I, 9, 3.
Wheaton s Law
of Nations, Introduction.
slavery in wars of Christians, for such were civil wars, as all men were brothers in Christ. I do not hesitate, he adds, to say that the law of slavery is just, for it is the agreement of
the law of nations.
states in his
*
War
and Peace,
published in 1625, that even among Christians the custom still continued of keeping captives till their ransom was paid
it
war were not to be made Slaves, so as to sell them or force them to hard Labours, or to such Miseries as are common to And what Christians, he adds, in this case observe Slaves." among themselves, the Mahometans likewise do among them 2 selves. Bynkershoek, an advocate and judge at the Hague,
stated in his Public
Law,
among
Christians, he says,
we do
not
inflict
it
upon our prisoners. We may however, if we please, and indeed we do sometimes still exercise that right upon those
who
Therefore the Dutch are in the against us. to the Spanish as slaves, the Algerians, Tuni habit of selling sians and Tripolitans, whom they take prisoners in the Atlan
enforce
it
tic
or in the Mediterranean
for the
no
and
Thomas Aquinas
;
is
natural
by which we have
all
been created free, but from second intention, since nature allowed delin quents to be punished. (Albericus Gentilis De Jure Belli, Holland s Ed.,
:
ch.
2
IX,
p. 314, &c.)
The right to enslave captives, says Grotius, taken in solemn war, was granted by the Law of nations for no other reason, than that the captors might be tempted to forbear the rigor allowed them, of killing their pris
Among Christians it was generally in, or after, the fight. agreed that prisoners were not to be enslaved, and that with reason, for they are, or should be, better instructed by the great Kecommender of
oners either
"
every act of
3
charity."
:
Bynkershoek
(Grotius: De Jure Belli, Barbeyrac s Trans.) Quaes. Juris. Pub., Du Ponceau s Trans., Book I, ch.
3.
Introduction.
From time immemorial, in deed, the Africans, in their inter-tribal warfare, had been accustomed to enslave their prisoners ; but the native traders must have caught from the Europeans something of the greed
for riches that so strongly
While
thus in
their
studies,
the
marked that age. It was an age Marvellous reports came to of great activity and discovery. In Florida, the Europe of the riches of the New World.
Spaniards sought for the fountain of youth. Theatre-goers in London, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, heard
that gold
"
was
7
Why man/
be had for the picking up, in America. all their dripping-pans are says one fellow,
to
"
and diamonds, they goes forth in holy-days, and hem by the sea-shore." l An old Spanish historian gather who softens, says Prescott, the excesses of his countrymen tells us of an Indian chief of Cuba, who, having carefully watched the Spaniards in the neighboring islands, and hearing and
for rubies
Cuba to settle, called together his in mind of their many sufferings people. at the hands of the Spaniards, he told them that the Spaniards acted for a great and beloved lord, whom he would show them. Then he took from a little palm-tree basket a lump
coming
to
And
putting them
In 1661 and 1664, the States-General ordered their admiral to sell as slaves the pirates he might take. Pufendorf says, in 1672, that the ownership of acquisitions by capture in war was then a subject of dispute. "The idea that captives in war are Adams to Granville Sharp, the English philanthropist, slaves," wrote John in 1786, is the foundation of the misfortunes of the negroes. This prin ciple is honored and admitted by all the powers of Europe, who pay tributes
all
"
to the States of
1
Barbary."
Memoirs of Sharp,
I,
374.
Eastward Ho; 1605. The excesses of the Spaniards were, doubtless, far greater than those of the English, who cannot, however, in their part in the slave-trade, be exonerated from avarice. Sir Henry Maine says, in his Ancient Law, ch. V, The simple wish to use the bodily powers of another person as a means of ministering to one s own ease or pleasure is doubtless the foundation of Slavery, and as old as
Marston
"
human
nature."
10
Then they
danced around the basket, and when they were spent with and Dancing before the little Basket of God," he Singing bade them not keep the Lord of the Christians in any Place whatsoever, for tho he were in their Bowels, they would
"
fetch
out, and therefore they should cast him into the under Water where they would not find him ; and so River,
1
him
they
did."
Herrera,
I, 9, 3.
CHAPTER
INDIANS AND
II.
WHITE SERVANTS.
settled in 1634, under the of Lord Baltimore. The royal char proprietary government ter, we may mention as passing, spoke not only of the spread
of English territory, but, as charters usually did, of the zeal of the founder for spreading religion among a savage people
who knew
not God.
The
right to initiate all laws was soon by the Proprietor, and, although
legislation remained subject to veto, the authorities in Eng land interfered little in those internal aifairs of the Colony
which interest us most. Several cases of this interference we have to note, later. We begin with the little settlement, of some few hundred persons, about St. Mary s, on a penin There met the Governor, the sula by the lower Potomac. and representative of the Proprietor, the half dozen appointee councilmen, and the freemen or their representatives, in
shall
assembly.
The
colonists at once,
unknown to them in England. These pagans, as the white men called them, seemed friendly, and intercourse between the races began auspiciously. But the Indian saw
heathen race
with aversion the spread of the settlement, and the whites In lost property and finally even a few lives at their hands. 1639, it was declared a penal offence for anyone, without the
consent of the government, to leave the English plantations 11
12
to live
1 Some among any Indians who were not christened. of the Indians were soon open enemies. The commission issued by the Governor, in 1640, to the commander of an
orized
make satisfaction for sundry insolences and rapines, auth him to attack these Indians, with any company of Englishmen that would be willing to go, and against them
"
and their Lands and goods to execute and Inflict what may inflicted by the Law of warr and the pillage and booty therein gotton to part and divide among the Company, that
be
2 Shall perform the Service." find another proclamation, dated a few days later, forbidding all Englishmen, under penalty, from doing any injury to a neighboring tribe which,
We
in peace
The commission
and amity, the Colony had taken under its protection. to the leader of an expedition against the
unfriendly Sesquihanowes, in 1643, expresses the confidence of the authorities in his forwardness to vindicate the honor of
God and of the Christian and English name upon those bar barous and inhuman pagans, and bids him do all things needed
for training his men, vanquishing the enemy, and disposing 7 of the spoils/ and all things that any general might do by
"
In 1652, an expedition was planned against Indians of the Eastern Shore, who had committed serious the
It was ordered that one man out depredations and murder. of every seven men in the Colony should be armed and
equipped by the six remaining at home, and that all the Indian prisoners brought back, unless otherwise disposed of by the Provincial Court, should be divided, according to their
value, in a general division sent forth the fighting men
among
those
who, in turn, were to share the The captain was ordered to "make Warr other plunder. upon and through God s Assistance by all possible meanes to
Bozraan
Md.,
II, 134.
Ill, 87.
Ill, 133.
13
r Vanquish, destroy, plunder, kill or take prisoners at yo dis d cretion all or any the s Indians either by Sea or land, and being Soe taken to put them to Death by the Law of warr or
to
Save them
at
your
pleasure."
An
act of 1715,
when
in an Indian war, provided among permanent regulations that any booty, plunder or Indian prisoners for the militia
the same
should be given by the commander to the soldier who took 2 to encourage men to enlist in such service.
sold, as a punishment for petty and brought one thousand pounds of tobacco. 3 But, larceny, while Indians taken in war might be enslaved, kidnapping It was of friendly Indians was early and always forbidden.
declared felony, in 1649, to take or sell any friend Indian, without license from the Governor and felony might then be punished with death. At the end of the century, the same
offence
fine
and imprisonment, at
1 This expedition was given up, on account of bad weather. Md. Arch., Vol. Ill, 285. 2 Acts of 1715, ch. 43 (Bacon s Laws of Maryland), continued indefinitely in 1722. The captain of an expedition in 1647 had been ordered to make
at the fort, and give a just account to the authorities of all plunder taken. The practice of the Indians in requiring ransom, often, is well known. The Assembly of Maryland was petitioned, in 1650, to ransom two children
held by hostile Indians. Nine hundred pounds of tobacco was asked for the elder and six hundred for the younger and the estate of their father,- deceased,
;
was not sufficient for this. The Assembly, stating that the public charges were then very heavy, directed that any of the colonists who chose to redeem them should be entitled to their service, in return, until they were twentyone years of age. Bozman s Maryland, II, 396. We find an English soldier who had escaped from the Indians, in the French and Indian War of 1756, telling the Governor that, had he not escaped, he must have served his Indian captor all his days, for saving his
life.
3
Mention of Indian
14
discretion of the
and
this act
was con
tinued
no
reason, as stated in all the laws, was that breach of peace might occur between the colonists and the
later.
1
The
neighboring Indians.
In 1722, a resident of* the Province was brought before the Governor and Council, committed for examination by the justices of Somerset county, for having
On examination, the man confessed that the to the English. boy, in consideration of five pounds in money, a horse bridle
suits of clothes, indented to live with as a servant for a term of thirty years, and that he after wards sold the boy to a gentleman in Philadelphia, for fifteen
him
pounds. In Virginia, he stated also, it was customary for Indians to be bound out, and this same boy had been pre
viously a servant there.
as the
man had
;
more than three months imprisonment, he should be mildly and he was fined five hundred pounds of tobacco and imprisoned one day. 2 In articles of peace made in 1666 between the government and a number of Indian settlements, it was stipulated that in case of danger from any hostile Indians, the Governor should appoint a place to which these friendly Indians might bring their wives and children for
dealt with
and that these, if the men chanced to be killed, should remain free and not be servants to the English. 3 All disputes between Englishman and Indian were for many years heard
safety,
before the Governor and Council. After 1700, cases involving not over twenty shillings were decided at first by special com missioners, and afterwards by any justice of the courts. After
1756, the county courts heard cases of greater value, and 4 find several decided the rents of Indian lands, &c.
We
1 Md. Arch., I, 250. Acts of 1692, 1705, and 1715. Kecords in Md. Arch., IV, pp. 392, 399.
p. 47.
3 4
Md.
15
In 1642, a grand juryinteresting cases concerning Indians. indicted for murder a certain planter, one Elkin, in that, when moved by malice and the instigation of the devil, he
tribe.
had shot an Indian, known as a king among a neighboring When brought before the court of the colony, the Governor and secretary on the bench, Elkin pleaded not
guilty. The Proprietor s attorney gave as evidence the exam ination of Elkin, duly attested and with Elkin s signature, in
which was a confession that he killed the Indian, and an But the jury gave a verdict of not account of the affair.
guilty, saying that they so decided because they understood the deed had not been committed against the peace of the
Proprietor or the King, because the party was a pagan, and because they had no precedent in the neighboring colony of Virginia to make the offence murder. The Governor there
upon directed them that those Indians who had been injured were in peace with the authorities, and that they should not take notice of what other colonies did, but of the law of Eng
land.
of murder in his
own
defence.
this verdict
contradiction, they reconsidered again, and found that the prisoner killed the Indian in self-defence. But the Gov
was a
ernor refused to
have
and
called for
This jury found another jury, to hear the same evidence. It is not uninteresting to Elkin guilty of manslaughter. note that proceedings were taken to have all the members of
the
first
for
from the same evidence. The foreman was then fined, by sum of two thousand pounds of tobacco. And he was soon fined one thousand pounds more, for contempt of
having said
"
when
.
the
.
.
court was
&
importunately pressing & charging the Jury arguing & pleading the crime ags* the prisoner," that if an Englishman had been killed by the Indians, there would not
16
have been so many words over it. 1 The penalty given El kins is not stated, but we find him afterwards a resident of the Colony. In the next year 1643, a coroner s jury returned that an Indian lad had been shot and killed by one John
Dandy.
Dandy
sum of
three
thousand pounds of tobacco, to answer the charge of homicide. It is interesting to note that the Indian had been christened,
that the bill was and the petit jury gave a verdict of guilty of felony and murder. Two years before, Dandy had been sentenced to death for some serious offence, but on petition of a great part of the Colony, the Governor had commuted the sentence to service to the government for three years. He was by trade a blacksmith and gunsmith, and, no doubt, a valuable
true,
man own
lic
to the
young
executioner.
He
now, again, he saved his the unpleasant office of pub was released from this four years later,
fill
And
2 having proved himself of service to the public. Lord Baltimore directed in 1651 that certain lands should
some friendly Indians. 3 When a queen of one of the Indian settlements in Maryland com plained to the Governor that, though her people had retired to the bounds of their territory, as allotted them, the English plantations had advanced so near that their crops were injured
be
set aside as
homes
for
*Md. Arch., IV, 177, 180-183. 2 Md. Arch., IV, 255, 260 III, 98, 187. Also, Md. Arch., Y, 480-482, 517. Treaties were frequently made between the Colony and Indian tribes. In
;
one, for instance, with certain Eastern Shore Indians, in 1659, it was agreed that the Indians were to restore stolen goods, that any Indian who should
white man, should be given over, with any abettors, to the govern ment, for justice according to law and that the Indians, if injured by whites, should appeal to the neighboring county commissioners, while the English, vice versa, were to appeal to a certain Indian chief. By another treaty, a few years after, with a tribe recently hostile, the right was reserved to the Eng lish of slaying any Indian who might be found killing cattle or hogs. (Md.
kill a
;
Md. Arch.,
I,
330.
17
by the colonists cattle, the Governor issued orders that no 1 Englishmen should settle within three miles of the Indians.
To a number of neighboring tribes of friendly Indians grants of land were secured by acts of assembly it being most just, the acts read, that the ancient inhabitants of the Colony should
:
have dwelling places in their native lands, free from the en 2 croachments and oppression of the English. Soon after the planting of the Colony certain restrictions
were laid on the Indians, and on the intercourse between In To give or sell arms or ammunition to an dians and English. Indian was felony, unless leave was gotten from the Governor.
Nor could
A few years later, permission was given to ammunition from any Indian who had not a take arms and 3 Nor could an Indian be entertained license to carry them. by a white at any time. A few Indians had been allowed to carry arms for the use of certain colonists, doubtless for hunt 4 It is evident that ing but these licenses were withdrawn.
without leave.
;
these restrictions depended on hostilities between the Indians and the whites. In the game law of 1730, to preserve the
breed of wild deer, there is special exemption for friendly Indians, who could kill all the deer required for their own use. The sale to the Indians of liquor in large quantities was for
bidden, to prevent disorders by drunken Indians. By an act of 1756 a census was to be made, by the local authorities, of
all
who wished
to
leave their towns were ordered to procure passes. 5 during the French and Indian war.
This was
An
Md. Arch., Ill, 489, in 1663. Md. Arch., II, 200; 1723, 18, &c. 3 Bozman s Maryland, II, 45, 286. *Md. Arch., Ill, 143, 260; IV, 235,
2
359.
18
privilege of planting Christianity among a not God, nor had heard of Christ." l But
that
know
we hear of no pains
In the plans for the settlement the Colonies, in fact, there is set forth this righteous end, but history shows that earnest efforts were no more made than the black and Indian slaves, enslaved as to reach it
taken to convert the natives.
of
all
An captive heathen, were freed after they were converted. other act, for the confirmation of peace with certain In dians, declares that the articles shall be kept, for the preserva
tion of the people of the Colony, and for the honor of the which will undoubtedly Proprietor and the English nation,
"
2 The treatment by breach of faith even to a heathen." of the Indian by the government of Maryland seems indeed But it should not be overlooked that to have been most fair. would have been dictated, if from no other reason, this policy by prudence and even by necessity. The Colonies were not founded without the aid of the gun and the words of John
suffer
Archdale, the Quaker governor of Carolina, are of significance wider than the experiences of that Colony alone. "And, Cour
teous
Readers,"
shall give
you
writes this staunch friend to the Indians, I some farther Eminent Remark hereupon, and
"
especially in the first Settlement of Carolina, where the of God was eminently seen in thinning the Indians to
Hand
make
room
for the
For not only had the Indians there English." from previous inter-tribal war, "but, largely
again, it at other times pleased Almighty God to send unus ual Sicknesses amongst them, as the Smallpox, etc., to lessen
their
so that the English, numbers have but little Indian Blood Spaniard,
;
in to
Gov. Archdale, of Carolina, tells of his interview, in 1707, with four Indian prisoners about to be sold as slaves to the West Indies, as was usual. They were Roman Catholics, having been taught probably by the Span iards or French. The Governor adds, that on finding they were Christians, he thought in a most peculiar manner that they should be free. See Car
3
19
Should we digress to glance at other Colonies, we should find only better examples of the custom of enslaving Indian cap tives, and of the distance usually "observed betwixt Chris
tians
tions"
and Barbarians, as well in warres as in other negotia to use the words of the Commissioners of the New England Colonies to the commander of the expedition against The famous Body of Liberties the Narragansetts, in 1645. of Massachusetts allowed such slavery, and captives in King 1 In Vir Philip s war, at the close of the century, were sold. while Indians captured in war became slaves for life, by ginia, act of assembly as well as by the custom, there was doubt for
a time as to the proper lot of those who might be sold to the This is a most interesting point colonists by other Indians. to notice, as such Indians were practically in the same posi
tion to the colonists as
sold
by
When
the Virginia tribes sold a boy of another tribe whether a to one of the colonists as a captive in war we do not know
one of the tribes in Maryland asked the pleasure of the Gover removal from its old home, to which the whites were constantly approaching, the Council decided it would be safer for the Colony to keep these friendly Indians within its command. In 1694 the Governor asked the Assembly what answer should be made to a certain tribe of In
nor, in 1665, as to its
When
dians,
which had recently tarried in Maryland, if it should return and settle. It was at the time of the French and Indian wars at the North and the Assembly said it did not seem fit at that time to
ask leave to
;
the following beguiling message for them, should they return That Mary land is a country dealing in tobacco and not in furs and as they have had
an invitation from the government of New York to settle in that province, they are advised that such parts as New York and Pennsylvania, which trade mostly in furs, will be the most proper for their abode. In answer to queries by the government in England, about 1760, the Governor stated that there were in the populous parts of Maryland only one hundred and twenty Indians. These lived on lands allotted them by the Assembly, and were
very orderly.
1753-1767.)
1 For slavery in Massachusetts, see the admirable work of Dr. George H. Moore (Appleton & Co., New York, 1866).
(Md. Arch.,
Ill,
534.
20
slave, an act of assembly declared that the king had no power to sell an Indian of another tribe, and that the said Indian
"
be
free,
baptism."
he speaking perfectly the English tongue and desiring This was about 1660. Some ten years later, the
term of service of Indian prisoners, sold by their Indian cap and not Christians, was fixed at twelve years and no longer, except children, who were to serve until thirty years of But, about ten years later still, all such Indian prisoners age. were declared slaves for life. 1
tors,
do not know how many Indian slaves there were in Maryland, for they were classed with the negro slaves. The Indian certainly was little suited to be a slave, by disposition and habit. 2
We
If
we
find
early records of Maryland, we are constantly meeting with white servants. 3 These Christian servants, as they were
were
Hening
as late as the
law of North Carolina, Statutes of Va., II, 155, 283, 491. war of 1760, provided that hostile Indians should be the
slaves of their captors. In South Carolina, especially, kidnapping seems to have been carried on but steps were taken to prevent it, afterwards.
;
captives taken in the wars, early in the eighteenth century, had to be delivered to the receiver of the Colony, to be sold in the West Indies.
Statutes of So. Car., II, 311, 321.) I, 91 of the Indian captives in the various Colonies seem to have been sold to the West Indies.
The
(Hewatt
2
So. Carolina,
Numbers
Any number
in the Colonies.
of Indian slaves would have been a very dangerous element Cotton Mather tells us that the colonists in Massachusetts
"
found certain Pequot Indian prisoners not able to endure the Yoke," for few of them continued any considerable time with their masters. Various acts of the New England Colonies, about 1712, forbade the further importation
of any Indian servants or slaves, as they were of a malicious, surly and re vengeful spirit, and hard to govern withal.
3
Where we
;
we mean
servants
not negroes.
21
tunes in the
mostly natives of Great Britain who wished to try their for New World, but had not means for their passage
and necessary expenses. So they entered into written agree ments with persons of means, to serve these faithfully for a
certain
number of
and living. The number of servants in Maryland seems have been quite large, some colonists bringing as many
1 hear of one who brought in twenty or thirty or more. were a desirable class in all the Colonies, over sixty. They
We
important in settling the country, and counterbalancing any danger from Indians and negroes. Persons already in
Am
for
some
offences
was
servitude.
To
injustice,
one of the
earliest
of service, where no time was specified in the agreement, and 2 It was fixed the freedom dues to be given by the master. later, that all agreements of service should be entered provided,
at the courts
;
and no indenture made during service was to be We have a copy of arti In return for six thousand
for three years, to
commands
not to
absent himself without permission ; and not to steal. On the other hand, the master agrees to provide sufficient lodging, It was found at once that food, clothing and washing.
servants would run away, so the courts were empowered to add to the time of service, to compensate the masters. The
entertainment of others servants was also strictly forbidden. 5 And when white servants ran away with slaves, they were obliged to recompense the owners of the slaves. After 1715,
7
Neill
Md.
Md. 3 Md.
Arch.,
80.
Arch.,
I,
352, 409
II, 351.
1715,44.
22
colonist
who should capture a runaway servant, and an Indian No servant could go beyond captor was given a match coat. ten miles from home without a pass from the master or over
seer,
One who
entertained a servant over night became liable to a fine of five hundred pounds of tobacco. Later, the fine was raised to one
hundred pounds an hour, or a whipping, if the fine could not be paid. Nor was a servant secure, if he escaped the Colony. On complaint from his owner, the courts would send him as slaves were returned. Treaties with Indians stipu back In 1637, lated that runaway servants were to be returned.
*
the question as to the privilege of servants to rest on Saturday afternoons, was raised in the lower House of Assembly, and
was declared that no such custom was to be allowed. 2 Working on Sunday, however, was not customary. By act
it
of 1715, masters
who
and lodging for their servants, or who unreasonably burdened them beyond their strength, or kept them from necessary rest, the whipping must not or beat or abused them excessively offence were liable, if found be over ten lashes for any one
guilty by the county court, to be fined not over one thousand pounds of tobacco for the first or second offence. On a third offence, the servants would be set free. Any magistrate, on
proper complaint of the master, might order a servant to Com receive more than ten, but not over thirty-nine, lashes.
plaints between masters
Provincial and county courts, on the petition of either party. As many goods were stolen and sold, trading was forbidden
with servants
It
is
who had no
license therefor.
evident that this service was radically different from slavery, in that it resulted either from crime or voluntary con On the expiration of his term the servant became a tract.
*Md. Arch., IV, 224, 319. Md. Arch., I, 21. Bozman s Maryland, 3 Md. Arch., I, 500; 1715,44.
2
II, 136.
23
years it was the law that acres of land should be included in the freedom dues, fifty lands being given masters for the servants they imported.
freeman and a
citizen.
For some
Some of
servant,
men.
We
find
an
advertisement of
he was to be
with him.
years to serve, with the postscript that sold for no fault, any more than we have done He can learn (i. e., teach) bookkeeping, and is an
scholar."
the servants imported by one of the most prominent colonists, one became a sheriff and five went into the Assembly. 2 This very same gentleman, the mil
excellent good
Of
commander of Maryland for many years, presented to the Governor and Assembly, in 1663, a petition which began with the statement that he had, for nearly thirty years, at great cost, benefited the Colony by yearly importations of ser
itary
of whom had been of "very good Ranck and nor had he ever before been charged with a Quallity breach of his promises or duty to them, though it was well known that the care of so large a family was never met by
vants,
many
"
It appears that this worthy captain had con several years before, to take as a servant for seven sented, years the ten-year-old daughter of a poor neighbor, at the neighbor s request. This fellow now falsely alleged that the
their labor.
captain had agreed that the girl should do nothing else than wait upon his wife, and be cared for as his own child a most
ridiculous charge, says the petition, for the lady was about to return to England, and who would be at the trouble of taking
such a raw and ill-bred child there, where servants of all sorts The petition then desires might be had on easier terms
!
Md.
Arch.,
s
I,
97, 496.
s
Gambrall
Founders, .77.
resident of Baltimore, appointed woodcorder in 1781, was found to have been a servant at the time when the oaths of allegiance to the States had been
taken, after separation from Great Britain. tered the oath before confirming him in his
24
may
not be
made a
a term, says the captain, so scandalous that if it be admitted to be the title or condition of the apprentices in
slave
over as servants.
He was a piece of property, In the inventories of estates, his services are practically. charged as worth so many hundred pounds of tobacco one man might own his services to-day, and another to-morrow. By a deed of bargain and sale, of 1641, a man-servant was sold from one colonist to another, in different hundreds, for four milch cows. The Provincial Court held that the agree ment of a servant to dispose of himself for the satisfaction of his master s debts was valid, and ordered execution on him, as on any goods. 2 About 1 700, the Governor and Council received a complaint from a certain inhabitant, that a servant of his, a schoolmaster, whom he had corrected for being impudent and refractory, had applied to a magistrate for a peace-warrant He declared that the servant had been insub against him. ordinate and had threatened to send his wife sprawling
not unlike that of the slave.
; ;
while the servant, in turn, accused his master of trying The Council considered the matter, and to break his head.
decided to order the magistrate not to countenance the servant, for it was not customary to allow servants to swear the peace
and it might be very inconvenient. against their masters Cases of cruelty to servants were sometimes before the courts.
1 Md. Arch., I, 463. The House, according to the captain ordered the case to be tried again. Do., 481.
request,
Md. Arch., IV, 156, 327. Council Proceedings, 1704-1708, 8. A letter from Gen. Oglethorpe to the trustees of Georgia, in 1739, tells how 69 "heads of German servants"
had been delivered to different persons on credit; one Christie got the widow Harris got 2, &c. heads
"
"5
25
When
felons, a
the English courts took up the policy of transporting convicts were sold as servants
vice had practically died out ; but it was a common custom at the time when slavery was planted in the Colonies. It must
have tended,
age, to
marked
class distinctions
of that
make smoother
CHAPTEE
SLAVES.
III.
When, and by whom, the first negroes were brought to Maryland, we do not know but it was soon after the settle ment. We find Governor Calvert bargaining with a certain
;
Mary
shipmaster, in 1642, for the delivery of thirteen slaves at St. 1 The increase of the blacks so much is certain s.
at
first.
One
of the
of the
first acts
people,"
the liberties of Assembly, declaring assured to all Christian inhabitants all the
"
rights enjoyed in England by natural born subjects, except, of course, in so far as those rights might be changed by pro vincial law and excepting slaves. And the early acts for
the regulation and protection of servants expressly stated that nothing contained in them should affect any slaves whatever.
The
rule in the courts was that justice should be administered, where provincial law or custom was silent, according to Eng lish precedent. The royal charter to Lord Baltimore had
ordered that the laws to be enacted in the Colony should be consonant to reason and, as far as conveniently might be, 2 But the agreeable to the rights and customs of England.
them from England no precedent any especial rights or privileges to Indian or negro nothing but the distance felt in that age between Christian and
first
for giving
I,
487
26
Slaves.
27
in
heathen.
if
any
Even
when
was no
legislation
We
British merchants, indeed, under the patronage of the British government, supplied the slaves; but the colonists otherwise built up their slave legislation as they saw fit. Just
as a nobility, an incident of the growth of English society, existed in England at the time of the settlement of the Col
onies and yet took no root in them, so slavery became an incident of the condition of the Colonies, and the slave codes grew up as a matter of local law. Thus, we can trace in
the legislation and in the court reports, and in the life of the plantation and the town, of such an unit as Maryland, the
entire
1 growth of a slave code.
We
tinction
use the word negro, or black, to include mulattoes. is to be drawn, the word mulatto is used.
Johjci
When
the dis
The
ies
legal
Codman Hurd
in
The Law
of
Freedom and Bondage (Little & Brown, Boston, 1858). The writer of a recent Constitutional History of England
was legalized
in the colonies
by British statutes encouraging the slave-trade. number of negroes were brought to England as servants, some of them from the colonies. An article in the Gentleman s Magazine of London, in
1764, speaks of the encouragement given to the practice of importing negro servants, and states that the number of such in London alone was supposed
In the famous Somerset case, eight years to be nearly twenty thousand. after, Mr. Dunning asserted that there were in England fourteen thousand
slaves brought from the colonies.
Even as late as that time, negroes were One negro boy in London brought thirty-
two pounds, at auction, and another, at Kichmond, brought the same. A boy was advertised to be sold at auction at Liverpool, in 1779. The visitor
Hampton Court or Warwick Castle, to-day, will see busts of black ser In 1677, there was tried in Eng vants, with metal collars about the neck. land a case of trover for one hundred negroes, and the court held that as
to
negroes were usually bought and sold among merchants, and were also infi dels, there might be property in them sufficient to maintain trover. As late
much
in
numbers
in the Colonies
before a most interesting question arose concerning them What was the effect on the status of a slave of his conversion
to Christianity ?
ter spread,
And the extent to which doubts on this mat and the length of time which those doubts lasted, show that the knowledge that a religious distinction was the basis of this chattel slavery was not confined to students of law alone. It was not unnatural that in popular belief free dom was associated with baptism. In the first case concerning
slaves, in
in which the court held would lie for the negro, as they were heathen the argument was advanced that in England negroes could be no more a property than villeins could. But the court said they were held as goods by usage, and should therefore be given to the plaintiff, until they become Christians, and thereby they
that trover
"
are
Infranchised."
During the
session of the
Maryland Assem
bly of .1664, a message was sent the Council by the House, requesting the former to draw up an act which should oblige
negroes to serve for life, the assembly thinking this very neces sary to prevent the damage that masters of slaves might sus tain by such slaves pretending to be christened, and so pleading the law of England. 1 And so a law was made that all negroes
as 1694
lie for
;
heathen.
public opinion changed so far as to support Lord Mansfield in his decision in the Somerset case, by which slavery in England ended. The abolition of slavery in the British colonies was brought about only after further and
arduous
mead
See Taswell-Langefforts by the abolitionists and philanthropists. Const. History of England, p. 300, note. British Statutes 10 Will., 23 Geo., II, c. 31. Bandinel s Slave Trade, p. Ill, c. 26 ; 5 Geo., II, c. 7 71, note. Gentleman s Mag., XXXIII, 45, XLI, 521. Memoirs of Granville
s
; ;
Sharp, I, 140. Cases of Butts vs. Penny and Gelly & Cleve, quoted in Hurd. In the colonies, as we see, ideas of English law were often very uncertain. 1 Butts vs. Penny, in 3 Keble, 785. Md. Arch., I, 526-533. In Chamber-
layne vs. Harvey, twenty years later, the question as to whether baptism was a manumission was raised, but the court gave no answer, holding that
trover would not lie for a negro.
In Carthew
s E.,
396.
Slaves.
29
seven years later, by an act entitled an Act for the Encourageing the Importacon of Negros and Slaves/ which declared that conversion or the holy sacrament of baptism should not
be taken to give manumission in any way to slaves or their issue, who had become or should become Christians, or had been
or should be baptized, either before or after their importation to Maryland, any opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. Be
good people of this Province have been discouraged from importing or purchasing therein any negroes or other slaves and such as have imported or pur chased any there have neglected to the great displeasure of Almighty God and the prejudice of the souls of those poor people to instruct them in the Christian faith, and to permit them to receive the holy sacrament of baptism for the remis sion of their sin, under the mistaken and ungrounded appre hension that their slaves, by becoming Christians, would So the law remained. To a question of thereby be freed. the Lords of Trade as to the number of negroes converted to
cause, as the act says, several of the
;
1
Christianity,
he
many
covetousness,"
and mulattoes
work when
as
much
to be baptized of an idea that baptism would loss to them as the death of their slaves ; but
this opinion
became current
in
declaring that as in former times the baptism of villeins in England was not taken to be manumission or enfranchise
ment, so
toes.
it
And
should not then be taken to free negroes and mulat there have been found good effects since, adds the
proprietor, masters generally being willing to instinct these 2 in the faith of Christ. find little else in Maryland to
We
1 Md. Arch., II, 272. Keenacted manent act of 1715 (44). 2 Md. Arch., V, 267.
30
throw
light
a native of Madagascar, who had been a servant in England, and had then been shipped to America as a servant, was
On petitioning for freedom 1692 which was given him, the court finding that he had been shipped as a servant only his plea was that he had been baptized and educated and had served two apprentice We ships, and was therefore free by the laws of England.
detained as a slave in Maryland.
in
Thomas Story publicly reproaching a clergy of the English church, at a yearly meeting of Friends at West River, in 1699, for taking negroes into the brother
find the zealous
man
hood of Christ
in
idea that baptism implied freedom seems to have lin gered long in all the Colonies, even where there was direct
legislation to the contrary.
The
In 1729,
colonists
in response to
an appeal
According
Prov. Court, Liber C, 162. Janney s History of the Friends, III, 66. to that zealous missionary of the time, Rev. Dr. Bray, the whites of Maryland abstained largely from baptism themselves.
This opinion seems to have been especially called for in Rhode Island. of Berkeley, Vol. III. See, also, Pearne vs. Lisle, Ambler s R., 75. In Virginia there was enacted, in 1667, that baptism did not give freedom, so that divers masters, freed from doubt, might endeavor to spread Chris tianity among the blacks. By the Act of 1670, all servants not Christians and imported by sea, were to serve for life. But this was changed twelve years later, having been found inconvenient in preventing the introduction of slaves from neighboring colonies inasmuch, we read, as many Negroes, Moors and others, born in heathenish, idolatrous and Mahometan countries, have been gotten as slaves therefrom by some well disposed Christians, who have then brought them to the Christian religion, out of a pious zeal, and have since had occasion, or may have occasion, to bring them into Virginia to be sold where they can sell them only for the limited time of service of a white Christian servant, and must then either carry them elsewhere, where
Works
life,
Slaves.
31
Until a few years only before slavery was abolished, the old religious distinction that underlay that institution was The testimony of still to be read in one law of Maryland.
no negro or Indian would be received as evidence at law in was con any case in which any Christian white person cerned. The word Christian was struck out in 1846. The clever political student Bodin, writing in 1576 of slav like ery in Southern Europe, noted with some reproach that the Mahometans, who converted but still kept in bonds their Christian prisoners the Portuguese and Spaniards were keep in perpetual slavery the Moors and negroes whom they ing had taken as heathen but had converted. * In Maryland and the other Colonies there was probably no widespread and seri
"
"
dren of enslaved Indians or Africans, whether heathen or Chris tian. Thus slavery was based on a race distinction ; though we
them, to their great damage, and to the great discouragement of the impor
tation of slaves.
(Hening
Statutes, 1667, 3
1670, 12
1682, 1.)
About
1700, there appeared in print in New England an earnest plea for the relig ious instruction of the negroes and Indians. The writer, who says he does not know why freedom should follow conversion, asks what hindrance there
It is a notorious matter of fact, he jtp the baptism of those people. answers, that masters discourage those poor creatures and hinder them from coining to baptism, though many desire it. Talk to a planter of the soul of
is
black
a negro, and his actions, if not his words, will tell you that the body of the may be worth twenty pounds, but the souls of a hundred will not yield
him dom
lish
a farthing.
after they
The
true reason
Christians.
is,
become
(Moore
that custom of giving them their free s Slavery in Mass., 93.) An Eng
clergyman in Carolina, in 1709, wrote to the secretary of the Society few of the two hundred and more negroes in his neighborhood were taught of the Christian religion, but their masters would by no means permit them to be baptized, from a false notion that a slave is thereby freed, by law. Another missionary wrote, soon after, that he had with much importunity prevailed on a certain person to allow him to baptize three of the negroes. (Hawk s North Carolina, II, 310, So fixed had these ideas become in Rhode Island, as stated by Bishop 332.) Berkeley in a sermon at London, in 1732, that but few negroes there had been baptized. 1 Common weale, Knolles Trans., 43.
32
must be
were thinking of material prosperity. Most of those who theorized on the subject, echoed, without doubt, the voice of
that
New England writer, who appealed for the religious instruction of the negroes Some persons, nay, some nations, he says, seem to be born for slaves ; particularly many of the
:
barbarians of Africa,
beginning of the world, and who are much better off when slaves among us than when free at home, to cut throats and
eat one another, especially if by slavery of the made capable of freeing their souls. 1
However
may have
"
as sharply in
negroes Maryland at first as it was afterwards although and other slaves," as we read in the old acts, were certainly deemed a most abject class. As an illustration of this, as well as of the newness of many questions which the few legis lators at St. Mary s had to answer, we place here several laws, which might properly be considered also under the head of In drawing up the act of 1664, to crimes and punishments.
prevent slaves from pleading freedom by baptism, the Council asked the lower House what it intended should become of
women of the English or other Christian nations as married negroes or other slaves should they serve as long as their husbands lived, and should their issue be bond or free?
such free
;
Suits
had evidently
House
that
women
not serve during their husbands lives, and that their children should serve to thirty years of age. But the act, which was soon passed reciting that divers freeborn English women,
their nation, forgetful of their condition and to the disgrace of
Moore
about 1700.
Slaves.
33
intermarried with negro slaves declared, that such women as so marry thereafter should serve the slaves masters so might
long as the slaves lived, and that children of such marriages already made should serve until they were thirty years old, but that the children of such marriages made thereafter should be
slaves
"as
their fathers
By the act of 1681, children women and negroes were free. 2 After union between any white woman and any
were/
3
slave or free negro became servants for a long term. By the act of 1715, ministers and magistrates were forbidden, by fine, to marry any white to any Negro whatsoever, or Mulatto
"
Slave."
and a free mulatto could marry. two years later, to provide penalties against the And an act, parties marrying unlawfully, under this act of 1715, made a
By
this, a white
free
toes
Jfor
negro or mulatto liable to service for life except mulatborn of white women, who had to serve, like the whites, 4 Again, by act of 1728, free mulatto only seven years.
and that
This act declared that "Negroes or other slaves" should serve for life, all children born of any Negro or other slave shall be Slaves as There must have been their FFATHERS were for the terme of their lives."
"
then no free blacks in the colony or we are left to reason that children followed the condition of the father instead of the mother, entirely con
(Md. Arch., I, 526, 533.) The act trary to custom, as we find it later. of 1681 declared simply that all children of slaves were to serve for life.
2
The mother
was
also
became
free
riage,
3
and her master, if he knew of the mar pounds of tobacco, and so was the min
the service. (Acts of 1681, W. H., 174.) white woman who married, or became with child by, a slave or free negro, became a servant for seven years, to the use of the parish clergy or the poor. If a servant and if her master had not known of her offence, she first recompensed his loss by service. The black
ister or magistrate
who performed
By
served for
life, except that a free black, for having a bastard child by a white woman, served seven years. There was the same heavy fine against the master who allowed such a marriage and against the person who per formed it. And there was, also, the provision that any white man who
to service for
(1692, L. L. 220.) 4 Service for seven years at the disposition of the county court, for the benefit of the public schools. By act of 1715, the fine against minister or
34
The Negro
in
Maryland.
"
by negroes and other slaves" were to be the same penalty as white punished by women for the same offence which was /declared to be as
children
heinous for a free mulatto as for a white. 1 t/So, the act of 1717, which remained the law of evidence for a long period, ex
cluded the testimony of any Indian or slave or free negro or mulatto servant, in cases at law in which any Christian white person was concerned, but left the free mulatto, apparently
the free mulatto born of a white
testify as
woman,
surely
as free to
was a white. 2
all slaves,
Africans might be more or less colored, but they were not And kidnapping came to be recognized of course.
magistrate was made 5,000 pounds of tobacco. Any white woman who became a mother by a slave or free negro had to serve seven years, as The children of such before, and the free black served the same time. unions served until thirty -one years old. There was, also, the same service
of seven years for white men, the fathers of illegitimate colored children. All service was disposed of by the courts. (1715, 44; 1717, 13.) 1 All free negro women, also, having illegitimate children by white men,
were
liable to the
same punishment
as white
women
for
having children by
"
negroes. Forasmuch, says the preamble, as such relations, as between a free mulatto woman and a slave, or a free negro woman and a white, are as unnatural and inordinate as between white women and Negro Men, or
other
2
Slaves."
(1728, 4.)
See Evidence, in chapter on The Free Negro. In 1788, a committee of the House of Delegates reported in favor of abolishing those parts of these laws which inflicted penalties on the chil dren. Two years later, they were abolished it being contrary to the dic
1717, 13.
;
tates of
humanity, and
preamble
to the principles of the Christian religion, says the of the act of repeal, to impose penalties on children for the
offences of their parents. (1790, 9. Code of 1860, Art. 30, 128.) Several cases, under these laws, came to the Court of Appeals.
In 1681, the Lord Proprietor brought with him to Maryland a white servant called Irish Nell. She married a slave, evidently before the pas
sage of the act of 1681. Perhaps indeed the act was called for by this marriage. The descendants of those children of Nell, born after the act
which exempted from servitude the children of such marriages made there afterpetitioned in vain for freedom. See 1 H. & McH., 210; 2 H. & McH., 137. Also 3 H. & McH., 380. The cases cited from the Maryland Reports down to 2 Gill, are from Brantly s edition.
Slaves.
35
a crime, by custom if not by positive leg evident that the status of a black, or of could not often be easily shown. his ancestry, The chief justice of Calvert county was asked by the Gov
by
all authorities as
1
islation.
But
it
is
ernor and Council of Maryland, in 1760, to examine carefully one Cousins, captain of a brigantine, who had recently im
ported a
just declared that they were not slaves but freemen ; that one of them in particular, called Capt. Gray, was the son of an Afri
had had
See, therefore, ends the let treacherously stolen them away. ter, if Cousins be guilty of the crime whereof he is accused ;
have him brought before the depositions of the mates, a boatswain and a sailor of the brigantine, were soon sent to the Council. The seaman testified that he had sailed from Liverpool with Cousins on a slaving voyage to Guinea, and that there the negroes were purchased ; all of whom he believes were slaves, This Gray, he except, perhaps, the one called Captain Gray.
and
if the
evidence be
sufficient,
Council at once.
The
The Massachusetts Body of Liberties, of 1641, restricted slavery ex to lawful captives taken in just war, and to such cept, of course, for crime strangers as might be sold to, or might willingly sell themselves to, the col
1
onists.
A few years after, a kidnapped negro from Africa was sent home, by order of the General Court which felt bound, so reads the resolution, to
against
bear witness
the
"heinous
and crying
sin
of
man-stealing."
(Moore
Slavery in Mass.)
last
The
century
and improving the trade to Africa, at which declared that trade to be very advan
tageous to Great Britain, and necessary for supplying the Colonies with suffi cient negroes at reasonable rates provided that no master of a ship trading
in Africa should by force or fraud, or any indirect practice, carry away from that country any native thereof, or allow any violence to be committed on the natives in prejudice of the British trade. (23 Geo. II, 31.) In 1779 a captain of a Liverpool slaver was prosecuted by the African company for
having sold a free negro, whom he had hired as a sailor. He was fined five hundred pounds, as a warning to the other commanders engaged in the trade. (Macpherson s Annals of Commerce, III, 638.)
36
understood, had been a servant to a freeman on the coast of Guinea, and was employed by his master in carrying slaves out to the ships. While thus at work, he stole a scarlet jacket
to
go on shore
afterwards, but offered to return him if another slave were But those to whom this offer was made refused given for him.
to
exchange him, saying that he was a scandal to his country, and they would not give for him a slave four feet high. The seaman further stated that he had heard that servitude was the
common punishment
The mates
and boatswain swore that Gray was not only taken in theft, but had been concerned afterwards in cutting the ship s cable, and so endangering her loss and that the other negroes in question had been left on the ship as pledges by the traders, for some seven weeks or more before she sailed, without any offers to redeem them, and that as many goods had been given The Council deemed the com for them as for other slaves. and Captain Cousins was discharged. A plaints groundless,
;
woman
held,
it
so
hap
came before the General Court of Mary pened, by a parish The fact was admitted, without question on land in 1796. either side, that the petitioner was descended from a negro
been imported many years before from Mad counsel for the petitioner claimed that the act agascar. which stated that all slaves imported, and their issue, should
be slaves, related to those brought from countries whence slaves A person brought from any were customarily exported. country where the slave trade was not carried on, and sold in Maryland, would not lawfully be a slave. Madagascar was not a place whence slaves were usually brought; and Vol. 6 of the World Displayed was cited. On the other hand, the
"
"
counsel for the parish quoted three works of geography and travel, in which there was stated that in Madagascar the petty
kings
make war on
The court dis are accustomed to sell slaves to Europeans. missed the petition, holding that, as Madagascar was a country
Slaves.
37
where the slave trade was practised, and Maryland was one where slavery was tolerated, the petitioner, in order to receive her freedom, would have to show that her ancestor was free in
her native country.
1
its successors declaring the children ; act^qf 1664 and dicT not operate, to quote the General of slaves to be~slaves, Court of Maryland in a decision in 1799, to make all negroes
The
but merely created a presumption that they were such, which presumption could be rebutted. 2 There was growing up slowly, during the eighteenth century, from manumission
slaves,
If one parent or free ancestry, a small free black population. of a child was free and the other was a slave, the status of the
child
as
under
Roman law
The
many
1837.
existence of slavery in Maryland was stated plainly in acts of assembly and in a constitutional amendment of
But, as the courts in some of the free States began to require owners of fugitive slaves to prove the existence of slavery in the State where the slaves belonged, an act of 1839
Maryland from the earliest settlement, negroes and might be thereafter held as such, as the property of their and mulattoes had been held as slaves, and were then held owners and that the owner of any slave was entitled to his service during his life, unless the slave could show that by the grant or devise of his owner, or of some former owner of his or of his maternal ancestor, a shorter period of service had been prescribed. A negro was presumed to be a slave. If he petitioned for freedom, the question to be tried was his
declared that in
;
slavery.
right thereto, not the right of his master to hold him in The slave must bear the burden of proof. JN^or was the fact that a negro went at large and acted as a freeman,
free.
3 H.
&
McH.,
278.
2
3
4H. &McH.,193.
6 G.
&
J.,
86
9 G.
&
J.,
112, 127.
See chapter on
Manu
38
1^671 and^l 692-declared that the children of slaves seen, were slaves, and that conversion did not affect slavery were entitled, acts to encourage the importation of negroes, and
acts of the
The
Assembly of Maryland of
which, as
we have
were passed because several of the good people of the Province had been discouraged, so we read, from importing them. But the number of those brought in was small, until about the beginning of the eighteenth century. Governor Nicholson wrote the Board of Trade, in 1698, that some six hundred servants had recently been imported and four or five hundred 2 There is men negroes were expected during the summer. tion of some three hundred slaves brought into Patuxent Bay in August, 1700. The Board of Trade in London was
1
constantly asking after the state of the slave importations. The Governor of Maryland wrote, in 1708, that the trade
had been rising and was then a high one that some six or seven hundred blacks had been imported in the ten months 3 Two years later, came word that the negroes were past. The Public Record Office in London has a list increasing. of the Christian men, women and children and also of 4 in Maryland, in 1712. The whites numbered negro slaves,
"
"
"
"
In the same way we find early laws of South Carolina declaring that negroes are necessary for the development of that Province. prominent member of the Massachusetts Bay Company wrote his
brother-in-law, the elder Winthrop, in speaking of the Narrragansett In if upon a Just Warre the Lord should deliver dians, about 1645, that
"
easily have men woemen and children exchange for Moores, (i. e. negroes) which wilbe more gayneful pilladge for us than wee conceive, for I doe not see how wee can thrive untill wee get into a stock of slaves sufficient to doe all our buisines, for our children s children will hardly see this great Continent filled with people, soe that our servants will still desire freedom to plant for them And I suppose you know selves, and not stay but for verie great wages. verie well how wee shall maynteyne 20 Moores cheaper than one Englishe
them
we might
enough
servant."
(Moore
s
2 3
Steven
and
5.
Records from the London Office, quoted in Scharf * Steven s Index, vol. 8. Scharf, I, 377.
Maryland,
I,
376.
Slaves.
39
nearly thirty-eight thousand, the negroes over eight thousand. In three of the southern counties, the blacks far outnumbered
the whites.
fast,
750, thejwjiites v have been nearly a hundred thousand, the blacks nearly m may ftiumftmtn^fffimMHitiHMnf tTnr 1 In 1790, there were over two hundred and forty thousand.
By
MigffmHHmHtfff>f^>9>
eigKt thousand whites, and nearly half as eight thousand and odd free blacks making white to black as less than two to one.
many
slaves; the
the proportion of
The great staple of colonial Maryland, as of Virginia, wasj/ tobacco. The Governor of Virginia wrote of the tobacco
trade, in 1726, as the one
Colonies subsisted.
by which the governments of the Tobacco was the common currency. Cot
ton seems to have been planted somewhat before 1700, but it was spoken of by one high official to another as prejudicial to
the planting of tobacco and the King s interest. So great was the production of tobacco that efforts were made by the colo nial authorities both to improve the staple by more limited
and to turn the interests of men to other things but it was hard to make men agree to the first, and to both aims the policy of the mother country was bitterly opposed. Hardly had a generation passed, after the foundation of the Colony,
crops,
hemp
little
and
flax,
But
it
was
use to urge men to work the iron ore, ment, encouraging the exportation of pig iron from the Colo nies to England, forbade in them the erection of any furnace
By 1750, the trade of Maryland, chiefly in to was carried on by British vessels of some twelve thou sand tons, total burden the shipping of the Province being
or"
forge.
bacco,
Among
:
some ten years later, by the authorities in England to the Council of Maryland was the question are there any trades or
1
The
very untrustworthy.
early estimates of population in the Colonies seem as a rule to be must take them as approximations.
We
40
manufactures in Maryland which are hurtful or may prove hurtful to Great Britain and, if so, how may they be sup
;
And in reply we read, that the chief branch of trade was the importation of goods and manu factures from Great Britain, supposed to be worth annually
pressed, divided or restrained?
sixty thousand pounds, and, in an annual export of about twenty-eight thousand return, hogsheads of tobacco, bringing to the producers and the mer chants together, before it reached the English markets, nearly
three hundred thousand pounds. Perhaps eighty thousand worth of other produces were shipped corn, wheat, pounds pig iron, skins, lumber, &c. This trade was carried on in
vessels of eighteen thousand boats belonging in the Province numbered about thirty only, of thirteen hundred tons in all, and had been mostly engaged in the West India trade ; but
burden.
The
that trade had not been very profitable, and there was little As to manufactures or trades in probability of its increase.
the Province which might be hurtful to Great Britain, there were none. 1
Even
we must remember,
the bulk of
the population of these Southern Colonies had not gone far from the coast. Maryland, like Virginia, had been well
For years suited for agriculture in its physical characteristics. the settlements had been mostly dotted along tidewater, plan
Endeavors made to tation after plantation, with few towns. build large towns and ports by act of assembly were far from
successful.
ers
2
The
flat fields
and
creeks.
short
row
would
Up these neighbors miles of travel over wretched roads. the planters the man inlets came the British vessels, to give to ufactures that he seldom saw otherwise, and to take away the
1
1761,
316
As
6,
Slaves.
41
tobacco and breadstuffs from the very fields where they were
raised.
British ships brought not only the manufactures, but The colonists themselves were anxious, at first, as the slaves.
The
In how far they were seen, for supplies of blacks. influenced by ideas that black labor was cheap and advantag
we have
eous labor, peculiarly suited to those flat coast lands, hot and malarial in summer ; or in how far competition between these
tobacco regions may have really ruled out any other labor, we do not venture to answer. 1 I But to the British, the slave trade only supplemented the policy of discouragement of manufac Acts of Parliament, at tures and encouragement of tobacco.
the beginning and middle of the eighteenth century, encour aged it as highly beneficial to both mother country and colo
nies
Crown, hundred and ninety negroes imported into Maryland from 1699 to 1707, 2 all but a hundred and twenty-six came in London vessels. Towards the close of the seventeenth century the public charges of the Province had been growing burdensome. Eiforts were
;
and
it
was pursued
Of
the twenty-two
The seat being made to increase the facilities for education. In 1689 war broke of government was moved to Annapolis.
out between Great Britain and France, to bring new burdens on the Colonies threatened by French and Indians. The same
The
introduction of slavery into Georgia suggests most interesting ques The only labor allowed in Georgia, by the rules of the
labor.
Trustees of the Colony, for some twenty years after the settlement, was white Many considerations, as the nearness of hostile Spaniards and In
and the unfavorable character of part of the settlers, prevent any hasty answers but climate, especially in the production of rice in the low lands, and the fact that the same produces could be bought much cheaper
dians,
;
on the Carolina side than on the Georgia side of the Savannah, were cer
tainly strong influences on those Georgians, by far the great majority of authorities and citizens, who finally secured the introduction of black labor.
2
office,
quoted in Scharf
Md.,
I,
377.
42
pay
imported liquors, to discharge the arrears of government, to soldiers, to repair courthouses and prisons, and for other
Two years later this was continued, and a duty was charges. laid further on several commodities exported, as furs, beef and The next bacon, for the maintenance of the free schools.
year, in addition, a duty of threepence a hogshead was put on tobacco, for a year ; and ten per cent, on all European com
"
modities
"
exported, for three years ; as well as a tax on cer Over three hundred pounds had then to be
sent towards the support of the colonial forces in New York. It was then when the Province was so destitute of ready
money,
to
pay the
soldiers in
arms
for
its
defence, that a
mem
sums
first
ber of the
House of Delegates
from the treasury that the was laid on slaves imported, and on white servants, duty
too.
declared for ten shillings a head on negroes ; all agreed on two shillings sixpence for servants. The receipts were thereupon to be applied to the building of a statehouse and other expenses. should note that at the
We
was passed an act to restrain large assem blages of negroes. There were rumors of movements by papists and negroes it is interesting to note how European politics were reflected in the Colonies, often amounting only to a little talk, and some legislation. At the next session the duty on both negroes and Irish servants was made twenty shillings a head with a penalty of five pounds on any smuggling merchant or shipmaster to raise supplies and to limit the importation of Irish papists. The full title of the act of 1704, which con tinued this, was an Act for imposing threepence a gallon on
session, there
"and twenty Shillings per poll for Negroes, for raising a Supply to defray the public charge of this Province ; and twenty shillings per poll on Irish Servants, to prevent the im
same
liquors,
porting too great a Number of Irish papists into this Province." But by act of the same session, liquors and negroes could be
1
1692, 22
Slaves.
43
imported without duty in vessels owned wholly by residents of Maryland, to encourage the inhabitants to adventure their In 1715 the same exemption was ships abroad more freely.
offered, in addition, for Irish servants
sels.
was
additional duty of four pounds a head laid on Irish servants and on negroes, for the old reasons ;
but this act met with the dissent of the Lord Proprietor. So the next Assembly laid twenty shillings more a head on them,
making the total duty forty shillings, except for those imported in home vessels. So the duty remained for years, except that after 1728, home vessels had to pay half duty and after 1732,
;
Protestant servants from Ireland could be imported free, as from elsewhere. 1 These duties were to be laid on all importa
tions,
Mary
land,
to
who owned
Maryland
slaves in other colonies, and persons coming to settle as complaint was made of the hardship
such persons had to suffer through the duties 2 to import their servants free, if not for sale.
were allowed
We
have no grounds
for
negroes were laid for any other reason than that given in the acts the payment of public charges. But by the middle of the century there was evidently some opposition rising to the
further large importation of them.
frontier,
nor was
its
its citizens the anxieties which were felt South Carolina, where the laws, which had not long since
Proceedings of House, May, 1695; 1695, ch. 9; 1696,7; 1699,23; 1704, 9,67; 1715,36; 1716,6; 1717,10; 1728,8; 1732,23. After 1735, no duty had to be paid for any servant or slave who might die, or be exported by the importer, within three months after importation. (1735, 6.) When the House of Commons asked, in 1736, for the laws in force by which duties were laid on various articles of trade, the Governor of Maryland answered, for negroes, forty shillings. This evidently referred to the duty for those imported on English vessels and the home commerce, as we have seen,
;
amounted
2
to little.
1721,
9.
44
spoken of the need of black labor, now called for whites, and
ascribed
"
afflicting
But when, during the French and providence of God." Indian war, the Maryland Assembly argued with many words the expediency of requiring indentured white servants to do
military duty, as called for by the Governor, one objection thereto was that the importation of servants would decrease,
for planters would import ject to military duty.
more
blacks,
who were
never sub
When a country, answered the Gover is in nor, danger of being lost to the enemy, it is no time for its government to enter into critical dissertations as to whether
the enlistment of servants
may
tion of them, for planting, and to increase that of slaves. In 1754 new duties were laid, to meet the demands for
His
Majesty
s service in
pedler
had
pay four pounds for his license; each wheel of a carriage owner five shillings a year twenty shillings a head was put on all servants imported, to serve for seven years or more, and five shillings on most others. On negroes, ten shil When larger lings a head was added to the existing forty. had to be met, later, some new duties were laid. The expenses duty on servants for long terms was abolished, and twenty 2 When additional shillings per head was put on negroes. these new duties ceased, a year after the war ended, there was laid a duty of two pounds a head on negroes, over and above
to
cost the
the
still
Council Records, 1756, 90. Among the provisions of this act were a tax of 5 shillings a year on all 100 to unmarried men worth from 300, and 20 shillings on those of from greater means for every billiard table, 3 for every horse imported any colony for sale, a duty of 40 shillings a tax of 1 shilling on every 100
2
; ;
;
owned by
papists,
who paid
2 shil
1763, 28.
The
acts 1715, 36
force.
So the
was eighty
was applied
to the schools.
Slaves.
45
person coming to Maryland to live, from any part of the King s dominions, could bring in his servants free. And the
duty would be remitted also on slaves exported within two months. Eight years later, in 1771, there was placed a fur ther additional duty of five pounds a head excepting, as
by persons coming to settle, and on importations those exported within four months excepting land or water. This ceased in 1778, but within two years, by under pressure of war, taxes and duties were rated anew. As
before, those brought in before, nothing
to be paid on slaves brought in, not for Otherwise, there was a sale, by persons coming to reside. of fifteen pounds on every slave who had lived in the duty
had
States for full three years, and of five hundred pounds on 1 After two years, in 1782, as enough of the every other.
required funds had been raised by taxes and sales of State as those on iron and property, some of these new duties
were taken off; and it was declared that all tobacco exported those on imports should cease as soon as Congress should lay
the expected duty of five per cent., except the duty on slaves. And at the same session the tax rate on all property was
2 The next year when the favorable con reduced by a third. dition of the State finances allowed the removal of the extra
was duties and taxes laid for redeeming the bills of credit the act which forbade the introduction by land or passed
United States and should actually live Maryland there a year, could bring in any slaves who had belonged to him elsewhere if they had been in the country for three The previous whereabouts of the slave was to be fully years.
water of any slave for
sale.
citizen of the
to
to live,
proven
1
to the collector.
This act (1780, 8,) is entitled an Act for sinking the quota of Maryland of the bills of credit issued by Congress. It put a duty, also, on iron and tobacco exported, a tax on marriage licenses, &c., &c. The title of 1771
(7)
2
is
Payment under
1780,
46
in the State.
exempted, but they could not remain indefinitely, or be sold And any slave imported contrary to law was to
be
set free.
1
The number of
blacks had
grown
to be
about
eighty thousand, nearly a half of the number of whites. They had increased faster than the whites during the preced ing decade, if we may trust the estimates of population.
wishes of the Colonies, now the States, had changed during the century. The result of the change is well known how negroes were forced on the southern Colonies despite
The
frequent remonstrance from some of them by the mother 2 Virginia had been foremost in remonstrance, and country.
now forbade all slave trade from without her borders, in 1778. The Maryland Act of 1783 was much the same as this Vir
ginia
fresh
Act of 1778; but the high duty of 1780 on negroes from abroad was practically a prohibition of the foreign trade. Aside from the duties, we find no remonstrance against the slave trade on the part of the colonial Assemblies of Mary
Later, when the question of the prohibition of the foreign trade was before Congress, the Assembly of Maryland resolved, in 1805, that their senators and representatives
land.
Congress, when
all
an amendment to the Constitution, by which it was deemed expedient, could put an end to And the same resolution was sent to further importation.
the Governors of all the States, with the request that it be laid before the different Legislatures, for their concurrence and adoption. Again, the next year, similar messages were sent
the Maryland congressmen, declaring the prohibition of the 3 slave trade to be a most desirable measure.
1783, 23
bill against
passed.
2
3
Scharf s History of Maryland, III, 291, says that importation was presented in the House in 1767, but was not The manuscript Journals of Assembly do not give any session
;
1782, 29.
that year.
1805,11,12; 1806,6,
14.
Slaves.
47
The old duty of forty shillings was not collected, as we have seen, on slaves brought into Maryland by citizens who had estates in other colonies or by persons about to become But all importations had to be entered at the cus residents. and no slave could be sold for three years. The act of toms, 1783 allowed importation to residents only, and limited it then, to slaves who had been in the country for some time, and who were not for sale. But some fault was soon found
with such sweeping
restrictions.
lands in Maryland asked leave of the Assembly to bring in some of their slaves from Virginia, to cultivate bill in their favor passed the House but was those lands.
who owned
For
were similarly defeated. One citizen of Maryland, who had married a Virginian who held slaves in trust, and had
in
also carried certain slaves into Virginia, received permission The 1791, by a special act, to import all these slaves.
Senate then urged upon the House a bill amending the law of 1783. Should we reciprocate, reads their message, the
privileges given by Virginia, and allow Virginians to bring their slaves over the Potomac, under careful restrictions,
"
surely
no
"
to
Maryland.
by so that citizens of Maryland holding land, eight to seventeen in their own or in their wives rights, in Virginia, Delaware or Pennsylvania, and owning slaves employed on those lands, might bring these slaves into Maryland, to be worked for their benefit, and not to be sold and provided, further, that
7 ;
Whereupon
the
bills
a vote of thirty-
the slaves were residents, or children of residents, of the States mentioned, before 1783. Citizens might bring in, also, any such slaves acquired by inheritance or marriage in other
States.
And
To prevent fraud, bring in their slaves, to cultivate these. the slaves as well as the title to them, if acquired by inheri tance or marriage had to be recorded in all cases at the county
office
;
to
and
fro,
at the
48
The next
been living in Delaware for two years, obtained an act to allow him to bring back the negroes he had taken away with him, and their issue. The proprietors
of several iron works which lay near together on both sides of the Potomac, were allowed to carry back and forth male
slaves used on the works, provided that no Virginia slaves should be sold in Maryland unless under fieri facias. Slaves 2 could also be carried to and fro, by certain parties, between
would become
were
settled
free.
by a provision, of 1794, that residence of a year in Maryland, by persons coming there to settle, was not neces
sary before slaves could be imported but no slaves or their increase, so brought in, could be sold until the importer had
;
lived in
sition
Maryland
to
by Maryland by citizens of the United States only. In 1792, some of the French inhabitants of the West India Islands So a new law5 fled from the revolutions there to Maryland.
declared that such French subjects who should settle in Mary land during the disturbances at home might retain their slaves, but the number that they could keep, after the expiration of a
will or at law.
for three years, barring the case of dispo 4 Since 1783, slaves could be brought
year from their coming, was limited to five domestic servants to the master of a family, and three to a single man ; while
House Journals,
1792, 45, 48.
1787, p. Ill;
to
2
3
1792, 75.
1794, 43. 1792, 56.
was passed
by Va.
* 5
five years later, the authorities of Baltimore were authorized to rid the city of any of these slaves who might be deemed dangerous to the peace; for it was said that many of
See also 4 H. & McH., 143. When the act was repealed,
suspicion.
(1797, 75.)
Slaves.
any surplus
men
number
for their
When
the
own use, but could not dispose of them. House of Delegates received petitions in 1795
from certain residents of Charles and Prince George s coun in the law so as to allow the introduction of ties, for changes slaves by land, we presume the committee reported that upon principles of policy," to an entire they were opposed, of the law, but advised that it be made more clear and repeal In the next year a petition was received from a cit explicit.
"
might bring back to Maryland mother had carried away, and in whom he had certain rights. It was found that the slave had been removed during the infancy of the petitioner, at a time when he could give no consent. The committee, again, and this The act of 1796, time with success, urged a general law. in many ways, long remained the law, reiterated the which,
a negro
whom
his
prohibition of the importation of any slave by land or water, for sale declaring, as before, that such slaves should be
thereby free
to
coming any slaves which they owned at the time of their removal, if the slave or the mother of the slave had resided in the United States for three whole years previous but neither the slaves
;
but provided that citizens of the United States, Maryland to settle, could bring in within a year
by process at law Maryland for three years. Travelers had to carry their ser If a slave were carried away by vants away with them. any
person during the infancy
of,
of,
the
time.
owner might bring the slave back at any resident of Maryland, possessed by inheritance, in
House Journal, Nov., 1795, pp. 6-29; 1796, 57, &c. Acts of 1796, ch. As to freedom from importation, the Court of Appeals held, in 1820, that this applied to voluntary importation on the master s part only. 5 H.
67.
D
rr\
50
his own or his wife s right, of lands in an adjoining State, and of slaves used on those lands, might bring the slaves into Maryland to his own land, for his own benefit and not for sale. Conversely, a resident of an adjoining State possessed by inheritance of lands in Maryland and the owner of slaves at home, might import the slaves, to work them on those 1 In both cases, the slaves must have been resi lands only.
before 1783.
dents, or descendents of residents, of the States in question, And careful record had to be made, within
office.
2
been properly recorded, they might be removed as often as the owner should choose without repeated record. Any citi
zen of Maryland who acquired property, by marriage, bequest, in course of distribution or as guardians, in any slave who was a resident, or the descendant of a resident, of the United
might remove such slave into Maryland for the purpose only of employment for his own benefit, and Such slaves had also to be properly recorded not for sale. and they could not be sold for three years. Over twenty 3 years later, there was added the condition, that slaves so
States before 1783,
;
imported should be used by the importer only in his own immediate service and not for any other purpose whatever. 4 By a supplementary act of 1797, executors and administra
tors of citizens
who
within a year, might import within a year any slaves, with their issue, that had belonged to the deceased and had them
selves, or their mothers, been residents of the
United States
By
lands in
1798, 76, citzens of Maryland or of an adjoining State, inheriting Md. or the adjoining State, and owning slaves used on them,
might import the slaves for use on their own lands. * If the slaves were acquired by inheritance, the testator s name, the date and place of record of the will, must all be recorded when by marriage, the name of the person from whom the title was derived, was necessary. 3 It was further declared that such slaves did not have to be 1818, 201.
;
1797, 15.
Slaves.
51
for three years previous. So, guardians of the children of such citizens might import such slaves within a year from the beginning of their trust ; and the children on becoming
of age, might also bring in such slaves and their issue, within
a year.
have noted that occasionally, under authority of special were brought from Virginia to Maryland for speci fied occupations and for limited times. Thus, in 1794, leave was given the Potomac Company to import slaves, with the condition that they would be freed, if not removed within a
acts, slaves
We
year from the completion of the work in hand. Several years after, as several citizens of Maryland were in the habit of
hiring out their slaves to this same Company in Virginia, and as doubts had arisen whether the slaves could be brought back
after a year s residence
to free
dom, a further act declared that slaves might be hired out to the Company, but that they should be deemed free unless
returned within a year from the end of the work. It appeared proper, so reads the act, that citizens of Maryland might have
the privilege of hiring their slaves to the best advantage, "when no injury to the State can result therefrom." When,
in 1803, a citizen of Virginia petitioned the Maryland House of Delegates for leave to bring in certain negroes, the com
House reported that it was inexpedient to extend 1 the privilege of importation. The proprietors of a stage line between Philadelphia and Norfolk, got leave in 1799 to use
mittee of the
their slaves as drivers, to
that every driver be duly recorded. In that portion of Mary land ceded to the District of Columbia, a number of slaves, belonging to citizens of Maryland, had been hired out or
otherwise employed.
An
tion of such slaves, and their issue ; and it was further made lawful for citizens of Maryland and of that part of the Dis
trict
to
remove
to
and
House Journal,
52
from the District at pleasure such slaves, and their descen 1 dants, as had been brought into the District from Maryland. Other border counties found the law oppressive and it was
;
might be hired out in any adjoining county of another State where the laws of that State did not forbid as often as the owner wished ; and,
conversely, slaves owned in the adjoining counties could be brought into Maryland, to be hired out. In either case, no
a year. 2
citi
zens of Maryland began active efforts to abolish slavery. Some were political leaders. Many of them were of the Society
In December, 1785, the House of Delegates received the petitions of several citizens of Queen Anne s, Kent, Caroline, Dorchester, Worcester, Talbot and other coun
of Friends.
ties,
read a second time on the day following, and were rejected by It is interesting to note a vote of thirty-two to twenty-two.
that the votes of the
counties
named
and
many
3 Two years later there was presented to the pro and con. House an address and petition for the emancipation of slaves,
from the yearly meeting of the Friends in Baltimore 4 these were refused also, by thirty votes to seventeen.
but
The
society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of poor Negroes and others unlawfully held in Bond-
Maryland
1802, 68.
1812, 76.
See 3 H.
&
J.,
379, 382
1813, 56.
* House Journal, 1785, pp. 36-39. Of four of the largest slave-holding counties, Calvert, Charles, Prince George s and St. Mary s, only one of the delegates present voted to receive the petitions.
*
House Journal,
Slaves.
53
age, was organized in 1789. Its membership was soon between two and three hundred, and a building in Baltimore was devoted to its use. Its work began at once by a petition pre sented to the House of Delegates, on November 12th. On the next day the House received, also, an address of the These were referred to a com Friends, of the same purport.
mittee of seven members, who reported the next day, through Mr. William Pinkney. It should be the wish of every free community, they said, to bring about the abolition of slavery. As both a sudden and compulsory abolition are exceptionable
former being dangerous, the latter in violation of acquired rights no opportunity should be neglected of attain
the
ing abolition by silent and gradual steps, with the consent of the owner." So, all restriction should be removed from
"
the voluntary emancipation of slaves. 1 Within a week, a bill was introduced in the Senate, to promote the gradual abolition
of slavery, and to prevent the rigorous exportation of blacks from Maryland. It was read the first time and laid on the
table.
the
it was postponed, some days later, to December. It was then committed to Mr. Nicholas Hammond, who had introduced it, together with Mr. Charles Carroll and Mr. John Hall, with the resolution to
Consideration of
first
week
in
request the House of Delegates to appoint a committee for conference. Accordingly, the following message, brought in by Mr. Charles Carroll, was sent to the House the following day :
"A Bill for the gradual abolition of slavery, and for pre venting the rigorous exportation of negroes and mulattoes from this State, has been originated in this House, and lain some time for consideration. The great importance of this
subject,
it
whether considered with a view to the persons whom concerns, or to the advantage and happiness of the commu
nity at large, appears to be such as to require peculiar investi gation, and the most serious attention of the legislature.
last illness of
the master
54
it is conceived that a discussion of this subject by a committee of both Houses will be proper, that by a candid exchange of sentiments such a system may be reported as will be thought most agreeable, as well to the sense of both
Hence
joint
branches of the legislature as to the sense of our fellow citi zens." But this proposition of the Senate the House refused
by a vote of thirty-nine
to fifteen.
the
large slave-holding counties voted against it, and those from the others were divided. The Senate ordered that the bill be
referred to the next Assembly. At the next session the Senate received a petition from the Abolition Society, and referred it
to the
House.
When
to
this petition
it to a committee. by twenty-six twenty-two, There was then put the question, that the committee be in
to refer
structed to express their disapprobation of that part of the which referred to the gradual abolition of slavery ; was defeated by a plurality of two votes. And nothing
But the
work of the
abolition societies
in petitions alone.
In 1791 the House of Delegates received complaints against the society in Baltimore for its interference between certain The committee on Grievances and slaves and their masters.
Courts of Justice, to whom the matter was referred, reported that the owners had been unjustly brought to much unneces So large and influential was this sary trouble and expense.
Abolition Society that an individual who should be brought law with it had better give up his slave than defend his In this case the Society had acted in an indecent and rights.
to
1
letter in
House Journal, 1789, pp. 10-14, 64-5. Senate Journal, 1789, 5-34. A Hazard s Register (Vol. X, 411) from a gentleman of Baltimore,
written in 1832, states that Charles Carroll of Carrollton, introduced in the Senate of Maryland, in 1797, a bill by which all female slave children were to be bought by the State, educated and bound out to the age of 28, when they were to be free and other slaves under 45 were to be free at a
;
we presume, was the plan of Mr. the Senate Journal for 1797 does not make any mention
certain time.
2
This,
Slaves.
55
unjustifiable
manner
considering the representations of the Society in defence, voted by a large plurality that its action could in no way be
justified
upon any principle by which good citizens ought to Although a resolve that the Society had become unnecessary, oppressive and repugnant in principles to the laws of the State, was lost by three votes, the work of the Society as a body had to be discontinued. Other societies were formed of not large membership. A number of slaves were assisted to get freedom, and a few petitions and memorials sent to the legislators from time to time, but only to meet with disap
be moved.
1
proval.
During this period, however, there was a noticeable increase number of slaves manumitted. Manumission by will or otherwise during the last illness of the master, which had been forbidden in 1752, was allowed once more by the general act of 1796, on Slaves by amendment of the Senate. When, in 1823, a communication was received in the House of Delegates from the Governor of Ohio, on gradual emanci
in the
(X
pation in the United States, the committee of the House reported that they deemed it inexpedient then to express their 2 In the Assembly of 1827, there was pre views thereon.
sented to the
House a
petition of
It was ford county, for the abolition of slavery in the State. one member from Harford, referred to a committee of nine
s, Talbot and Worcester counties, and two from Cecil and Montgomery. On the day each, following, this committee reported, that they were compelled
to
at that time,
1791, pp. 82-106. Griffith s Annals of Baltimore, 127. Abolition Societies, 72. House Journal, 1791, 19, 31, 38 do. 1792, 24 Mr. Jefferson stated that there was not as much disposition for do. 1801, 66.
Poole
abolition in
little in
Maryland
as in Virginia.
We may add
Virginia, however
it.
much many
may have
desired
2
House Journal,
1823, 139.
56
any system of
But they legislation for abolishing slavery. their entire confidence that the time was fast expressed coming
relieved, through the plan of col from this grievous national We onization, calamity." cannot now, for obvious reasons," they continued, "follow the examples which have been set us by our sister States to the north and east of us. With them the evil to be subdued
"
was a pigmy, with us it is a monster ; with them a superflu ous and decaying limb was to be removed ; with us the destroying worm is to be sought for in the root. There, the
system, full of health and vigor, submitted cheerfully to the simple cure ; here the disease, exhibiting itself in its greatest
strength and worst form, must receive a different treatment, and be gradually subdued by persevering, but not abrupt
This report was read and left, apparently, on memorial was presented in the House, in 1829, from sundry citizens of Frederick county, asking for a law which should declare that all children born of slaves should be free after a certain time. In 1832, a committee was
remedies."
the table.
ordered to enquire into the expediency of such legislation, but there seems to have been no result. 2 An amendment
was added
unless a bill for the purpose should be passed by an unani mous vote in each branch of the Assembly, and should then
be published at least three months before a new election of delegates, and should be then confirmed by unanimous votes of
the Houses in the next session thereafter
;
full
Exactly how far the feelings of the people of Maryland were voiced in these actions of their legislators, is as hard to judge to-day as it is hard to learn whether the "sundry
1
Slaves.
57
citizens
"
who
score or a
whole community.
There were
citizens,
and some
of them prominent citizens, always ready and anxious to fur ther any steps towards gradual abolition, but the people of Maryland, as a whole, did not care evidently to do away with
that a larger free slavery, or felt unable to solve the problems black population would bring, or looked too long and too 1 trustingly to colonization as the remedy for the evil.
Several efforts were made, also especially at the same time with those early efforts for abolition to restrict or pre vent exportation of slaves from Maryland. In 1789, in the House of Delegates, Mr. Pinkney had spoken of this as a
species of traffic
ernment.
and disgraceful to the gov several petitions were presented years later, in the House, from the Friends, from the Abolition Society in Baltimore, and from certain citizens of Caroline and
in
itself,
2
inhuman
Two
Kent
counties, for legislation to prevent the exportation of These were referred to a committee slaves and free negroes.
of seven
county, Annapolis,
Queen Anne
In 1830, there were several anti-slavery organizations in Baltimore National Anti-Slavery Tract Society," a Branch of the Society of Md., &c. but these seem to have been small and of little vitality. A small number of prominent citizens of Baltimore and the counties associated together, in 1846, to initiate a movement towards gradual emancipation; but public opinion, in the growing hostility between North and South, would not support any such plan, and it was abandoned as wholly imprac ticable. (Baltimore and the 19th of April: Hon. Geo. W. Brown, p. 113.) Note resolutions of the Assemblies 1841, 16; 1843, 57; 1849, 37. We may add that the Bill of Rights of Maryland, of 1776, did not state that all men were free and equal as did the Bill of Rights of Virginia and the Declaration of Independence. It gave to "every freeman" remedy at law for injury to person or property, &c.
1
"
House Journal,
1789, 9-14.
58
In a few
days, they reported that they could not conceive how, while the citizens of Maryland continued to hold slaves a property
recognized by law and secured by the Constitution the ex portation of slaves could with any warrant be prohibited.
They did not see that justice or policy required such an inter ference with the rights of the community. Nor could they forbear from suggesting that such petitions would only make
worse rather than better the condition of the slaves, by tend ing to destroy the spirit of acquiescence among them, by which alone their happiness could be secured, and to fill them with
With this regret for evils that did not admit a remedy. At the next session, another the House concurred. report
memorial of the Friends was received, read and referred, but with no result. In 1800, there was received a petition from sundry inhabitants of Kent and Queen Anne s counties, for an
act to prohibit the sale of slaves without the State only, pre sumably. This was referred to a committee of seven, two from
Anne Arundel, two from Kent, and one each from Charles, Dorchester and Queen Anne s counties. Over a week later, this
committee reported that they had given the subject the serious
consideration which
its
importance merited.
They
considered
that the property in slaves acquired by citizens of Maryland, under the faith of laws existing before the Revolution, and
sanctioned by express compact on the adoption of the new gov ernment, was secured by society to individuals on the general
basis of property. And where the rights of such individuals are to be resumed by the public for the general advantage, a reason
able compensation must be made. They would not deny the of the legislature to meet any great regulations of civil power events attending every social institu policy which the uncertain
tion
institution as might render necessary, particularly such an them but, as they were not aware of the neces slavery with
;
sity
Slaves.
59
Nor did they believe slave-owners might make indispensable. that the transportation of the blacks to a warmer climate more suited to their physical natures, was either inhuman to the
blacks or impolitic to the State. They deemed the gradual of the black population of Maryland a people diminution and a substitution in so different by nature from the whites
their place of a white
Yet, with
all this,
yeomanry, to be objects highly desirable. they could not for a moment doubt that the
right of property in slaves is, and ought to be, a right limited by the laws of humanity and Christianity. The legislature is
bound
and
to encourage charity
and
philanthropy. While they would refuse to prohibit generally the sale and transportation of slaves to the South, they would so far restrain the same as to prevent the violation of those
ties
of nature which even savage man respects, and which And to this society should protect with a religious reverence.
end they
sale
law should prohibit the in consequence of the commission of some crime except or offense of any slave to be carried out of Maryland, by
offered the resolution, that a
which an acknowledged husband or wife, according to the customary among slaves, would be separated from each other, or by which a mother would be separated from a child under a certain age. This report was read, but nothing seems to have resulted from it. 1 The next year the House received further memorials of the same purport from the Friends and sundry citizens. After some weeks a similar resolution was reported, fixing the limit of age under which a But child could not be taken from its mother at ten years. this resolution was rejected by a vote of thirty-eight to twenty2 one. In 1818 a petition from citizens of Washington county, that the existing traffic in slaves might be restricted, was In likewise referred to a committee; but without result.
relations
1
60
1832 there was presented a petition from the justices of the orphans court of Somerset county and certain citizens of Som erset and Worcester, for an act to restrain registers of wills from engaging in the purchase of negroes for transportation and sale. The committee on Grievances and Courts
against the petition.
1
reported
By
was
to free itself as
Any
much as possible of the black population. slaves for life could be carried out or sold away from the
such as were brought in for the purpose of trans
increased there was an increase in
State, except
As manumissions
number of those
During
the
slaves
who were
their terms of service they were as other slaves. The law provided for the careful record of the deeds under which they were to be free, and that those who were brought into Maryland, being slaves for a term of years only by the law of the State whence they came, should serve for the prescribed It is easy to see how injustice might length of time only. arise from the transportation and sale elsewhere of these blacks,
as slaves for
As early as 1789, the attention of the life. House of Delegates was called by the Society of Friends and by others, to the exportation by fraud or violence of slaves
for terms of years
;
the State was deeply concerned in giving exemplary punish ment to such a practice. For a generation thereafter, efforts
for stringent and effective legislation were frequently made, 2 The general act of especially by the Society of Friends.
1796 gave a penalty of eight hundred dollars or work on the road for not over five years, in default for anyone who might
transport, knowingly, from the State, and sell as a slave for life, any black entitled to freedom at any age. And there was the same penalty for bringing in and selling such in the State.
1818, 96
1789,
1832, 204.
9-H;
1790; 1791, 31
&c.
Slaves.
61
reported, in 1801, that the removal of these servants and other acts of inhuman
unhappy blacks called loudly for the interposition of the legislature ; on which the House went to the extent of resolving, by vote of fifty-four to five, that the severest penal ties should prevent the sale, South, of slaves for terms of
years.
Finally, in 1810, there was enacted that no such slaves should be sold to anyone who had not been a bona fide resi dent of Maryland for a year. The penalty, as for any sale for
a longer term than that which the black had to serve, was That for actual kidnapping had been five hundred dollars.
fixed the year before at between two and ten years imprison 1 ment. During the session of 1816, the House passed, by a vote of thirty-four to twenty-three, a bill which required the
formality of a bill of sale, acknowledged before witnesses and containing a description of the slaves transferred, in the case
of sale and removal of slaves where the person about to remove them had not been for two years an actual resident of the county where they had been held. This was defeated in the Senate by a tie vote. But an act of the next session pro vided that purchasers of any slaves for removal from the State
sale, in
should take copies of duly acknowledged and recorded bills of slave for a which the slaves should be identified.
term of years could not be sold to any other than a resident of the State of over a year s standing nor could a resident pur
;
chase as agent for a non-resident, under penalty, in either case, to seller or buyer, of not over two years imprisonment. And
all sales
formalities of bills in writing, under chaser, and of the seller or his agent
of slaves for terms of years were clothed with the hand and seal of the pur
;
term of
the purchaser ; and should be duly acknowledged before a jus tice of the county, and be recorded within twenty days. If
1790, 9
1796, 67
1804, 90
1810, 15.
Act on Crimes,
62
these formalities were fraudulently omitted, the servant became free ; and magistrates were authorized to examine any persons
on
whom
The
penalties
resi
where a
dent of Maryland should purchase or receive, knowingly, with the intention of sending away, a slave for a term of years ; and where residents should remove and then sell such
slaves, taken with them.
1
sale
of
slaves entitled to freedom, and the penalty of not over two years imprisonment for any illegal sale of them, remained
But notoriously vicious servants were often sold, for transportation, under the authority of the courts, by act of 1833 the court being satisfied that the master had warned
the law. the slave
of that penalty, and the slave being provided with an authorized copy both of the order of the court and of his title to freedom.
find the Assembly of 1818 giving permission to a resi dent of Cecil county to remove a negro girl, a slave for a term of years, to Pennsylvania, on condition that he give
We
bond with
So,
in
security, not to sell or remove her out of that State. 1829, certain trustees were allowed to sell several
negroes for their unexpired time of service, in Delaware but to no other than an actual resident of that State ; and the
conditions of the permission of sale were to be mentioned in the bill of sale ; and they must secure a bond for one thou-
1 House Journal 1816, 98. 1817, ch. 112 1834, 266. The minimum im A society called the Protection prisonment became eighteen months. Society was organized at Baltimore about 1817. Many valuable blacks were aided, and incorrigible servants were quietly transported. (Griffith s was rejected Protection Society of Kent county Baltimore.) A bill for a by the Senate in 1827. A few years later, a number of slaves were bought in Maryland, to be taken to Louisiana but difficulties arising at the custom house in Baltimore, owing to the informalities in the bill of sale, the matter was carried before a justice of the city court. As the negroes, on being examined, acknowledged themselves to be slaves, a special act of the Assembly allowed the transportation as if the bill had been drawn according
;
" "
(1821, 15.)
Slaves.
63
sand dollars, with good security living in Maryland, that the slaves should not be removed from Delaware during the time
the act declared, further, that the trustees or their heirs might maintain an action on the bond, should
the
in
of service.
And
slaves be
would be used
bringing back their slaves and for their further benefit. In another case, a citizen of Delaware was allowed to take
whom
he owned an unex-
pired term, on condition that he first gave bond with security, to be kept in the clerk s office of the county from which the
slave
in servitude
Again, a citizen of Prince George s county was authorized to sell a negro woman out of Maryland, if he specified in the bill of sale
was to be free at a certain time, and if he took from the buyer that she should not be disposed of for security Another citizen of the same county was longer servitude. two years later, to take with him to Virginia his given leave, servant for a term of years, provided the negro should appear in person before the orphans court and signify his willingness to go, and also that the master should furnish him with a cer tified copy, under seal, of the instrument under which he was
that she
7
entitled to freedom.
the removal of a girl to Virginia, provided that she should give her consent, and that the master should first file with the
county clerk a satisfactory bond to the State of Maryland for one thousand dollars, with security from a citizen of Mary land, for the faithful and safe return of the girl to the State by the master or his executors as soon as she finished her term
of service, should she then desire to return. She must return, if at all, within twelve months after becoming free. And in
case she desired to return but
suit
was detained, the district attor on the bond, and any money recovered
Before she
left,
the county clerk was to give her, at the expense of her master, a certified record of her right to freedom. Thus several
64
But all petitions for spe exceptions to the laws were made. cial acts were not granted. bill passed the House, in 1835, to allow a certain clergyman to carry out of Maryland a col
not pass
ored apprentice, the son of free parents but the Senate would it. Two years later, a bill was introduced in the
;
House
George
county to
carry with him to Mississippi a servant for a term of years. By the recommendation of the committee on Colored Popula
tion, these bills
were amended so as
both
to give bond in the sum of two thousand dollars, that he or his heirs or executors would liberate the slave at the proper
time,
comply with the conditions of the permission given him, and, also, to have a copy of the per
in all respects
and
office
This
In 1820, a bill was introduced in the Senate, to repeal all laws that forbade the importation of slaves into Maryland,
ten years.
provided that no slave imported should be manumitted within This bill passed the Senate by a vote of seven to Two years later, leave but was defeated in the House. five,
was asked
sufficient
in the
House
The House
refused to
agree to this by a vote of thirty -seven to thirty-four ; and then the bill was referred to the next Assembly. There, a
bill
in the Senate
and defeated
in the
House. 2
From
1
1829,
2,
55
1836, 201
1840, 111.
House Journal,
Senate
Slaves.
65
slaves, in
And
not a
so the pre
amble of the act reads the numerous special acts of legisla tion had been of great expense to the State, and no incon venience could occur from a general law embracing most cases there was enacted that any citizen of Maryland who acquired
by marriage, bequest, course of distribution, or as guardian, 7 or by gift, or in any other lawful manner/ any slave, a resi dent of the United States, might at any time bring such
"
employment there
manumitted There seems whether slaves
for his
own immediate
service.
77
to be recorded.
They could be
until they had been residents for three years. to have been some doubt, thereafter, as to
imported under this act could be hired out within three years. One special act allowed certain negroes who had been brought
back
to Maryland with their owners, then minors, to be hired without danger of their freedom being thereby acquired. out, Another allowed a citizen of Harford county to hire out sev
eral negroes, the same manner in which he might or could have done had the said negroes been born slaves 77 within the
"in
State.
had died
Again, the executors of a citizen of Maryland who in Florida, were given permission to import certain slaves belonging to the estate, and to hire out or sell them, as
directed in the will, as if they had never been out of Mary 2 But the Legislature having been roused by the South land.
ampton insurrection
the
proviso
was added,
that,
if the
to authorize
to introduce in the House, in 1829, a bill members, from Caroline county, to bring into the Leave was then refused. State, as a hireling, a negro to work at a forge. Later, a bill was reported, by leave was then amended, to limit the privi lege of keeping the black to five years; and was finally rejected. (House
For
instance, leave
was asked
one
of. the
Journal, 1829, 176, 359.) The acts varied considerably in particulars, such as the times within which the slaves must be registered at the county
clerk
2
s.
66
negroes should refuse to go to Liberia, they should be sold out of the State.
The
slaughter of a
Turner and a few followers, roused the attention of the whole This so-called insurrection was wholly local, was country. down at once, and showed no tendency in the slaves as a put But many empty rumors people to rebel against their masters. of uprisings went abroad, far beyond Southampton county. The year 1831 is a landmark in all legislation in Mary land affecting the negro, slave and free. It was then that the
State actively took of its free blacks.
colonization in Africa
it
was the
of
autumn of 1831 that it should not be lawful June following to import into Maryland any
to reside there.
This did not apply, however, to the rights of under laws then in force, to remove their slaves non-residents, to or from islands belonging to them in the Potomac. Nor should the act prevent persons who lived in Maryland, or an adjoining State, and held land in the two States, not over ten miles apart, from removing their slaves to and from those lands, solely for Such slaves so brought in must the cultivation of the same.
be recorded within thirty days with the county clerk. Any person importing a slave contrary to the act should forfeit the
slave,
who, in turn, would be entitled to freedom on condition that he consent to be sent to Liberia or to leave Maryland at 1 Otherwise he was to be sold by the sheriff to the Colonce.
1 1831, 323. The Court of Appeals held, in 1837, that the importation of a slave contrary to this act, so as to entitle the slave to freedom, must be by the owner or with his approbation or authority. (8 G. & J., 269.)
If a slave returned
his
permission, the owner could not hold him though the return was against the master s consent. (9 G. & J., 14. 1837.) But the Act of 1831 did not prevent owners from sending away, or taking
owner
away
their slaves, to travel, or sojourn temporarily. The plan of perma nent residence elsewhere must actually be consummated. (9 G. & J., 127.)
Slaves.
67
onization Society, for the sum of five dollars and prison fees, to be carried to Liberia. If the Society would not take him he was to be sold, on condition that the purchaser would take him
beyond Maryland to reside. All justices of the peace were bidden to hold for court, and, if necessary, to commit to jail, any persons importing slaves contrary to the law. At the next
session of
No
special act
seems to have been passed, but a supplement was added to the act of 1831, because so reads the preamble the introduction
and
of slaves ought to be prohibited except in a few special cases, all cases of hardship should be embraced under one law,
1 according to some general principles. The supplement declared that slaves for life who should be hired out or loaned to service
Maryland, or in the
might be returned to Maryland ; but the importer must be a resident of Maryland as well as the owner of the slaves at the time both of exportation and
Persons who had already acquired land in Mary importation. land by inheritance or otherwise, or by purchase with intent to become residents, and who were about to become such, could
bring in any slaves owned by them before the act of 1831 was passed but the proper record must be made and the affidavit
;
District of Columbia,
of the owner given that the conditions of law had been prop erly complied with, and that the slaves were slaves for life, and were not imported for sale. Persons living in the District of Columbia, east of the Potomac, and holding lands in Maryland,
might move to those lands from their residence any slaves for life, and the increase of such slaves, who had belonged to them and lived either in Maryland or the District before the act of
7
31.
Also, residents of
to the District,
with them.
Maryland removing for a limited time might bring back at pleasure any slaves carried Those, too, who owned land in an adjoining State,
of such hired slaves
1832, 317.
The importation
(Ch. 40.)
68
and worked on those lands any slaves who belonged to them and had gone from Maryland, might bring back such slaves at any time. Citizens of Maryland who should leave home for a time, in the service of their State or of the United States might bring back with them any slaves for life that they had carried away and in case of their death, their representatives might but there must be entered on record, before return them
;
;
removal, the usual list of the slaves, together with a declaration of the reasons for the departure from the State, and also of the
purpose of returning, and another record must be made within It was enacted, lastly, that where a month after the return.
any slave owned in Maryland by a citizen of the State should in regular marriage have been married before the law of 1831 a minister of some recognized religious body in ceremony by
the State
to
in
any adjoining
State,
it
should
be lawful for the owner of the slave in Maryland to bring But the fact of the marriage must in the husband or wife. be proven by the purchaser, or some credible white person, and put on record within a month. This act was strongly opposed,
passing the House by a vote of thirty-six to twenty-nine. At the next session, the Senate passed a bill relaxing some
1
what the strict prohibition of the previous year, but imposing a tax on such slaves as might be imported, for the benefit of col The House amended by cutting down the proposed onization. taxes by a half, and then passed the bill by a vote of forty-one
It enacted that any citizen of Maryland to twenty-eight. might import slaves for life acquired in another State by mar
also, that
any
persons residing out of Maryland, and removing there with a bona fide intention of becoming citizens of the State, might
also
import their
shown
for
1832 would admit more blacks than were removed by 1831, 281. The motion was lost by 45 to 21. The bill was introduced by the chairman of the Committee on Colored Population.
as the passage of this bill of
Slaves.
69
all cases,
In filed in the county office within a month. of the slaves had to be filed in the county office, with a statement that the list was true, and that the slaves were
by affidavit duly
a
list
life
and
at the
same time
there had to be paid for the use of the Colonization Society, the sum of fifteen dollars for each slave between the years of twelve
and
forty-five,
1
older.
and five dollars for a slave either younger or There was further enacted the next year, that any
of the army or navy called by the service into Mary might bring with him. his slaves, on condition that they be not sold, and be taken away when he left. A further sup
officer
land,
plementary act to the stringent provisions of 31, now allowed citizens of Maryland, or of the District of Columbia east of
the Potomac, who had, or might acquire, lands in the District or the State, respectively, to move back and forth at pleasure any slaves for life who were natives of the State or of that part
Also any resident of Maryland thereafter appointed executor, trustee or guardian in the State or an adjoining State or District, could carry to and fro from the
of the District.
adjoining State or District, and hire out in Maryland, if deemed advisable, any slaves for life held in trust, on condition
office
of the county to which these might Such slaves, of course, could not be
Certain residents of Charles county had received by bequest in Virginia a number of slaves, but had exchanged
them
for others.
by allowing
the other slaves to be brought in. Several other acts allowed the removal of certain slaves between Maryland and Virginia.
for cultivation. 3
In one case there was a proviso that they should be used solely By the act of 1831, those persons owning lands in both Maryland and an adjoining State, not over ten
1 House Journal, 1833, 205, &c. 1833, ch. 87. A special act also admitted nine slaves, on payment of the taxes. The case was not included under the provisions of the general act.
2
3
70
The
ten mile
citizens of either
Maryland
or Virginia
the slaves were recorded. As no provision existed for the introduction of slaves gotten by gift, there was enacted further that any citizen of Maryland might import any slave
1
move when
lands in both States anywhere could their slaves at pleasure, paying the taxes for colonization
who owned
life, acquired by gift in the United States, but on condition not only that the slaves be duly recorded and the colonization fees paid, with an oath that the gift was a bona fide one, but that none of the slaves or their descendants could be manu
for
removal.
mitted in Maryland unless the owner should provide for their 2 In 1836 the question of changing the laws so as to
restriction was reported adversely by a It seemed best, they said, to continue the policy then being tried, which promised well ; and cases that were especially deserving, in the judgment of the Legislature,
House committee.
would always find relief. 3 But three years later, there was enacted that any citizen of Maryland, and any person coming to Maryland to reside, might bring in from any part of the United States any slave for life. A person moving into the
Apparently, the tax had to be paid on the first introduction, act, in 1843, allowed a certain citizen of Virginia, owning land in Maryland, to move his slaves at pleasure, but limited their use to work on those farms, and said the colonization fees need be paid only once.
M835,
329.
only.
A special
(1843, 38.)
2 1835, 61, I. e. Kemoval under the act of 31, for decreasing the free black population. 3 See House Journal, 1836, 384. 1837, ch. 351 1844, 42 1846, 244. In one case, a citizen of Anne Arundel was allowed to bring back from Louisiana Again, a gen fifty slaves, who had been taken there for temporary work.
;
;
tleman of Virginia asked and got leave to bring with him, whenever he wished, a black boy who had been his servant in Maryland, before his removal to Virginia. Again, a certain owner of lands in both Maryland and Delaware could carry to and fro his slaves including children born to them in Delaware. At least two slaves owned in Virginia were hired out in Maryland, the owners being required to put them on record and pay
the
fees.
Slaves.
11
State
must
file
resi
dence; and, in all cases, the slaves must be recorded, with sworn affidavit, that they were not imported for sale and were slaves for life, and the fees for the Colonization Society must
be paid.
Three years
later, again,
and fro slaves for life, was given to any person entering the State, to remain tempo rarily or permanently, on condition of proper record and pay ment of fees. Thus, step by step, were lessened the stringent * In 1847 the House committee reported provisions of 31.
unfavorably the suggestion of a repeal of all restrictions; but two years later, all laws were repealed which prohibited or
the privilege of carrying to from the United States, and not for sale,
any way taxed the importation from any part of the United any slaves for life. But no slave whatever could be imported for the purpose of sale and transportation, under when the slave was actually sold, to be taken away penalty of not less than two nor more than five hundred dollars. Nor
in States of
could any slave sentenced to transportation as a punishment for crime, in any other part of the United States, be imported 2 into or held in Maryland.
The total amount received by the Colonization Society from these duties on the introduction of slaves, during seventeen years, had been nearly twelve thousand five hundred dollars
slaves brought in must have been a thou In 1850, there were over ninety thousand slaves in the State some ten thousand less than there had been a half century before. In 1860, there were eighty-
the
number of
sand or more. 3
seven thousand.
But the
free blacks
1839, 15; 1842, 213; 1845, 113. 1849, 165. The penalty for importing a convict slave was from $100 to $300 for holding one in the State, the loss of the slave, who was sold for
2
;
The Baltimore Sun of May 2nd, 1851, mentions the arrest of a man for importing a slave contrary to law. 3 Keport of Committee on Colored Population to Constitutional Conven
tion of 1850-51.
72
ing that decade by three times the decrease in slaves bered nearly eighty-four thousand.
num
read, simply, that anyone could import from any part of the United States, except those who were guilty of any crime, or had been banished from Maryland.
any slave
From the very settlement of the Colonies the indentured white servants frequently caused their masters vexation and Laws to prevent this were soon made loss, by running away.
Maryland. Any persons suspected to be runaway servants or criminals were to be taken up and kept until either they
in
could prove their freedom and pay four hundred pounds of tobacco, or their masters claimed them and paid the same sum. It is interesting to note that a law of this kind, of
1669, was to be communicated to the sister Colonies to the 1 North, that fugitives might be held there for their masters.
For a hundred years, law after law was made, but despite of passes required, and penalties threat stringent regulations ened some of the servants would not stay in service. Fin
ally,
population, and
2
negro.
Some
white servants.
of the negro slaves soon followed the example of the In a quarrel between the Dutch of New
Amsterdam and the government of Maryland, in 1659, the Dutch declared that unless their runaway servants were sent back to them, they would keep all the servants and negroes
1
Md. Arch.,
We read
away.
tice,
In the latter sent back by the magistrate. years of slave-holding, as to-day, a white apprentice had sometimes to be given back to his master.
II, 224, 523. in an act of 1786 (43) that many apprentices had been running Baltimore Sun, for Jan. 6, 1858, gives the case of a white appren
Slaves.
73
them from Maryland. 1 The courts allowed masters of runaway servants to recompense themselves * for their losses by holding the servants for a longer term. such Slaves for life were evidently incapable of paying any An act of 1663 required English servants who penalty.
should run away in company with negro or other slaves, to repay the master or owners of the slaves, by direction of the 2 The act of 1669 makes no mention of slaves. That courts.
of 1676 was intended chiefly for servants, though slaves are included, and declared that former acts had proved ineffec
tual, in not
giving sufficient encouragement for the seizure of So, servants were forbidden to depart ten miles without a note of leave, under penalty of being
arrested as runaways, and having to serve, at the terms, ten extra days for each day of absence.
end of their
Any person should detain a servant, knowing that he or she was unlawfully absent from home, would be liable to a fine of five
who
hundred pounds of tobacco for every night the servant was on Those who carried away any servant or slave his place. the employer or owner treble damages and costs. should pay
whither by Indenture or the act applied to servants, according to the Custome of the Countrey or hired for wages,"
"
As
it
is evident that any passer by was and perhaps delayed, by any zealous
liable to be
citizen.
examined,
to insure against detention or arrest, persons traveling beyond their own county were directed to get a pass, under the county
seal, for
to
tobacco.
person who should take up a runaway or one without a pass who could not give a good account of himself, was entitled to two hundred pounds of tobacco or other satis
Any
faction.
or Delaware, except in certain parts adjacent to Maryland, he was entitled to twice that sum for a runaway returned to
Ill, 372.
I,
489.
74
1
Maryland.
easily
be
returned, the plan was adopted of making Annapolis a clear ing-house, as it were. Not only were runaways brought there,
but notices were to be speedily sent there, from all parts, of servants or negroes in custody, whose masters were not known ; and a list of these was to be kept posted by the sheriff. The
commissioners
offices
in each county were also to post notices, at the of the courts, of such runaways as might be taken
2
thereabouts.
In 1709, an Indian who had been kept for some time in one of the county jails, was discharged by special act of assembly, and the distinction was then drawn that persons,
and mulattoes, who should be found trav eling without passes and committed as runaways, should not
other than negroes
be detained over six months, if they could not before prove their freedom. On being released, such persons had to pay or work out the costs. After 1719, servants and slaves who had
not been taken
away by
their owners,
the owner, should he appear within reasonable time. 3 In treaties made by the Governor of Maryland with various
Indians, in 1661 and 1663, there is the stipulation that the Indians are to return any runaway Englishmen." Later, the neighboring Indians were encouraged to seize runaways by the
"
reward of a blanket or
its
value.
Treaties with
them forebade
near retreat for runaways. As a certain tribe of Indians had evidently been regardless of the rights of the good people of Maryland in their servants and slaves, the Governor and
Council decided, in 1722, to send to these a messenger with a treaty of peace and friendship, and the promise of a reward of
Md.
3,
40.
2
3
Council Proceedings, 1695/6, H. D. 2, p. 297. LL. 3, 385. Ee-enacted in 1715, 44, 35. 1719, 2
Kepealed, 1802.
Slaves.
75
to every Indian who should return These allurements were evidently unavailing, for three years later it was decided to send again, to invite some of the chiefs to Annapolis. The messenger was to endeavor to
a slave.
persuade them to come, by all reasonable means, including a present of a calico shirt and pair of scarlet worsted stockings to each chief, and the distribution of four other shirts among
Feeling sure of the success of this mission, the Council decided that whatever negroes should be brought down by the Indians should be held in custody
such as the chiefs should name.
until the
to
do with them.
But
still
neither chiefs nor slaves came, and another messenger seems to have been sent without result. At that time a
sum
of money was appropriated from the treasury for the encour 1 agement of the seizure of runaways.
Honest people of Maryland were somewhat troubled by the escape of debtors to foreign parts, and after 1715, masters of
away any persons whatsoever without the proper passes from the authorities. But servants and slaves were still evidently able to get away, for there was enacted in 1753 that captains of boats over eighteen feet long,
vessels could not lawfully carry
should not enter or take permit to sail, at any custom house, without taking an oath against concealing any such on
keel,
shipboard, or taking them away. They might be properly hired for work on a vessel, but otherwise the captain became liable to a fine of twenty shillings and costs, for every hour he
Ten
two negroes, a
woman, were outlying in the neighboring woods, being armed with a gun and threatening the life of
a
486.
140, 1725/6,
2
76
anyone who tried to take them, the Governor ordered an officer of the county to raise the neighborhood, to apprehend the negroes by force and to give them to the sheriff at Annapolis,
to be imprisoned against the appearance of their master. If the was not successful in arresting them, the rangers would posse be put on their track. In 1723 there was enacted that any
runaway negro, or other slave, who should outlie in the woods and resist those persons who were legally empowered to capture
him, might be
the pursuers.
killed,
An
act of
without offence or penalty on the part of 1751 secured from prosecution any
person who might kill a slave, deemed to be guilty of any serious offence, and resisting arrest. The value of the slave so But this was so killed, was paid to the owner by the public. two years after, that the person should not be secured qualified,
against
killing
trial,
but should not be punished in any way, if the 1 to have been done justifiably.
\As sheriffs sometimes neglected to advertise runaways, a law of 1792 provided that advertisements, with minute particulars, should be continued until the prisoners were released in course
of law. After 1802, sheriffs were to advertise runaway servants or slaves in some public newspaper printed in Baltimore, in Washington and in Easton, besides any other notices they should
fit
see
The run
away was to be fully described. If the owner did not apply for him within sixty days, and give security for all costs, the
sheriff should advertise
him
and then
sell
him
for sale, wait at least twenty days, All the proceeds after
1 Council Eecords, H. D. 2, 442. 1723, 15 1751, 14 1753, 26. In 1738 several negroes who had broken jail, and others who had run away, were outlying in Prince George s county, and had done some violence. The
;
;
sufficiently, so
Council were of the opinion that the magistrates had not exerted themselves the sheriff was ordered to seize them, and to take, if neces
sary, the
whole power of the county. (Council Kecords, May 5th.) read that in 1764 the Governor, having read the letters and depositions relating to the shooting of a slave of Charles Carroll, Esq., by Captain John for the said was pleased to order a nolle prosequi and pardon Ireland,
"
We
"
Ireland.
Slaves.
77
costs
were deducted, were to be paid by the county court to the owner, but if he did not apply within two years, they went to
the county. No servant or slave so sold could be carried out of Maryland within two years after the sale, under the same
For every penalties as for the transportation of a free black. case of neglect to follow the law, a sheriff could be fined a
796, a free black who allow ed a slave to use his freedom paper, by means of which the slave half escaped, could be fined not over three hundred dollars
hundred
dollars.
By the act
of
But
as
misuse of these
was
now
prescribed for the issue of them, and a second one was not to be issued to any free black, except on satisfactory proof
that the
In 1810, the courts before which lost. be brought as suspected runaways, were ordered negroes might to be well satisfied in every case before granting discharges.
first
had been
After 1817, any person who had been duly committed by a magistrate as a suspected runaway, and had then been duly
advertised, as before, but had not been claimed within the 7 sixty days, was taken before a judge of the county or orphans
If the judge deemed the prisoner a free man, he would thereupon discharge him. Otherwise he would remand him for a reasonable time, and have the reputed
court for full examination.
owner
costs
the prisoner
but if no rightful owner appeared in that time, would then be discharged. In either case, any were paid by the county. This radical change of freeing
notified,
the negro who, while not claimed, could not yet prove his free dom, and of leaving all costs to be paid by the public, was not
without much strong opposition. The motion to strike out of the bill was lost by two votes only in the House. At the next session a bill to repeal it passed the House finally,
effected
it
It {remained the law, save that after 1828, the charges for the care of blacks ultimately 2 discharged, were paid from the State treasury.
1 2
House Journal,
1828, 98.
78
White
servants
servants
who
ran
to
recompense
their masters
for
by increased term of service. Negro terms of years were dealt with, doubtless, in
the same way, but they were few in number before the nine teenth century. By an act of 1804, a master could secure the use of a captured runaway for such extended time as the court should deem just; but the court must be satisfied that the servant had not run away from ill treatment. The servant
could be used for the specified time by the master or his heirs, but was in no case to be assigned to anyone living out of Mary
land.
in
answer to a petition
of sundry citizens of Talbot county for further security to slave owners, recommended a bill which allowed the sale for a
much
who
had run away and been taken. But the bill was amended so that no order for the sale should be granted except in cases where the servants had once before run away and the matter was then indefinitely postponed. In 1833, it was enacted that
;
the courts could extend the term of runaway blacks so as fairly to indemnify the owners for all loss, or could give orders, on
due petition of the owners, for the sale of the owners rights in them to anyone in or without Maryland, if, as in all cases, the offence had not been caused by the ill treatment of the master. In case of sale, the slave was to be given a certified copy of the papers on which his freedom depended, and of the order He could then be taken from the of the court for the sale.
State if the purchaser desired.
1
Slave owners had always, by the custom of the country, the One of the reasonable punishment. right to give their slaves
was that the owner provisions of the act of 1751, on negroes, of a slave who had attempted to run away might, if he chose,
turn
him over
to the county court, to be punished by whip branding or otherwise, as the court should see
him
or unfit
him
for labor.
By
the
1804, 90
1833, 224.
Slaves.
79
act, any person who should persuade a slave to run away, became liable, if the slave absconded, to pay his full value to the owner, or if unable to do this, to be imprisoned white servant, for the same offence, had to pay for a year.
same
the same sum, or serve the master for four years. By the act of 1796, on negroes, there was fixed a penalty of not aver two hundred dollars in addition to whatever damages might be
for any person who should be convicted of gotten at law a pass unlawfully to any slave or servant, or assisting giving Half of this fine went to the in any way in their escape.
owner of the slave, half to the county. By the act of 1 809, on crimes, the stealing of a slave or the act of giving aid or counsel thereto, was punished by indemnification and impris onment for not over twelve years. In 1818, the penalty for
inciting or aiding a runaway, was fixed
runaway
at
imprisonment. In 1827 perhaps the This was for a free person, only. result of a petition from sundry citizens of Montgomery
county for greater security for slave property there was added that slaves found guilty, before any justice, of aiding The House of runaways, should receive thirty-nine lashes.
1
Delegates received, in 1820, a petition from certain inhabi tants of Cecil county for a law making a slave who should
run away guilty of a felony. This was referred, but evi In 1838 there was enacted, that any dently without result. slave who should escape from Maryland with the intention of freeing himself from servitude, against the will of his owner, should be deemed guilty of felony, and, on due conviction by
the court, should be sold by the sheriff, at a properly adver tised auction, to be transported from the State. The proceeds,
after expenses were deducted,
went
to the
owner of the
slave.
And
the purchaser was required to give bonds to the State of Maryland, in a sum equal to the amount paid, that the slave
and
in default of a proper
1818, 157
1827, 15.
80
bond, the slave would be sold again. And the Governor of Maryland was directed, when evidence of the escape of a slave
was laid before him, to demand the runaway, as a fugitive from justice, from the authorities of the State to which he had fled. Ten years later, the amount of the bond required was doubled, to twice the value of the slave. 1
The old reward to those taking up a runaway, of two hun dred pounds of tobacco or twenty shillings, was changed in 1806 to six dollars. In 1833 as it had been shown, says
the preamble, that this was not enough to give the neces the reward was raised to thirty dollars. sary encouragement
Constables, too, received special fees for taking up runaways ; for instance, those of Anne Arundel county got six dollars for
each capture.
sum allowed
for capturing
any
runaway slave between the ages of fifteen and forty-five years was fifteen dollars, where the capture took place within thirty miles but more than twenty miles from the slave s home, and For a slave under or fifty dollars, if over thirty miles away. over those ages, the reward was half those sums. But, to entitle one to such reward, the capture must take place beyond For a the county in which the slave \vas owned or hired.
slave taken within a free State, except in the border counties of Pennsylvania, there could be claimed a reward of one hun
the owner.
dred dollars, or half the value of the slave, at the option of Where larger rewards were offered by the owners, 2 these sums were deemed to be included therein.
In 1818, the longest term of imprisonment for aiding or In inciting a slave to escape had been fixed at six years. 1844, this maximum penalty was reduced to five years. Five
1
1838, 63
1847, 309.
; ;
1837, 271 1844, 273. In 1829, a petition from sundry citizens of Frederick co. for repeal of the acts on runaways, and that no fees be allowed anyone who might take up a negro who should be found to be free, was laid on the table. By Act of 1844, a slave once in a free State, one hundred miles from home, was deemed a runaway, so as to entitle the captor to the large reward offered.
1833, 111
Slaves.
81
years after, however, the minimum term in the penitentiary was fixed at six years, the maximum at fifteen ; and so the
law remained.
either
A slave convicted
for the
imprisonment
of the same offence, received same time or not over forty lashes,
Later, the penalty of impris
1
Masters frequently sold to the South their slaves who attempted to run away. There remained on the statute books
the old law which exempted from punishment anyone who should chance to kill a runaway slave forcibly resisting cap ture, and which made the State liable to the owner for the
In 1807, the House of Delegates received a petition from a citizen of Somerset county, for compensation for his slave who was drowned while pursued as a runaway.
value of the slave.
The committee
for
made provision
for slaves killed in pursuit; that the slave in question ran into Pocomoke river to avoid being caught, and in consequence was drowned ; that no distinction should be
payment
made
report,
as to the
manner of the death, if it was from pursuit, owner of a slave was the same. This with an appropriation of a hundred pounds, the House
accepted by a vote of thirty-three to twenty-nine; but the In 1856, the State paid a certain Senate rejected the bill. citizen one thousand dollars, under the act of 1751, for a
slave killed while resisting arrest.
1
1844, 80
1849, 296.
House Journal, 1807, 44-59. 1856, ch. 54. In May, 1852, a runaway slave was killed in Pennsylvania by a resident The Legislature of Maryland voted several thousand dollars of Baltimore. for legal and other assistance to him, declaring that it was believed that the circumstances of the case did not make the killing murder or homicide, to
be punished by law. (1852, 330, Kes. 12, &c.) It seems also that masters were accustomed to have committed to the jails by magistrates such slaves as were unruly or desirous of running away,
or
whom, for one reason or another, they desired to have in safe keeping. To prevent abuse of this custom, sheriffs were forbidden after 1818 to receive
;
but others
82
There was also in force the old law fining a ship-captain three dollars now, instead of twenty shillings, an hour for without passes, and for allowing slaves carrying away negroes
on board his ship, unless properly hired. In 1824, there was enacted further that no officer of a ship should receive on board or carry away any colored person without a properly authenticated certificate of freedom from a clerk of court of the State, as well as a certificate from the clerk of the county where the vessel sailed, with a description of the black. The clerks as well as the captains were to keep careful lists of all colored persons allowed to sail, and captains had to show these
could have their slaves committed to jail and kept there at their expense. Three years after, a bill passed the House to allow sheriffs to receive only such slaves as were committed in due course of law, but this was rejected
by the Senate. Some ten years later, a slave escaped from a county jail, to which he had been sent by a magistrate at the master s request. The mas ter sued in the county court to recover damages from the sheriff. He failed It has been," said there, but the Court of Appeals decided in his favor. the Chief Justice, the constant practice (with what moral propriety it is not for us to say) for owners of slaves in this State to have them committed
"
"
to the jails of the respective counties, for real or supposed offences against their owners." J., 253.) (1818, 208. 5 G.
&
Within the jails whites and blacks were separated, but they were expected evidently to be given the same food and care, save that any medical care would depend on the master not being paid for by the public, as in the
;
case of free prisoners. In 1824, as it was represented that Baltimore was subjected to great ex pense for the care of negroes committed to jail as runaways the free black
population of the city was fast growing the sheriff of Baltimore county to have all supposed runaways brought before one of the judges of the court, within two days, to be examined and either discharged at once
was ordered
The black, if recommitted, was to be advertised in two Baltimore papers, within two days, and twice a week for two months. If not then claimed, he was to be discharged. This act was repealed four years later the act of 1817, as amended by 1828, 98, being in force for Baltimore The charges to the State for board in Baltimore as elsewhere. (1824, 171.)
or recommitted.
;
jail of
supposed runaways, ultimately discharged, were in 1830, $237.96 in The number of 1831, $354.13; in 1832, $364.05; in 1833, $270.24; &c. runaways committed were, in 1852, 61 blacks in 1853, 1 white and 46 blacks; in 1854, 62 blacks in 1857, 3 whites and 86 blacks in 1858, 1 white and
; ;
:
82 blacks
&c.
Slaves.
83
see them,
lists to
and had
to
give every facility for search on their vessels, under a penalty For actually carrying away a col of one hundred dollars.
ored person contrary to this act, a captain became liable to a half to the State, half to the fine of one thousand dollars
who should enter suit. In March, 1 828, a slave woman Baltimore on a steamer of the Penn., Del. & Md. Co. The owner warned the captain of the boat that the slave was
person
left
probably on board, but no efforts were made to find her. The company was then sued for the loss of the slave and judgment
given against
it
in both the
that the owner could have captain Appeals. searched any part of the boat, and that officers were always stationed on the boats before sailing, to prevent runaways
testified
The
from getting aboard but the Court held that the captain, if he had been sufficiently informed of the supposed presence of the negro, and had failed to make the necessary search, had acted at his peril, and that his employers were responsible. 1
;
to lessen the facilities of escape that time, no railroad, chartered by the State of Maryland, or vessel navigating the waters of the State, could transport any slave without a permission in writing from
From
the owner, under a penalty of five hundred dollars for every slave, to be recovered from the railroad corporation or the
vessel.
penalty went
if
In addition,
any
slave escaped
owner might
by being carried on a railway or vessel, the recover the amount of his loss from the corpora
But the law did tion or ship-owners, by an action of debt. not extend to prevent slaves from travelling in company with 2 In accordance with their masters or their master s agents.
this act, officers of boats
employers
to require proof of
U824, 85; 6 G.
2
&
J.,
1838, 375.
84
them
to be free.
In
1849, a bill to provide, especially, for the inspection of all vessels passing through the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, for the purpose of stopping fugitives, was ordered in the House
of Delegates; but evidently nothing further was done. 1 In 1855, the owner of a slave who was carried on the Philadel
Wilmington and Baltimore R. R., and thus helped to 2 escape, recovered over one thousand dollars from the railroad. In August of the same year, a negro boy owned in Somerset
phia,
county, came to Baltimore on a steamer filled with passengers from a camp-meeting. The officers of the boat had no knowl edge that he was on board. The owners of the boat were
sued, and
mon
judgment given in their favor, in the Court of Com But this was reversed by the Court Pleas in Baltimore.
of Appeals, which held that the owners could not escape the penalty by showing that neither they nor their agents knew
was on the boat, although reasonable diligence had been used to prevent runaways from embarking. The law had been made, said the Court, to remedy the great loss suffered by slave-holders; and where one of two innocent parties must suffer, the loss should fall on him who could most easily have prevented it. 3 Another slave owner, at about the same time, got over eight hundred dollars in a suit against the Northern Central R. R. for allowing his runaway slave 4 In another case, the runaway slave had been to use the road. hired out by his master to work on a sailing vessel which ran between Baltimore and Annapolis. His master won five hun dred dollars from the owners of the packet, in a suit in the but this judgment Circuit Court for Anne Arundel county was reversed, the Court of Appeals holding that transportathat the slave
;
House Journal,
In
Circ.
1849, p. 132.
Co.,
2
3 4
13Md.
1859.
10, 1858.
Slaves.
85
by the act of 1838, meant the taking away from the owner without his consent. 1 From Georgia or Carolina a runaway slave must make a from Maryland the long journey before reaching free soil would be a short one at the most. For Pennsylvania escape had abolished slavery in Revolutionary days, and so many of the inhabitants had become opposed to slavery anywhere, that runaways were frequently protected and aided to escape further. As early as 1796, the Maryland House of Delegates received a petition from a citizen of Worcester county, stating that the abolitionists, together with civil officers in Pennsylvania, had taken away his negroes and arrested his person, and praying for aid. The committee reported that the petitioner had been grossly injured in his person and property by some of the citi zens in that State, but that it would be improper for the Legis lature to interfere and become a party on his behalf, as the federal courts were open to all citizens of the country, and
tion,
With
this the
House
further suggestion
money
to the petitioner,
on
sufficient
surety, that he might enter and prosecute the necessary suits for redress, was lost by one vote. In 1798 a bill for better
was introduced in the Maryland postponed ; but a resolution was adopted, declaring that slave owners were subjected to great loss and inconvenience from the escape of slaves to Dela ware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where they remained concealed and protected by the whites, and authorizing the Governor and Council to take measures with the Governors of 2 those States to stop such abuses. In 1815, sundry inhabitants of Allegany, St. Mary s and Washington counties asked for
security of property in slaves
House of
Delegates, only to be
21
Md. Reports,
1.
1863.
Nor was
it
case, that
law.
2
House Journal,
86
action to prevent the escape of slaves into Pennsylvania. The House thereupon resolved that the Legislature of Pennsyl
its authority, as it should deem the citizens from harboring and employing prevent runaway slaves, and to facilitate the return of such to their real
best, to
This resolution was, however, rejected in the Senate. 1 But at the next session was passed a resolution that such abuses
owners.
had so increased from citizens of Pennsylvania and Delaware, and the inconvenience to the good people of Maryland had become so great, that further silence was improper. And the Governor was ordered to send a copy of this resolution to the Governors of those States, to be laid before their Legislatures, that some provisions might be made to prevent the evils. Again, the next year, the Governor was ordered to open a cor respondence at once for the same object, and it was declared that the abuses were injurious in their consequences even to 2 In 1820 the Assembly resolved that it slaves themselves. was necessary to call the attention of Congress to the constant and ready protection given to runaways by citizens of Penn Every possible difficulty, we read, was there put in sylvania. the way of the recovery of a slave, even in the legal and just
efforts
of the owner.
If legal proceedings favored him, force Such a state of things was not only
vexatious to masters, but tended to destroy the contentment and happiness of the slaves. So the Governor was requested to
ask the members of Congress from Maryland to exert their influence to procure measures by Congress to protect the rights
At the very next session of Assembly, the committee on Grievances and Courts reported to the House that they had found true the petition of one of their fellow
members, a delegate from Baltimore county, as to the treat ment which he received in person from sundry citizens of York
1
of slaveholders. 3
House Journal,
Slaves.
87
county, Pennsylvania, while he was in the peaceable and legal exercise of the provisions of the act of Congress for the capture
of fugitive slaves ; and the committee urged that measures should be taken by Pennsylvania to stop the practices, not merely of aiding runaways, but of keeping away the owners by
threats of personal violence, and of using the civil authorities to force owners to abandon their property rather than undergo
imprisonment and trial under a State law against kidnapping. The House thereupon passed a resolution, asking the Governor of Pennsylvania to interpose in behalf of the petitioner, but
the matter was dropped in the Senate, as the petitioner had by
that time been relieved.
Another resolution, however, was sent the Governors of Pennsylvania and Delaware, to remedy Silence on the part of the Assembly of the abuses in general.
if
not criminal. 1
the next session, again, another member of the House had received opposition and indignity ; whereupon a joint com mittee from House and Senate, at the head of which stood
By
into
who
New
we
which hands
Suffice it to point out the injuries the people of Maryland felt they were receiving at the These injuries, wrote the joint com of their neighbors.
to enter.
on
mittee of 1822, had for several years been loudly complained of by the people of Maryland, while due regard was had to the
delicate nature of the subject, and of the caution with which it should be treated. Slavery was a calamity, certainly not more
All friends of deplored by Pennsylvania than by Maryland. freedom should rejoice at its complete extermination ; but that end could not be expected for many years to come. So long
House Journal, 1821, 21, 119; Kes. 53. House Journal, 1822, 46, 163, &c.; 1823, 67;
Kes. 81.
88
Maryland
are as
much
entitled to
much
any other property ; their rights to them are secured by the Constitution of the United States as
any
The
existence of our
happy Union
depends, in a great degree, on preserving harmony among its members. So spoke this committee. All must have agreed
that the rights of slaveholders should be protected. In and 1843, resolutions of the Assembly declared that no could abridge the rights guaranteed to all citizens by the stitution of the United States, and called for a law
1837
State
Con
from
Congress to make the rescue of a fugitive a criminal offence, to be punished by imprisonment, when remuneration could not
citizen of Maryland met with such experiences York, while attempting lawfully to recover a runaway, that the Assembly in 1849 directed the Attorney- General to
be given. 1
in
New
take
all
Supreme Court. The negro, so the resolution stated, was dis charged by a justice of the Supreme Court of New York, on grounds which amounted to the abnegation of the laws of Con
gress to secure slave owners their property in runaway slaves. In the same year, several men were brought to trial by the State for helping slaves to escape, and the Assembly, as we
few years saw, tripled the maximum term for that offence. the State appropriated over eleven hundred dollars to later, several persons in Montgomery county for arresting a man
had furthered the escape of slaves. the Governor, in 1847 and 1852, told the people of Finally, Maryland how ineffectual were requisitions on the State of
Pennsylvania for the delivery of
livery of a citizen of
slaves, as well as for the
from
de
;
Maryland who had aided slaves to escape and how one respected citizen of Maryland had died from vio lence received in Pennsylvania, and another was shot down there and his son seriously wounded, while engaged in the re1 2
IS37, Res. 79; 1843, Res. 28. 1849, Kes. 21, 32 1853, 124.
;
House Journal,
1853, Doc. G.
Slaves.
89
turn of their runaway slaves, according to the act of Congress. There is much significance in the experience of two slaves who
ran away from their home in Virginia, in the winter of 1856, and cautiously followed the railroads North. After passing the Gunpowder River, beyond Baltimore, they thought they had crossed the line into Pennsylvania, and applied for work but they were still in Maryland, and were sent back to Virginia. In other ways, too, in the newspapers, men were frequently reminded of the insecurity of slave property. In the county papers were the sheriffs advertisements and the description of
;
runaways, with the rough wood-cut of a black hurrying on, with stick and bundle-handkerchief over his shoulder, and his
The Easton Star, for instance, told eyes turned backwards. how twelve slaves had just run away from that neighborhood
on a certain Saturday night, and that two nights before, and two nights after, several had escaped from the lower counties. The Cecil Democrat said that six slaves had gone from that county
assisted
while their master was away, and that they were doubtless by abolitionists, as one had been seen there-abouts, about
that time.
five
loss
of
more slaves on a Saturday night. One citizen of Balti more county lost seventeen slaves together, but found them in Pennsylvania and brought them back. Later still, in 1853, there was a stampede of slaves, as the Cumberland Telegraph
put it, but eight at least were recaptured across the line. On a certain day in September, 1855, said the Chestertown News,
ten slaves not only took themselves away, but three horses and two carriages besides and on October 20th, following, seven more escaped, and on the 26th, eleven more. There were of escapes and captures in which weapons were reports, too,
;
used on both
It
is
sides.
many a slave and free black, especially in the communities where they were known, moved about freely without thought of the need of a pass, or of fear of hindrance.
certain that
If the laws, as we have seen, were not always regarded, some times they were ineffectual. A certain British vessel cleared
90
from Baltimore,
in 1852, after the master, as required, had taken the usual oath against shipping runaways. The owners of a slave boy, then missing, had their and over
suspicions,
the Chesapeake and had her searched. The boy was found, hidden on board by a colored man, unbe known to the officers. Two slaves, some years later, got
down
freedom, but their showing owner and the police caught them before the train started. But a slave who traveled without a pass was liable to get into
&
Baltimore Station
One day in Baltimore, in 1858, several colored men were arrested as runaway slaves, and taken before the Superior Court; where it was found that they were slaves who had come to the city to spend their Christmas holidays, by permis sion of their master, and that they had left their passes with
trouble.
the captain of the steamer in which they came and were to 1 return home. They were at once released by the court. The
slaveholders convention of Worcester county in 1858, resolved, among other things, that slaveholders should be requested to
home without
of both whites and blacks for aiding runaways to escape. In a few cases, too, both whites and free blacks were found to have
encouraged slaves to run away, and then to have betrayed them 2 for the reward. One free black, at least, seems to have earned
a livelihood by aiding slaves to escape, for
when
tried in Balti
more, in 1857, for helping away five slaves, it appeared that he had been for some years in that occupation, was in the
employ of three whites, and generally got fifteen dollars for every slave he got away. He had been in the penitentiary 3 before, and was then sold out of the State for thirty years.
Baltimore Sun, Jan. 1st, 1858. For instance, Baltimore Sun, of Jan. 19th, 1849. 3 Baltimore City Circuit Court, Jan. 6th, 1857. He brought $350.
2
Slaves.
91
citizens of
for the Society," incorporated who insured a of slave property. insurance Every person slave became a member, and the object was to protect the mem bers from loss of slaves who might run away beyond the
"Mutual
Protection
Maryland. ./Slaves who were captured were to be sold by the Society beyond the State, and the proceeds went to reimburse members and into the funds of the Society. ^ In 1860, was formed the Southern Slaveholders Insurance Com pany of Maryland. Any slaveholder of the United States could have his property insured, and either the runaways
limits of
1 were returned or their value paid.
Yet, while slave property in Maryland was thus far from being secure, and many slaves did run away, the great majority of slaves there probably had no thought of leaving home.
In 1854, two slaves who had run away from Worcester county, desired to return home, but feared that they might be A special convicted as runaways, and sold out of the State.
act of
Assembly, therefore, allowed them to return to their master without fear of such punishment. Some years after, a slave belonging in the same county ran away into Delaware,
but soon turned back to go home. On his way he was arrested, lodged in jail in Delaware, and then sent home. By a special
mistress was allowed to keep him, inasmuch, we read, as his presence in the slave population was thought by many slaveholders of the county to be calculated to keep his fellows
act, his
from absconding. 2
tion
2
See Acts of Incorporation, 1846, 356 1860, 390. A bill for a "Protec Society" of Kent County had been rejected by the Senate in 1827.
;
See
also,
1861-2, 245.
92
and that many and great disturbances were threatened, particu The Indians, it was larly in Calvert and Charles counties. were in league with the papists. Suspicions must have said, been cast on the negroes, also, for those Southern counties had
a large slave population.
fifteen
But
a declaration signed
by some
prominent men
home government
that the plot was wholly groundless and imaginary. In 1695, there was passed an act to prevent the frequent meetings of This soon expired ; but it is evident that blacks negroes.
political intrigues.
Nor
were men entirely free of apprehensions from the white ser vants, some of whom were the refuse of European camps, There were reports prisoners of war, and worthless convicts. of a plot of Irish servants and slaves in Bermuda, and of an insurrection which had been planned and almost carried out
by a number of servants, one whom were tried and 2 executed. The Assembly of Maryland in 1705 declared that certain whites were guilty of a conspiracy to seize the Governor Heathen Indians," to and magazine, and, joining with the
in Gloucester county, Virginia,
of
whom
"
During
all
the years
Eng
Romanists of Maryland were kept under the eye of government. In 1708, for instance, the sheriffs of the coun ties were ordered to send to the Governor within a few weeks
the
papists
^ub. Record
Office,
quoted in Scharf
Maryland,
I,
309.
In 1698, the
provincial Governors were ordered at the suggestion of the Board of Trade to see that the laws for increasing the whites in proportion to the blacks,
were duly enforced. There w ere no such laws in Md., but Gov. Nicholson urged on the Board the evils that might follow from too great increase in
r
the blacks.
2
3 Bacon, 1705, 5. Annals of Annapolis, 108. not caught, was attainted, two years later.
The
ringleader,
who was
Slaves.
93
families, but of the households, servants and slaves baptized 1 In 1739, the Council received the depo in the Roman faith.
sitions of several negroes of Prince George s county, telling of a most wicked and dangerous conspiracy which had been entered into by the blacks there, to destroy the whites, and to
possess themselves of the country. Whereupon, the Governor issued orders for a special commission of Oyer and Terminer for the speedy trial of those who had been taken, and that a
Annapolis was ordered not to allow any negroes to enter that city on Sundays without written permits from their masters.
the next day, the Council decided that, in accordance with the laws on slaves, the trials could not be held before the next regular courts should sit, so the sheriff was ordered to take every precaution with his prisoners, and to levy any
On
posse that might be necessary; for there was reason, wrote the Council, to fear that those who were already in jail and the numbers which must be committed, together with their
trouble.
all
The Governor,
and mili
officials, civil
tary, to aid in averting such great dangers as the lives and property of the people, by the
were threatening rage and fury of merciless and barbarous slaves. Care was to be taken to enforce strictly the laws against tumultuous meetings of slaves,
who might
all laws for the public safety, and to exhort all the to be on their guard, for the defence of themselves and people their neighbors. In particular, the magistrates were bidden to take notice of the way in which local officers should act,
and the major-generals of the Eastern and Western shores were given careful instructions for the practice of the troops,
1
94
to be ready for
any possible insurrections or foreign wars. These messages were startling but this insurrection seems to have been no more than a local excitement caused by a few The leader was tried and executed. There was a blacks.
;
great difference of opinion, indeed, as to the extent of the out break and of the dangers from it, the House of Delegates
assuring the Council during some opposition to the appro which the Council desired, the following year, on priations account of the war between England and Spain that the
Romanists of the Province were not inclined to disturb the peace, and that inquiry into the insurrection of the negroes in
Prince George s county failed to find anything which could in any way be presumed to have endangered the welfare of the
In 1742, the Council feared that there was a con of certain Indians to destroy all the whites in Mary spiracy land ; but articles of peace were soon made with them, the
Province.
Governor was lenient, and within a year their 2 In 1745, again, the Romanists guns were restored to them. were under great suspicion. To one of their leaders Governor Bladen wrote, that their religious duties should be fulfilled,
action of the
as they surely might be, without such large meetings of people as might give suspicion of designs other than religious exer cises. Nothing, said the Governor, could give greater alarm
good subjects of King George than such frequent meetings 3 of whites and negroes under pretence of divine worship. Again, with the breaking out of the French and Indian war, not only were the people of Maryland, particularly those in
to
distant parts, bidden by a proclamation to be ready for defence, but the colonels of militia in Frederick and Baltimore
its
make
returns of
1 Council Kecords, 1738-1753, 59, &c., 110. The Council seem to have taken the House to be very unpatriotic for being willing to believe no illwill on the part of the negroes, and so for discouraging the need of military
measures.
2
Slaves.
95
number of men and arms, and whether there was plenty of ammunition in the counties in case of any rioting or plot Should such intrigues be ting by servants, slaves or others.
the
known, the ring-leaders were to be seized by the troops. After Braddock s defeat, according to Governor Sharp s let ters, the people were thrown into the greatest consterna tion, slaves and convicts were well watched, and the militia
were ready
to quell
came
to the
any insurrections. Soon, indeed, reports Council that the negroes in certain parts had
held some tumultuous meetings and intrigues, and the Romanists in several counties had so misbehaved as to give cause So the magistrates throughout the for fears of insurrection.
to
to imprison
but
if the reports
before the courts as disturbers of the peace. also to be made into the report that some
priests
Roman
had recently been absent from their homes. Answers were received from the magistrates in nine counties, and all to the effect that the constables in the various hundreds were wide awake to their duties, that the Romanists were few in num 2 ber, and that nothing unusual had been done by the negroes.
In the troubled
state of affairs
Rev
olution, several gentlemen requested Governor Eden to give out arms to the people, from fears that the servants and slaves might revolt. The Governor expostulated, stating that such
action
would tend only to hasten any such evil, but finally gave a quantity of arms to certain regularly appointed persons, 3 But in both the Revolu in accordance with the militia act. tion and the war of 1812 there was no general uprising of
slaves.
On
the contrary, a
number of
colored
men
served
Council Kecords, 1753-1767, 56. Council Kecords, 1753-1767, 59, 65-73. Stevens Hist. Index, Vol. X. Gov. Dinwiddie, of Va., had fears of the negroes at this time. (Dinwiddie
2
Md.,
II, 179.
96
In the summer of faithfully in the American forces. there arrived in Baltimore some twelve hundred refugees
San Domingo, flying from the horrors of servile insurrection. They brought half as many slaves with them. They were, reported a committee in the Assembly, in a state of distress
which exceeded description. The Assembly appropriated five hundred dollars weekly for two months, and thousands of dol The lars were raised for them besides, throughout the State. this insurrection had not been forgotten when, in the horrors of autumn of 1831, there came the reports of the revolt of slaves It is certain that fears and in Southampton county, Virginia. suspicions of the negroes w ere rumored in Maryland. In some of the lower counties, expresses were sent off for arms and men, and some blacks were arrested but there seem to have been no good reasons for any such apprehensions, and no need for
r
such measures.
Insurrection wholly local and the only, was not unknown in Maryland.
and a
free black
were arrested
Maryland by their masters. A memorial, signed by a number of very respectable persons, was presented the Governor, to commute the sentence of the slave from hanging The Governor signified his willingness so to imprisonment.
sold out of
to do, did the
was given forty years imprisonment, county. and one slave was sentenced to be hung, but most of those who took part in the intrigue were not brought to trial, but were
free black
The
NUesf Register, XLI, 131. In lower Delaware and the current number of Niles Register, awful reports were Maryland, says been the heaped upon one another by fear, but there does not seem to have least foundation for this excitement. Mr. McSherry, in his History of Maryland, p. 358, says that the intrigues of the party of Nat. Turner extended over a part of Maryland, but that a on the misunderstanding on the part of those concerned, and timely measures no sources for part of the whites, prevented the outbreak. Unfortunately,
USSl, Res.
27, 65.
Slaves.
97
tentiary;
whereupon a
special act of
1
Assembly
directed that
Maryland seem
to
have
been as groundless in the latter days of slavery as they had been generations before, when the politics of Europe, reflected in the Colonies, made the royal Governors look on the negroes
as ready accomplices of the Romanists, or of the Jacobites, or In the spring of 1855, a rumor of an uprising of the French.
of the slaves caused great excitement, in Dorchester county, and the houses of many negroes were searched for firearms,
but the papers soon announced that the whole affair was a 2 hoax. Meanwhile the excitement spread to Talbot county.
It
the Easter holidays approaching. meeting of many and citizens of Easton adopted resolutions asking slave respectable holders to keep their servants at home although, says the
3 probably no truth in the rumors. in Prince George s Two years later, a similar report broke out The blacks were more carefully watched, but all county.
is
excitement soon subsided, and people concluded that there had In the never been any plan or intention of insurrection.
autumn of 1 859 occurred the John Brown raid on the border of Western Maryland and Virginia. Maryland militia were sent for the suppression of the outbreak, and the sheriffs of the
Western border counties called out large patroling parties, to For some days prevent the meeting and escape of slaves. the papers were full of nothing else. It was even said that there was to have been, on a certain day, an uprising of all the slaves of Maryland and Virginia. Then began the formation in all parts of Maryland of new military companies. Here, a public meeting was held and a rifle company formed in other places, cavalry companies were enlisted. The martial spirit is
;
Executive Message, 1845 1845, ch. 368. Cambridge Democrat, quoted in Baltimore Sun for April 13th, 1855. 8 Raston Gazette, April 7th, 1855.
;
98
up, said one county paper, and our people are their own best 1 In Frederick, so the local papers stated, strangers defenders. had been seen to lurk about the barracks, if not indeed to
attempt to enter them so volunteer companies keep guard at There were rumors that accomplices of Brown were night.
;
all suspicious
Again, that some forty slaves had planned to escape from Carroll county on a certain Saturday night, and that horses and wagons were found waiting when the plot was
discovered. Afterwards, men learned that one of the first persons shot by John Brown s party was a colored porter at the Harper s Ferry depot, who remained faithful to his trust, and that the
Brown by the slaves was trivial. At that time even, were many proofs that the threatened dangers were On the night of October 19th, the citizens of exaggerated.
aid given
there
about to break out, and their town was to be attacked. The streets were at once patrolled by bodies of armed men, and
various precautions taken but the report in the newspaper is 7 2 On a certain night, early "Another False Alarm. in November following, an alarm of insurrection and murder
;
headed
services
Som
The
paper, rose
from prayers, broke up the benches to provide themselves with weapons, and scoured the neighborhood, but found nothing to
On the night following, the houses of many free blacks were searched, and a slave who attempted to leave one of the cabins was shot, being mistaken for an insurgent by the excited crowd. This has all, doubtless, adds the paper, grown
alarm them.
out of the excitement roused by the affair at Harper s Ferry. The last week in November, the people of another neighbor3
57,
2 3
See Baltimore and county papers for Oct., Nov., Dec., 1859. 274 1861-2, 163.
;
1860, ch.
The
Slaves.
99
hood were told that a lady near the Virginia line, a large slave holder had received a letter stating that the blacks of the Eastern shores of Maryland and Virginia had planned an insur The local paper rection which was to be carried out at once.
did not put the slightest faith in the report, but suggested that the citizens should be vigilant and ready for any emergency.
spoken of by the Baltimore Sum, as a hoax had been current on the Eastern shore of Virginia, the week At almost the same time, an excitement spread in before. Talbot county from a threatening letter which was found on a wharf at St. Michael s. 1 Patrols were at once organized and But nothing a strong guard made ready to protect Easton. unusual happened, save these measures, and some unwonted severity, perhaps, shown by the constabulary to the blacks. Once again, Easton was put under arms, from the information of a colored woman and some person in the county remem bered that a suspicious looking man, who might have been Brown himself, had been seen thereabouts before the Harper s
;
A similar report
Ferry
affray.
these times of reported insurrection, the blacks were without doubt more frightened than the whites. Doubtless,
too,
At
many
such times,
added to
its
community in Maryland could have said, at what the paper in Wilmington, North Carolina, account of the excitement that followed the news
:
be dismissed without speaking of the good behavior of the slaves thereabouts, who might be entrusted, it was believed, to
take part in the defence of the community under any circum stances. In the Civil War that soon followed, the women and
children of the South were left largely in the care of slaves, while the masters were fighting for a cause which would have
least,
Easton
Star,
100
the provisions of the act of 1695, to restrain the fre quent assemblages of negroes, we know nothing ; but the law soon expired. In 1723, the Assembly considered the evils
Of
Sabbath and resulting from the large meetings of negroes on other Holy-days," and enacted that the courts should begin at once the yearly custom of appointing constables, in such
"
them, to suppress tumultuous meetings constable so appointed was required to visit of slaves. Every all suspected places in his hundred, once a month, and could
hundreds
as required
give not over thirty-nine lashes to every negro who might be found away from home without a permit from his master.
For
paid five hundred pounds of tobacco any person to aid him. For a white
assistance, there
and he might
call
on
man who
should refuse
bacco
was a penalty of one hundred pounds of to a negro refused on pain of a whipping. Afterwards, such duties belonged to all constables, under penalty for neg;
And glect of not less than one hundred dollars. who refused his aid when summoned, could be
;
any person
fined
not
more than that sum nor less than twenty dollars. The special pay for the constable was eight dollars but after 1806, every
constable had, before he could receive this, to get a certificate
from
at least two respectable citizens of his hundred, bearing 1 witness to his industry and fidelity in carrying out the law. By a law of 1715, persons who entertained or kept away
from home any servant or slave for the space of a day or night became liable to a fine of five hundred pounds of to This seems to have been taken advantage of by per bacco. sons many crafty and ill-disposed persons, the act says who entertained servants and slaves for a few hours at a time and at dead of night, and also enticed these to steal their mas So the fine was ters goods, and to commit other disorders. 2 in 1 748 to one hundred pounds an hour ; to be changed
1
Code of 1860,
art. 23,
30 and
Slaves.
101
recovered before a single magistrate, if not over six hundred in all. If the offender could not pay he might be whipped.
The penalty afterwards became a fine of two dollars an hour. Servants and slaves who harbored others unlawfully were to
be whipped by order of a magistrate. After 1723, also, the owner of a plantation was directed to send home, by whipping
if necessary, any negroes who might be found there, without permission or errand from their masters. And any person
who encouraged slaves to meet in numbers on his place, except on lawful occasions, became liable to a fine of one thousand pounds of tobacco afterwards of twenty dollars. The constables of towns, also, were usually ordered by
special
acts
of Assembly to
see,
among
negroes did not gather in noisy groups in the streets, or at For instance, a con meetings, or remain out late at night. stable was appointed in 1800 for the town of Cambridge, as
the peace of the town was much disturbed by frequent meet ings of negroes, and the constable of the hundred had hap
pened to live out of the town. The constable appointed for the village of Newmarket in Dorchester county, in 1804, was
to prevent disorderly meetings of blacks there and in the neighborhood, and to give moderate punishment, under the
direction of
any justice of the peace, to all such as should be found strolling the streets at night, or frequenting the houses of persons other than their masters, without permission. 1
Often, in towns with a considerable black population, a bell
was rung at a certain hour in the evening as nine in winter and ten in summer and the black who remained out of doors thereafter had to rely on his own good character, or on the
carelessness or
heels, to
save
These
by runaways.
They were
1
1800, 6
102
instance, the Society of Friends who held yearly meet in Anne Arundel and Talbot counties, were much annoyed ings
For
by the numbers of persons who met and drank liquors in the neighborhood of their meeting-houses. Soon after 1700, they
petititioned the Governor and Council to have an end put to such abuses. Finally, after several complaints, a law was made in 1725, to forbid the sale of liquors within certain dis
tances of the meeting houses, except at inns. But the orderly Friends were still troubled by the racing of horses and the meetings of negroes great crowds of idle whites and blacks,
they said, drank and behaved riotously there until, in 1747, horse racing was forbidden, also, and the constables of the
neighborhood were specially ordered to disperse all crowds of slaves, at the times of the yearly meetings, if necessary by 1 Besides such whipping and by the assistance of a posse.
ordinary measures for good order, there was the need, often, of reasonable discipline in the care of servants and slaves, if the master was not to lose by their picking and stealing,
to get good work from them. Could they frequent the grogshops, his corn and tobacco might easily be turned into liquor ; and were they up for the night, his work would
and was
suffer
by day.
It
was
them
home by nine or ten at ni^ht, make the rule, to-day, that after
at
2
company in the kitchen. Masters were caused much trouble by the sale of liquor to The early court records show that care servants and slaves. was taken by a license system, to keep inns from becoming
nuisances.
One
landland of
bond
in 1660, in the
St. Mary s, for instance, gave sum of a thousand pounds of tobacco and
Colonial Church Life in Maryland, 123. Act 1725, 6 1747, 17. The good Friends of Pennsylvania who met in yearly meeting in 1696,
;
not only advised their brethren not to increase slaves among them, but to loose and idle bring the slaves they had to meetings, to keep them from First Days and other times. ( Janney s living, and from rambling abroad of
Slaves.
103
have good order kept at casks, that he would, for five years, his house, especially at times of divine service, and would not
allow servants and apprentices to get liquors or to remain tip7 a hundred ling there without their masters knowledge. Over
the city of Annapolis years later, an act of Assembly authorized to regulate taverns, as, we read, many of the servants and slaves there were injured and their masters deprived of their the sale to them of rum and spirits. After 1780, services,
by any tavern keeper in the State who should harbor, or sell any without written liquors to any servant, apprentice or slave, liable for each offence to forfeit leave from the master, became to the master one hundred and sixty pounds of tobacco,
1 To prevent the sale of stolen goods, afterwards, ten dollars. there was enacted, in 1692, that no one should trade or barter
with any servants or slaves without permission from their owners, under penalty of two thousand pounds of tobacco, half to the government and half to the owner of the goods.
And
if the
owner,
also,
value of these was over a thousand pounds, the could enter suit for damages against the receiver
if he could not pay this further fine, received thirty on his bare back. The law afterwards read that no stripes person should buy or get in any way from any slave^any -goods whatever, or should sell anything to any slave, without written permission from his owner or overseer, under penalty
who,
of a
of five dollars, on conviction before a magistrate. after 1796, any slave who should sell liquor or keep Also, entertainment at any muster-ground, race track or other public
fine
place,
liable to arrest
Code of 1860.
2
W/H. &
L., 91
1715, 44
Code of 1860.
These
the Court of
Appeals, in 1837, did not imply any right in slaves to deal or make con Servants and tracts, the penalty on the free person showing the reverse.
slaves
3
(9 G.
&
J., 14.)
1796, 67.
104
In 1666, the House of Delegates called the attention of the Council to a bill deemed very important, to prohibit ser vants and negroes from keeping pigs for their own benefit ; but the Council replied that such a law was not necessary, as every master had the power to forbid swine to his slaves and
unless the indentures of the servants hap pened to give them special privileges. In 1723, there was enacted that masters who allowed slaves to keep any horses
to hfs servants
or cattle or swine, as their own, should forfeit five hundred pounds of tobacco and the animals. There were, afterwards,
no such restrictions. 1 v A slave could not legally hold prop whether he had possessions or privileges depended, as erty the Council said in 1666, on the master s will. Generally, the slave had at least a garden and chicken coop, from whose pro Some mas ceeds he got such luxuries as coffee and tobacco.
:
ters
bought what the slaves raised even at the risk, occa sionally, of paying for a sweet potato or a chicken that was others gave their slaves permits to sell and already theirs
;
buy
lay asleep in the big house, while the black quietly did his bartering at some corner store or on some boat in the river. The majority of slaves in the coast States worked
;
others,
still,
by tasks when the allotted work was done daily, the slave s time was his own. On Saturday afternoons, some slaves had less than the usual work to do, and it was the general custom to give holidays at Christmas and Easter-tide. At such times, the market places of the county towns might be thronged
;
with blacks.
At the session of Assembly of 1787, the House received from the Senate a bill to prevent the inconveniences arising from slaves who were allowed to act as freemen. The first section placed a penalty of five pounds a month on all mas1 Md. Arch., II, 23, &c. One of the resolutions of the convention of slaveholders of Worcester county, in 1858, was that slave owners and slave hirers be asked to discontinue the practice of allowing slaves to have corn
patches.
Slaves.
105
who should allow slaves to go at large or hire them motion selves out, except during ten days at harvest time. to strike out this section was lost by a vote of thirty-two to
ters
fifteen.
The second
under a like penalty, to run any boat over which was used to carry goods belonging to twenty long any other person than the owner of the boat. This section was struck out but the bill, as amended and passed, excepted And a person who should hire any slave unregular pilots.
by
their masters,
feet
lawfully, was also made liable to the penalty of five pounds a month. At the session of 1794, there were several attempts
made
One
bill,
for further legislation evidently for greater restrictions. introduced in the House, was to prevent slaves
from acting as free in several counties. Baltimore county was added by a vote of thirty-nine to seventeen, and a motion to except Baltimore city was defeated by seven votes though the delegates from the city were opposed to the bill. Motions to add Anne Arundel, Talbot and Cecil counties were all lost, and the bill as passed was rejected in the Senate. In 1802, the Senate offered a bill for an act by which the penalty on the master who should let out the slave, was raised to forty This the House would not agree to, although it dollars. would tend, the Senate argued, to remedy an evil which had
risen to such a degree as to require legislative interference. The House maintained that a fine of twenty-five dollars on
sufficient.
The
next year, the Senate again brought in a bill, and again the House rejected it. 1 i/By an act of 1817, there was made an
exception of twenty days at harvest time, instead of ten days. The maximum penalty for one who should make any contract
who
should
let his
slave go at
House Journal,
1802, 43,
56, &c.
106
In 1821, a special law required constables in Worcester and Caroline counties to arrest and bring before a justice all slaves,
except regular pilots^who might be found going at large or hiring themselves out, or who might not have fixed homes on
be duly hired out in the employ of If the justice found that the law was being violated, he should let out the slave for the rest of the current constable year ; the proceeds to be given to the county.
their
estates, or
.was entitled to two dollars for thus taking up and letting out a slave. This act was extended, at the next session, to Som
erset
counties.
But competition between white and black was not without some influence, we presume, in bringing- about such legisla A petition was presented the House of Delegates, tion. in 1808, from "the owners of hack-stages, draymen, carters and laborers of Baltimore, who complained that they were
"
"deprived
who
This was referred to the next Assembly. 2 engross the same." * Despite the laws, slaves were often hiring themselves, or
being hired out. At the slaveholders conventions, these lib erties were always severely denounced. The papers tell us, for instance, how the grand jury of Anne Arundel, in 1854, gave
particular attention to doing
away with
hiring themselves out by permission of their masters ; and how the citizens of a certain district in Somerset county, at a public
meeting early in 1860, expressed their disapproval of the practice of allowing slaves hired out to be roasters of their own time, and of that of hiring them out with the provision of
their
own
Not
a few slaves in
1817, 104
Code of 1860,
66, 29
1821, 183
citizens of St.
Mary
1808, 75.
;
Baltimore Sun, April 28th, 1854 Jan. 20th, 1860. In 1849, a bill to prevent the employment of slaves by merchants, shopkeepers and traders, without the written consent of their owners, was laid on the table.
3
Slaves.
107
were allowed by their
cities,
masters to live and act as freemen, and also to buy their own freedom by their extra earnings. But this was by the suffer
ance of others only and by no right of their own. Thus, in one case, the owner of a slave who had been hired out to some
third party in Baltimore for a time, finally agreed with him This was to sell him his freedom for two hundred dollars.
in 1833, and for two years the negro went at large and now by acted as a free man, earning in various vocations an oyster house, now a boot-black shop the money keeping
By June, 1835, he had paid, through an or agent, all but twenty-seven dollars, and received attorney During the summer fol receipts on account of his freedom.
for his freedom.
lowing, he went to New York, and was a waiter on a North River boat. On returning in October, he tendered the balance of payment, which was refused by his owner s agent, and he was soon arrested as a runaway slave and sold. The Court of Appeals on an appeal from the City Court held that slaves could not enter into valid contracts with their masters,
else,
tract at law, but agreed with the lower court in setting this negro free under the old law which declared free any slave
who
should enter Maryland to remain. 1 There was enacted in 1752, that slave owners
who
should
neglect to provide for old or disabled slaves, or should allow them to leave their homes, or wander about begging, becoming
9 G.
&
J. 14.
interesting case
Bland & Woolfolk vs. Negro Beverly Bowling, 1837. An came before the Court of Appeals in 1850. Some twenty
woman was
Baltimore, and to live with her reputed husband there the husband to pay a given sum yearly for her services. When her family became large, this payment was not exacted. She lived as free, renting houses, hiring herself
She was then seized by a representative of her owner, who stated out, &c. that there was a report that one of the family was about to run away. There were various questions in the case before the courts. The Circuit Court
gave her freedom, but the Court of Appeals denied
it.
(9 Gill, 120.)
108
In 1 790, because, we humanity required that faithful servants should be sup ported by their masters, another act provided that any master who should allow a slave who was aged, or infirm from any accident, to wander abroad, or to lack proper care and cover, should be examined by the county court, and, if guilty, required to give good bond in the sum of thirty pounds, for future care
county court for the use of the county.
read,
act, of course, did not apply to a slave who run away contrary to the will of the owner. After 1796, might the bond was one hundred dollars. 1 Aged or infirm slaves who were occasionally left without anyone to support them, were cared for by the levy courts and afterwards by the county
commissioners.
houses.
Some
lived
and died
want by persons died insolvent, and the county authorities were specially ordered to care suitably for these.
slaves were sometimes left in
Old
who
At
of the
a council meeting at Annapolis, in 1699, at which some King s instructions were read on the conversion of
negroes and Indians, Governor Blakiston said he was in formed that several masters hindered their negroes, though
baptized, from going to church.
On
was no law
have been done. 2 There sage of one was enacted in 1723, that no person whatever should work on the Lord s day, nor should command or allow any children,
servants or slaves to
charity excepted.
to profane that
work in anyway works of necessity and Nor should children or menials be allowed
day by unlawful pastimes and recreations, on of a fine of two hundred pounds of tobacco from the penalty
1752, 1
1790, 9
1796, 67
Code of 1860,
66, 26.
Slaves.
109
1
became five dollars. Any privi of church-going which slaves might enjoy depended, leges much as with children, on the disposition of the masters. We have seen the prejudice that was widely spread at first, against the conversion of the blacks but when men found that Christianity did not work manumission, and after the earnest
master.
This
fine afterwards
efforts
made by the missionaries, such as Dr. Bray in Maryland, most masters seemed very willing for their slaves to worship.
preferred that they should attend the churches of the whites, fearful of the teachings, perhaps, of preachers who
Some
were ignorant
Others allowed
or less under the supervision of regular church associations. It was customary for certain portions of churches to be set In an act for the erection of a apart for colored persons.
church in
Anne s parish in Annapolis, in 1774, there was the provision for a place, in addition to the public stipulated gallery, for those servants, and another for slaves, that might
St.
attend service.
munion
"
sixty-one communicants that belonged to one parish in Anne Arundel, in 1790, thirteen were entered and a piece of the church glebe next Black Brethren ; as to the church yard, was given these, by their request, for a
table.
"
Of
and
their descendants.
We
find
an interesting vote of the vestry of another parish, in 1747, that the churchwardens prevent the negroes from going in among the white people to disturb them, as they frequently did, and from going in and out of church during service. But in this, we may add, the blacks had had the example
set
them by
their betters
had
been ordered to keep the vestry-house locked, as persons were in the habit of running in and out of church in cold weather,
1723, 16.
1774, 11.
110
was kept in the vestry. In the genera tion before the Civil War, many earnest workers were busied in the South in the religious instruction of the blacks. There was never anything in the laws of Maryland to prevent slaves from holding religious services quietly on their masters estates but with the Southampton insurrection and the growth of abo litionism throughout the land, some restrictions were placed on free blacks as religious and other associations of the blacks
to visit the fire that
;
well as slaves.
Ordinarily, the constables and magistrates were looked to to enforce the laws concerning blacks as well as whites. But
after 1820,
any justice in Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles, Prince George s and St. Mary s counties was empowered, on
the application of three judicious persons, to call out patroling parties to search the neighborhood, for from four to eight hours, to see that the negroes were at home and orderly.
militia duty,
These patroling parties were formed of citizens subject to the were limited to fifteen in a party, and were to be
commanded by discreet persons named by the justice. They received fifty cents a night when on duty. The commissioners
of Frederick county were soon empowered to appoint justices
to
summon
the commissioners of
fit,
2
a patrol whenever necessary. And, after 1856, Kent county could appoint if they saw a dozen or so special police to enforce the laws against the
blacks.
But
it
was
of rumors
1820, 200. Calvert county was added by 1822, 85. 210 1856, 177.
;
estates
Slaves could not carry guns or "other offensive weapons" off their master s a prohibition which seems to have been made in 1704, at a time
of the government.
on, as we saw, as possible enemies If they did so, they could be whipped and the guns be forfeited, if belonging to them. Before that time negroes and other
Slaves.
Ill
of runaways or uprisings that the patrols were called out ; and at such times, impromptu patroling parties helped to exe
cute the laws everywhere. For instance, in the summer of a stranger who had been seen talking with the negroes 1835, and attending some of their meetings, in the neighborhood of
The town, Chestertown, was put in jail for examination. wrote a gentleman to Niles* Register, was in an uproar for several days, and was guarded every night by armed men of
the greatest respectability. At one time in the winter of the patrols were out nightly in Prince George s county 1857,
but the papers soon announced that the excitement had sub sided, that the patrol had expired by limitation, and that people did not think that there had been any intention of a
rising
The slaveholders convention of Worcester county in 1858, resolved to call on constables and On magistrates to enforce the laws for watching the blacks.
among
the blacks.
the night after an alarm of insurrection in Somerset county, in 1859, a patrol was organized, and search was made, with
guns and other weapons, in the houses of free blacks in the In a part of Montgomery county a meeting neighborhood. of citizens was held after John Brown s attack on Harper s Ferry, to denounce Brown and express sympathy for the Union and a protective committee of twenty-four mem bers was appointed, to call a meeting of citizens whenever the public safety was endangered, and to call out such of the
"
"
volunteer companies as might then be needed to patrol the neighborhood. It is stated also, that the commissioners of
St. Mary s county appointed a patrol in the autumn of 1860, in each district, to visit their neighborhood at least once a
week
abolitionists.
at night, to disperse all negro meetings 1 For patrols that were called out
and
arrest all
sheriffs
by the
slaves
had been exempted from training or any military service whatever &c. Code of 1860). White servants were enlisted on emergen cies only (1715, 43). See Chapter on the Free Negro. 1 See Niles Register, Aug. 22d, 1835 Baltimore Sun (quoting the local
(LL.
3, 40,
; ;
See Chapter
112
attack on
dollars.
1
Harper
But the
to enforce,
patrol, like
was intended
directed, in the latter days of slavery, as well the free black as the slave. against
was
One of the most interesting phases of our subject, as a study of historical development, is the growth of the slave code touching crimes and punishments.
notorious that the English criminal law, and the admin istration of justice under it, were exceedingly severe down
is
It
The
Chamber
are well
known.
In one
1630, a Scottish
divine; for writing a scurrilous attack on the bishops, was sentenced not only to be degraded from orders and to pay a
large fine, but to be whipped, set in the pillory, to have one ear cut off, one side of his nose slit, and one cheek branded with
S. S. (sower of sedition), to in another part of London,
have these repeated a week later and then be imprisoned for life. be regarded as exceptional, but in all parts
of England hanging was a common punishment for many It is stated on the authority of a magistrate of Som offences.
ersetshire, that in that county, in the year 1596, there
were
thirty-seven persons whipped, thirty -five burned in the hand, and forty executed ; and many among the large number dis
Two charged, deserved, in his opinion, similar punishments. years later, in a neighboring county, there were seventy-four
More than onepersons sentenced to be hanged in a year. half of these were condemned at quarter sessions several of
;
them
for stealing sheep. Though the sentence of death was often commuted, as to branding, whipping, or transportation to
Slaves.
113
the Colonies, the criminal law remained exceedingly severe woman who killed her hus during the eighteenth century. band, or a maid-servant who killed her master or mistress,
Nor was this law obso could be burned to death, until 1790. lete, for there is mention of a woman burned in 1782 and of
another in 1784, though they were probably strangled before In 1752, it was enacted that persons the torch was applied.
convicted of murder should be executed with
little delay, and that the bodies should in no case be buried, but either be hung in chains or given over for dissection ; and such was the law
London were accustomed, and portions of human bodies The last heads were those of nine nailed up on Temple Bar. of the Revolution of 45, who had been hanged, cut Jacobites, down, disembowelled, beheaded, quartered, and their hearts thrown into a fire all before the eyes of the public. The spikes which held the heads were not removed till this century. The pillory was not abolished in England till 1837 ; and 1 whipping has remained the penalty for certain offences. It was as natural for the colonists to follow, largely, the customs of their old home as it was for them to continue to speak English. In Maryland, it was specially provided that justice was to be administered, where there was no special law or fixed usage of the Province, by English law and usage, in 2 so far as this was deemed applicable by the courts. Each county court was ordered to keep the usual branding irons, and the pillory and stocks without the court-house, and the
until
William IV.
Inhabitants of
ducking
to
stool as near by as possible. The corporal punishments given, in those days, in all the colonies, are so well known as
make examples almost superfluous. When Capt. Josias Fendall was found guilty, in 1681, of speaking several sedi
words against the government of Maryland, the Provin-
tious
1 See Pike s History of Crime, Stevens Criminal Law, the Middle and Working Classes, &c.
Wade s
History of
I,
114
cial
banishment.
for an early law allowed not merely fine and imprisonment, but boring of the tongue, slitting the nose,
as could be expected
cutting off one or both ears, whipping, branding with a redhot iron any one or more of these, as the court should think 1 It was not treason and sedition, and such unusual crimes fit.
The colonists were evidently troubled by hog-stealers, and a law of 1666, declaring that previous acts had been insufficient, enacted that a hogonly, that were thus punished.
much
should pay the treble damages, and also, for the first have four hours in the pillory and his ears cropped and for the second offence, be branded in the forehead with
stealer
offence,
;
the letter
Some
third offence could be punished with death. of the early laws reflected the class distinctions, so
H.
Treason was to be punished, in strongly felt in England. addition to forfeiture of all goods and franchises, by drawing,
hanging and quartering of a man, and by drawing and burn except in case of the lord of a manor, who ing of a woman,
should be beheaded.
Among the
house-burning, sorcery, but this could not be inflicted on a gentleman. Another law, for rules of justice, prescribed that no corporal punishment
&c., was
be given a gentleman, except by virtue of statute law of the 3 Of greater interest still is the law of 1723, which Province. gave the stocks and whipping-post to blasphemers and drunk
ards
who
free
and incident largely to the custom of service, were very few. It was at first the law that servants who re fused to perform the lawful orders of their masters were to be
Md. Arch., V, 328, I, Md. Arch., II, 140. 3 Md. Arch., I, 71, 158,
1
248.
184.
Slaves.
115
and
in the discre
of,
the other hand, a master who refused to carry out his covenant with a servant, or who denied him
On
or her proper food and care, was to be imprisoned by the magistrate until surety were given for the performance of his
It was the law for many years that a servant, if proven of causing a servant-woman to be with child, should guilty recompense the master of the woman for half his loss in her
1
duty.
father, if a freeman,
The
county court. Any person who traded with an indentured servant, without license from the
fine,
s
goods, to a whipping.
For a second
These
was
to be branded, in addition.
penalties were evidently given by a magistrate; but if the freeman trading with the servant was unable to pay his fine, he was bound over to the higher court, and could be there sen
tenced to a whipping, if found guilty. Later, all cases of not belonging to the Provincial Court or to petty thieving,
special commissioners,
were tried
in the
the accused, freeman or servant, if proven guilty by one good evidence, was to restore fourfold, and to suffer the pillory and
whipping. If a freeman had not goods, he paid his fine by a term of servitude, as did the servant. Nor was there any
difference
offences.
tice,
3
prescribed
in
the severer
penalties
for
repeated
Masters were accustomed to administer some jus themselves; but the law forbade them after 1715, to give
lashes for
any one offence ; providing that troublesome servants before a justice of they might carry peace, to be given such whipping, up to thirty-nine lashes, The cases of as he deemed fit, after hearing the complaint.
Md. Arch., I, 53. Laws of 1662, 1674, 1715. 3 Md. Arch., I, 501 Laws of
1
1704, 1715.
116
masters who might be accused of neglecting or abusing their servants had been changed from the jurisdiction of the mag istrates in first offences to that of the county courts. Ser
vants who absented themselves from their masters service were adjudged before the county courts to renewed service, ten days for one absent day, at the expiration of their term. Persons entertaining such servants were fined and after 1748,
;
those
could not pay the fine could be whipped, and put under security for good behavior. 1 This custom of white ser
who
vice practically died out toward the close of the eighteenth at the time when criminal law was being changed century, the changes in public feeling. by
We have seen already how careful and judicious the gov ernment of Maryland was in its relations with the Indians. It sometimes vied with the customs of those Indians who were at war, by offering a bounty for every ear of a dead Indian and in a treaty with a tribe recently at war, is the
;
stated that all Indians who might kill English should be given up to the authorities, to be tried for men murder as a white man would be. We find mention of a
was expressly
special
commission of Oyer and Terminer for the trial of an who had murdered a white servant. 3 A treaty with the Nanticokes in 1687, provided that an Indian who should
Indian
offence against the English,
be it murder or hog runaway servants and slaves, should be tried by English law, and that any Englishman who might At injure the Indians should be tried by the same law, also. about the same time, a Pocomoke Indian was imprisoned for rape on an English woman, and the Council duly considered
stealing or helping
commit any
V, 476.
1669.
An
Mary s,
Slaves.
117
and decided by the statute came before the Council Thereupon and desired to be informed of the English law, which was duly expounded to them, and which they promised not to break in future. As it was found that the woman had wil
in
tried,
law.
was merely whipped, according to and advised by the Court to be more circum English law, In 1648, four Patuxent Indians were brought before spect. the Provincial Court, charged with stealing and killing hogs, and with other thieving, and it was stated to the Court that intolerable injuries had been suffered by the colonists at the hands of the neighboring Indians. The prisoners, brought to
lingly erred, the Indian
which they had had on the day mentioned, had been purchased from another Indian two years before. And the plaintiff not
guilty, and the Indians were discharged find that two Indians were executed,
being able to produce further evidence, the jury declared not by the Governor.
We
by sentence of the
Provincial Court, for the murder of two negroes. 1 For three-quarters of a century after the settlement of Mary land, the negroes in the Province were few in number, and
were nearly all, if not all, slaves. The punishments which were administered on the plantation were sometimes too severe, as we shall see, in the case of both white servants and slaves,
though the laws early forbade excessive abuse or punishment Whether justice was administered by magis trates and judges with greater rigor to the black than to the
to these alike.
white, we cannot say ; but during this long period, be it noted, there was no special provision by law for the trial and punish ment of slaves for serious offences. For murder or
burglary
any serious crime, any offender, white, black, or Indian, was brought before the Provincial Court, to receive, we pre sume, the same fair dispensation of justice. In 1700, there
1
or
V, 558.
118
were no more slaves, probably, in Maryland, than there in Massachusetts at the time slavery was abolished there
in
and
then, as in Massachusetts always, there was no code for the trial and punishment of slaves. 1 special But the slave trade was soon carried on with vigor, and the blacks grew to be a considerable part of the population of
Maryland
Maryland. White servants were then numerous, many of them mere adventurers and good-for-nothings. At the same time, transportation was made the penalty in England for various felonies, and English jails were in part emptied into the Colonies. Maryland had prohibited for some years the of these felons, and a further act was passed in importation
172:1, to
prevent the
"groat
evils"
Lord Proprietor refused his assent. It was at this time that the law against of goods worth over twelve thieving petty
jsence
gave the ordinary four-fokT "restitution, and branding or other corporal punishment, saving life, for a second offence when blasphemers could be punished, in addition to fine, with
;
for
when
in jail for
warned not to perjure themselves, at the risk of two hours in the pillory and the loss of their left ears and when men were executed for burglary and jail-breaking. It was
;
Africans
unfortunate for the community as well as the blacks, that these fresh from Africa, with much that was brutal, very
ignorant and very imitative should have been thrown so much with the worst elements of the whites. Then, as the
1 find mention of slaves tried for capital punishment in the Provincial Court, as all other persons were (as Council Record, Oct. 16th, 1688, &c). In 1703, an Eastern Shore Indian came before the Council at Annapolis
We
with the complaint that his cabin had been broken into, and various things by a certain negro slave, and demanded in return sixty-nine dressed deer skins. On his agreement, finally, to take sixty good skins, the Council ordered that the master of the slave should pay these to him, and that the slave be whipped. Otherwise the slave was to be tried in the
stolen therefrom
Provincial Court.
Slaves.
119
population was increasing, the plantations spread out more and One s neighbors more, making a sparsely settled country.
the court house and the jail were probably miles away. With the increase of the blacks we find it may have been
only because attention was thereby called to them as never before a growing difference between the legal status of the
The act of 1715 provided for the of all persons held as suspected runaways and not discharge 1 claimed within six months except negroes and mulattoes.
black and of the white. Constables had already been authorized to suppress with the ordinary whipping, of not over thirty-nine stripes, all fre
2 In 1717, quent and noisy meetings of negroes and slaves. reads the law, negro and Indian slaves often commit whereas,
misdemeanors or
steal, and escape without punishment, or else the owners are put to expense by bringing them to the county there was enacted that any one justice might try courts,
stripes as
3 It was also found that not exceeding forty. some masters of slaves who had committed heinous offences,
he deemed
fit,
to death
were paid three-fourths their loss. But masters were loath to lose, and the recompense was afterwards in
creased to the full value of the slave.
It
was
at the
same
acts of
1692 and 1704 forbade the abuse or excessive punishment of Eng From the way in which slaves, and servants and
slaves together are expressly mentioned in the act of 1715 in other clauses, we presume that the expression, "any servant whatsoever," did not include
slaves,
who could be punished in the discretion of the master, unless, indeed, he was so harsh as to be prosecuted for cruelty. If so, this change in the law is very interesting.
2 3
120
invalid
in
all
The Negro
cases
in
Maryland.
concerning whites
The act of blacks, too, where life or limb were involved. 1728, enjoining constables to suppress noisy meetings of blacks,
made any
slave
who should
any time,
liable to lose
The owner of
a plantation was authorized also to whip any slave who might be found thereon without proper business; and this act pro
vided further, that slaves
out-lying in
the woods,
who might
might
suers.
1
resist capture,
killing hogs and cattle, and who could be shot lawfully by their pur
After 1729
as there
to
whether
entered buildings not connected with dwelling-houses, might not plead benefit of clergy any per son convicted of breaking into any store-house and of stealing
frjom thence to the value of five shillings,
those
And
cruel
whereas,
we
read, several
murders had been lately were instigated to commit because they have no sense of shame or apprehension of future rewards or punish ments, and as the manner of executing offenders as prescribed by the laws of England, is not sufficient to deter from such
cruelties they
offences a people
who
ment, any
or verdict of jury, of murder or of wilfully burning a dwell ing-house, may be punished, in the judgment of the court, by having his right hand cut off before being hanged. And the
set
.case, might be beheaded and quartered, and most public places of the county where the crime up was committed. 2 A few years later, benefit of clergy was
body, in such a
in the
all persons convicted of breaking into any or other outhouses, reasonably built and secured, tobacco-houses and stealing therefrom to the value of five shillings. And
slaves found guilty in the county courts of rambling about at or of running night or riding horses at daytime without leave,
1723, 15.
1729,
4.
Slaves.
121
away, were to be whipped, cropped or branded, or otherwise punished, but so as not to endanger life or to render them 1 A few years later, again, benefit of clergy unfit for labor.
was taken away from any person who might steal a horse or burn a boat of some size, or abet in these crimes. Servants and slaves who harbored or entertained their fellows, now be came liable to whipping, by order of a magistrate. 3 In 1751,
the testimony of imported convicts was declared valid against other such convicts in criminal cases because, says the law, murders, burglaries and other offences had been very frequent,
;
endangering the lives and property of the colonists, offences generally committed by imported convicts and those whom they seduce to join them, which the convicts are encouraged
to
commit, as they know that they cannot be called on to tes 3 Closely following, is an act for the tify against each other.
punishment of slaves; because, says the pre the laws for that purpose are found insufficient to pre amble, vent great crimes, and to further the speedy administration of
effectual
justice.
more
Benefit of clergy, therefore, was taken away from slave duly convicted of conspiring or attempting to raise any insurrection, to murder or poison anyone, to commit rape on
a white woman, or to burn any house or out-house containing any person or goods. Hitherto a slave, like his master or any
white,
vincial
Now,
tried for
any offence which might be punished with death, at And he might be con the next term of the county court. victed on the testimony of other slaves, corroborated with such
pregnant circumstances as should convince the jury of his
1
guilt.
3
*
If slaves testified, they were warned by the presiding judge and were told the punishment they would incur by per
jury
the cropping of one ear and a whipping, and, the next day, the crop ping of the second ear and another whipping.
122
It
was
arrest for
punishable.
In the Council Records, about 1760, is a description of the judiciary of the Province. The Governor and Council formed the high Court of Appeals and Errors, and issued pardons where such were due. Besides the courts of chancery and
vice-admiralty, there was the Provincial Court, held twice a year at Annapolis. Seven judges sat on this bench, having jurisdiction over civil cases of importance and all manner of
criminal cases.
could white
men be
Before them or special commissions, only, sentenced to loss of life or limb. County
courts were held four times yearly by the justices of the peace of each county, to try certain civil matters, and all criminal
cases not affecting life or limb,
and even
capital offenses
when
committed by negroes.
By the close of the century, the courts and the jurisdiction of the courts had so changed that all persons, slave or free, were tried for serious offences before the same tribunal, as had
been the case three generations before.
ment, too,
old
had changed. 2
The forms of punish The Governor, in addition to the could commute death sentences to other
slaves, to transportation
and
sale.
The
courts could give the old penalties, or could sentence free males, male servants and apprentices, to labor on the roads for
women
servants and
apprentices, to picking oakum, sewing, or other suitable labor, The value of a servant s unexfor not over the same time.
pired term was paid the master, and the county was reim bursed from the sale of the servant, at the expiration of his slave term of labor, for as long a time as was necessary.
1 Council Proc., 1753-1767, 323. There were also the magistrates, Avho exercised considerable power in the punishment of slaves and servants for Commissions of Oyer and Terminer and Jail Delivery were petty offences.
often issued.
2
We
;
See 1785, 87
one commission trying a slave, some twenty years The jury acquitted him. 1795, 82, &c. 1790, 50 1793, 57 1787, 17
find
26.
;
;
Slaves.
123
convicted of a capital crime could be sentenced to death or to serve on the roads for not over fourteen years. In either case, he was bought by the State but in the latter, as in case of
;
from transportation, the treasury could be somewhat repaid There was added, in 1808, that the sale of him afterward.
slaves in Baltimore county
who might be
convicted of
man
1
or put to labor in the work In in place of the other punishments. if women, house, a general law on crimes and punishments. 1809, was enacted
It
to-day hanging of imprisonment for murder in the second degree and man slaughter indemnification for losses, and imprisonment for
;
in general, as we are accustomed to, for murder in the first degree ; limited terms
indemnification and at
term, for stealing to the value of five dollars; imprisonment for not less than three months, for being a rogue or a vagabond, &c. The only distinction between white
year
or black was that a negro or mulatto slave, not sentenced to be hung for any crime, under the act, might be punished by
imprisonment, or, in the discretion of the court, by a whip ping of not over a hundred lashes, and also by banishment,
2 This by transportation and sale into some foreign country. act on crimes, and the opening of the State penitentiary in 1811, finished and formulated the change which had been
Experience evinces, states taking place in public sentiment. the old-fashioned preamble to the act, that the surest way of
preventing the perpetration of crimes and of reforming offen-
1789, 44, &c.; 1808, 113. 1809, 138. The act gave the penalty of hanging for any person, white, and im free black or slave, convicted of raising insurrection of negroes prisonment for between six and twenty years, for attempts so to do. The
2
;
keeper of the Penitentiary was empowered to punish unruly or idle pris oners by short solitary confinement the Board of Inspection could order more severe punishment, including whipping. For attempts to escape, the Court should give additional labor, confinement, and also corporal punish
;
ment.
124
ders, is
by a mild and
ments.
any colored person who would, under the have been sent to the penitentiary for less than one year, was kept in jail, or fined or whipped, or both fined and whipped. After the next year, the courts were forbidden
By
act of 1817,
act of 1809,
to send
any slaves to the penitentiary the punishments for them, for crime, being hanging, or not over forty lashes, or not necessarily, now, into some for transportation and sale
;
eign country, but any where except into the District of Colum bia. By a supplement of the following year, these were nar
We find the case hanging or transportation. of one negro who was convicted of burglary and, being deemed a free man, was put into the penitentiary, of course. It was stated afterward that he was a slave and so the Governor was authorized by the Assembly to order his sale out of
rowed
to either
1 ;
it
was
first
proven
to a
jury that he
Whether
their lot
punishment for their crimes, seems to have been a matter of some doubt. Certain it is that the blacks themselves attached a very unpleasant significance to the words sold South." We cannot believe that convicts would have been purchased for any other purpose than the most rigorous
any
"
field
work. 2
act of
An
any
to sell out of
Maryland
who were
These were isfaction of the courts, to be notoriously vicious. sold for their unexpired term of service only, and the courts required proof that they had been previously warned duly of such punishment as the result of misbehavior. Slaves who
1818, 197; 1819, 159. notice an advertisement in a Baltimore paper of 1851, of valuable slaves for sale, for whom good homes rather than high prices were desired. Also, such good servants would be "exchanged for servants suitable for the
MSI?, 72;
We
characters."
Slaves.
125
gave much trouble by attempts to run away, might, under the same restrictions, be sold in or out of Maryland for their
unexpired terms. The very next year, the committee of the House of Delegates on Colored Population was asked for leave to sell thus out of the State a negro girl eighteen years old, who was known to have run away several times from a
previous owner and to have been in jail for other charges also. But the petition was denied, with the observation that the petitioner must have known the character of his purchase,
girl s
s report, from touching the moral obligations of the State not to send an unworthy and dangerous part of her population upon another community, uninformed of the
;
character of the persons and we think, also, that sale out of the State for a term of years would, in most cases, although the black was given his right to freedom in papers under the seal of court, amount to nothing short of slavery for life.
Two
years later, the House of Delegates urged the Senate to pass a bill allowing a certain woman to sell out of Maryland a slave who was notoriously vicious and incorrigible, but who
The
policy of the law, said the House committee, is to permit the removal of slaves known for vicious habits or gross miscon
duct; and when these characteristics are shown so as to de stroy all reasonable expectation of reform in conduct, the slave
may justly
portation. the slave was said to be so vicious as to be kept in jail, to pro 1 tect his mistress. In 1845, Governor Pratt called public
attention to the fact that the only punishments of consequence for slaves were either hanging or sale from the State that is,
be subjected to the punishment of immediate trans But no act seems to have been passed although
reads the executive message, the substitution for his master of another master living without the limits of Maryland,
1
House Journals,
126
The Negro
in
Maryland.
which would not be considered by the slave or the community any punishment whatever. The penitentiary was closed to slaves, and transportation would only defeat the ends of jus tice. The attention of the Governor seems to have been espe
as
cially
drawn to the matter by the case of a slave who had just been sentenced to death by the court of Charles county, for insurrection, but who was deemed worthy of clemency by a
In accordance with large number of citizens of the county. the suggestion, the law was so changed that slaves, convicted
of any of the higher grade of offences, should be punished as other persons were. On the expiration of their terms of im
prisonment they were sold at auction, to be carried out of the 1 State. Petty larceny, of which the negroes as a class are guilty in large numbers, was not included in these offences, it is interesting to note. The executive message of 1858, tell
ing the Assembly that nearly half of the convicts in the penitentiary were negroes, suggested that the courts should
again be given the power of selling out of the State slaves convicted of certain felonies. This, it said, would relieve the
institution of a large class, unprofitable
and not
to be
reformed
by prison
discipline.
so that no
Slaves could be given negroes were sent to the penitentiary. not over forty lashes, or be sold out of the State.
The many acts which declared that "any person" or who were guilty of specified offences were liable persons"
"all
to
punishment, were interpreted, as had evidently been intended, slaves as well as free. The to include blacks as well as whites
when a
slave
woman
that an
"
false pretences,
We
1 1845, 340. Masters were paid, of course, for slaves transported. 124. Code of 1860, 30, 194. 2 14 Md., 135.
1849,
Slaves.
127
laws declaring offences and giving penalties, which concerned negroes and slaves peculiarly. It would be tedious and useless
to give
more than
in purport
Varying
a few examples of the many local laws. and in the penalties given, they show no
general public policy, and reflect often, like much special legistion the world over, the whims and bad rhetoric of the local Yet they help to show us the customs of the member."
"
times.
at Fredericktown,
by
man
could be fined
ten shillings, a servant or slave could be given not over fifteen lashes. Again, for destroying the gates which a certain resi
dent of Dorchester county was allowed to keep across the road, in 1846, a free man could be fined a trifling sum, while a slave
it
or left
it
Such
cases
A
in
free person
who evaded
by
on certain
servant or slave
who evaded
ten
lashes
addition to the
If a servant or slave bought provisions himself. out of market in Chestertown, his owner was liable to pay twenty-five shillings, half the fine for a free man. If a citizen
culprit
attempted to avoid
to Baltimore, a
toll on the turnpike road from Washington law of 1796 made him liable to fine of two dollars, and if his slave offended, he was liable to pay one dollar. We find similar provisions on certain toll roads sixty years later; in one case, the parent of a minor being made
2 equally liable with the master of a steward or slave. So, in law of 1843, the parent of a minor or master of Baltimore, by
pox on board, the rule was made that no one should go aboard her and return without license. If a freeman offended, he could be sued for one hundred pounds if a servant or slave, he was to be given at least thirty -nine stripes on the bare back and be sent back at once on board.
;
128
a slave or apprentice who might steal rides on vehicles, had to pay half the ordinary fine. The overseers of roads in Somerset
county were authorized in 1799 to call out all males for certain work on the roads. If a slave or servant were not sent
when duly
called for, or
if,
when
sent,
he refused to do reasonable
work, the master became liable to pay one dollar, the same fine as for his own failure to appear. At the very next session,
was so changed as to empower the overseers to compel the proper service from the slaves instead of fining the masters a system, says the supplement, which had been found to be 1 It is interesting to note here that oppressive and injurious. certain citizens from Baltimore county petitioned the House of Delegates in 1824, that slave owners should be made liable for theft and misdemeanors committed by their slaves. The report of the House committee was adverse. They thought it would conflict with the principles of justice to make the master responsible for any misdeeds done while the slave was not in the discharge of his duties as a servant. This was the doctrine, continued the committee, recognized by the law as to injuries of a civil nature by servants of any kind, and the same should certainly be applied to criminal cases. There were also many local laws which allowed the master to save his slave a sore back by paying a fine himself. Thus, by act of 1785, a
this
free person convicted of wilfully destroying any lamp, sentrybox, &c., in Baltimore, was to be fined three pounds, and
a parent or master was liable equally for damage done by his children or his bound servants or apprentices. slave would be
given not over thirty-nine lashes, unless the master chose to pay the fine or repair the damage. Afterward, according to the laws for the enforcement of the ordinances of Baltimore
City, slaves found guilty
by a magistrate of breaking any ordinance were to be whipped, unless the fines and costs were paid, and magistrates were prohibited from trying the slaves
Slaves.
129
1
So the authorities had been duly notified. of Annapolis and Frederick were allowed to punish by whip ping those slaves who might disregard the town ordinances, In 1792, the House unless the masters redeemed them.
until the masters
Patuxent at certain spawning seasons, and to whip slaves duly convicted of the same, unless the master would pay half
the ordinary fine. The Senate amended so that no slave should be punished if he acted by his employer s order, but that the
employer should, in that case, pay the full fine. A somewhat similar provision was made in 1800, to protect fish in the Great Choptank, but we notice that forty years later the law
gave a whipping without any exception. Early in the century, three acts were passed at intervals of a few years each, to pre vent the erection of seines and weirs in three rivers in different
One act, to prevent obstructions to navigation, fixed counties. a penalty of twenty-five dollars for free men, and not over twenty lashes for slaves, acting without their master s direc
tions,
anyone who would pay twenty-five dollars. Free man or slave, the case was tried before a magistrate. The second act to
prevent certain obstructions to the movement of fish fixed a penalty of one hundred dollars for free men, and of not over
thirty-nine lashes for slaves, provided that anyone might redeem a slave by payment of fifty dollars, and that a slave
who had
acted by order of his master should not be punished, case, should pay a hundred
The third act also to protect fish gave a penalty dollars. of twenty dollars for a free man, and not over thirty-nine lashes for a slave, unless some one redeemed him by payment If the master ordered the slave to commit of thirty dollars.
the offence, he was liable to the twenty dollars.
Under
this
1 An exception seems to have been made in Baltimore, in that a slave convicted before the Criminal Court of cruelty to animals might be given a good whipping, if the court saw fit.
130
act, as
The Negro
in
Maryland.
man would
be tried
before the county court, the slave by a single magistrate. Of these three acts, the first remained in force in 1860
unchanged
the penalties of the second had been changed to a the third had been done away, ;
the law forbidding simply any obstructions to be erected by any person under penalty of fine of not over fifty dollars. In
all cases,
of free
man
was before a
justice.
To make any sweeping assertions as to the rigor or mildness with which this criminal code was enforced against the blacks,
would be hazardous. Even if we had the records of all the courts, the few words of the docket entries would tell neither the circumstances of a case nor the fitness of a penalty. Yet we may hope to throw some light on the matter, to say the
least.
referred,
we remember,
to the
Gov
show us somewhat
2 In the case of one the greatest oifences were dealt with. woman sentenced to death in 1738, for attempting to negro poison her master, the Council recommended the warrant for
how
in an adjoining county, a negro of felony deserving death, but the reports guilty sent the Council were not satisfactory, evidently, for the exe
execution.
r
w as found
cution was suspended until the Attorney-General could thor oughly consider the indictment and the process in the case.
Some weeks
were regular, and so the negro was executed it appearing to Soon after a notorious offender." the Council that he was
"
1805, 31 1808, 78 Code of 1860. records seem to be quite complete during the interesting period from 1738-1770, when, as we have seen, the criminal code became
1
1801, 70
The Council
most rigorous.
We note that in 1688, on the happy birth of the young Prince, the Council pardoned several negroes who had been lately condemned to death, and returned them to their masters, on payment of costs. (Council Book
B., Oct. 16, 1688.)
Slaves.
131
this, a
Oyer and Terminer and jail delivery, of three men, commissioned for Anne Arundel county, reported that
court of
they had passed sentence of death on a slave, Isaac, for bur glary and robbery, on another slave for murder, and on a
white
it
man who had committed the burglary with Isaac. As appeared to the Council that Isaac had borne a good char acter and was a real object of compassion," he was recommen
"
ded to the mercy of the Governor but as the crime of the other slave was murder, and as the white man was a notorious and the offender, the Council advised that they be executed
;
;
Governor acted accordingly. On the receipt of the record from St. Mary s court of the conviction of two slaves for conspiring to poison the overseer, clerk and gardener of their So, in the next master, warrants for execution were ordered. two slaves of Anne Arundel were executed, one for bur year, glary, the other for rape on a white woman ; and the body of the second, who had been a notorious offender, was hung in In 1742, seven chains at some distance from the gallows. condemned by the Provincial Court, on clear evi negroes dence/ of the murder of their master, were executed. The court of Charles county passed sentence of death on two negroes for felony, but also recommended that the men were objects of mercy. In this the Council agreed, as the men had never before been charged with any felony, and the Governor In the next year, two negroes murdered an issued pardon. Indian, and they were hung in chains and two white men were hung for burglary and murder while a white boy and a young mulatto slave, condemned for stealing, were pardoned In 1747, two negroes convicted of horse as objects of mercy. were pardoned; while another of an adjoining county, stealing was executed for the same offence, as he bore a very ill and a servant was executed for the murder of a character mulatto slave. In 1754, a slave and a white man were sen tenced to death for storebreaking and stealing, but were par doned by the Governor at the request of several gentlemen, as they were both very young, and had never been convicted for
"
"
"
132
offences before.
demned
and
to death in
stealing fifty
pardoned, but Pompey was hung. And a negro who mur dered his overseer was hung in chains as near as possible to the scene of the murder. When, in 1761, the conviction of
two negroes was sent to the Council without proper informa tion, a letter was sent to the clerk of the county court, thus: The Governor and Council upon hearing read the copy of the conviction of negro Tom for a felony and also of negro Nace for a felony in breaking open the meat-house of Cathe
"
your county, sent up by you without any Letter or Report from the Justices of the county who were present at the Tryals, how the circumstances appeared to them, you are
rine Price of
them
in Relation to the
same,
opportunity, in order to lay it before the Council at their next meeting." At their next meeting was read the report of the justices and a
to
first
me by
the
petition
the offenders as objects of mercy. They were accordingly Bett Pone," convicted of an attempt negress, pardoned.
"
was
also
recommended
to the
mercy of
the Governor by the justices, and was accordingly pardoned. When three negroes were sentenced for attempt to poison, in Calvert county, in 1764, the county clerk evidently neglected
to send the full particulars to the Council, for the papers were
returned with orders that he procure from the justices a report of the behavior of the culprits. Their owners were also asked
they chose to transport the negroes from the Province ; but There were at they requested the execution of the sentence.
if
that time a
One
number of cases of poisoning or attempts to poison. slave murdered the wife and child of his master. An
other slave was sentenced, in Prince George s county, for pois oning a fellow-slave but a reprieve was issued, in answer to
;
Slaves.
133
In several
instead of
In 1766, a negro was condemned for attempting being hung. to poison his master convicted by confession and by testimony of a slave who was privy to his preparing a "Dose composed of Ground Poppies and other Ingredients which he supposed
;
A young negress, slave of a citizen of Charles was convicted in 1766, of setting fire to a tobacco house, county, from which the dwelling house of her master was consumed.
Poisonous."
On asking information, the Council learned that the girl in the absence of her master, drew some cider and left the spigot
open, for which her mistress threatened to tell her master and have her whipped. Several times the girl asked forgiveness of her mistress and begged that the fault might be concealed
from her master. Then, in despair, she set fire to a tobacco house, and the dwelling house and offices were wholly con sumed. After the trial, the mistress went to the house of one of the justices and begged him to apply to the Governor for pardon, saying that if the girl were executed, she never could
forgive herself for obstinately persisting in her threats of punishment ; that she knew not but that the girl might have been intoxicated with the liquor she drew, and that she
"as
well as negroes in
common
The master expressed himself as willing to have the girl pardoned. One of the justices testified to the fact that the
court had inquired into the girPs character, that she seemed but little sensible of her situation at the trial, and that her
youth and her confession of the crime appeared to be the only But the attention of the Council circumstances in her favor.
was
two other
cases of
burning of
1 In 1762, a negro was condemned for a felony, in Charles county court but a reprieve for a month was issued by the Governor, and the sheriff was
;
ordered to set the fellow free and acquaint would be called to his former sentence.
him
134
tobacco houses had occurred in the same county during the preceding winter. The Council evidently hesitated, considera tion of the case was put off for some days, and then the war rant for execution was issued. slave was convicted in St.
Mary
store.
county, the
same
had
himself confessed, and had not before offended; a friend seconded the request, adding that the negro was a very valuable slave ; and in addition, one of the magistrates wrote
not fond of having rogues escape punishment, but on the contrary should rather choose they should suffer as examples
"
am
to
among whom
villainy
and
but too common, yet on this occasion I must hope roguery your Excellency will grant what is desired." So, the follow ing year, the master of a negro convicted of breaking open a building, asked for his pardon, as the black was valuable
the building wrote the master having told him that his as the person injured, would be required that consent,
"
if
your Excellency
is
inclinable to extend
humbly submit." Again, a year later, a of twenty-nine names was presented for the pardon of
;
committed through over-persuasion, youth and inexperience that the master could not purchase so serviceable a slave, and
notwithstanding the high value the court was pleased to put on him, would be a great sufferer at that time if the negro must suffer death and that the petitioners would not fear for and again, a their property should the boy be pardoned
;
pardon was granted. In 1770, three negroes were condemned for murder in Prince George s county, one as having given the blow and the
other two as abettors
;
stated that
it
seemed to
be the opinion of many gentlemen of the county, as well as of the court, that it would be very proper to execute the law in Warrants were so issued, save that the two its full rigor.
Slaves.
135
abettors were spared the part of the sentence which directed This is the that the right hand be cut off before execution.
only case
we
for
the punishment of slaves for the highest crimes seems to have been executed to the letter. 1 During this period many culprits, white and black alike, met with no clemency. One of the
planters, for instance, who was said indeed to be no good char was executed for breaking and entering a store house
to
acter,
an inn, and stealing therefrom "two. Pair of Pumps of the value of fifteen shillings current money. The Governor was empowered, a few years
attached
women
leather
"
later, to
commute death
We
find
mention of thirteen negroes sentenced to death between 1786 and 1801. Of these, one slave was hung for rape; five, of whom
were slaves, were transported for rape, arson and other felonies; two slaves convicted of murder were put to work on the roads for fifty years, and two others for twenty
at least three
were commuted without specified conditions. 2 Anne Arundel county had a large slave population.
We
find five cases of slaves before the county court between 1760 and 1764 one for assault and rape on a woman, evidently a
white
building.
three for breaking and stealing ; and one for firing a All threw themselves, as the old phrase went, on
their country, that
is
God and
all
chanced to be acquitted and discharged. From 1768 to 1771 two negroes were tried. One, evidently a free negro, was
found guilty of manslaughter for killing a negro, and was branded in the hand. The other, a slave, found guilty by a jury of stealing a coat valued at one hundred pounds of
Act of 1751, ch. 14. By this, the criminal was to have his right hand cut off before execution, and his body quartered and exposed afterward. From this special mention of the execution of the law in its full rigor, we
presume that slaves were ordinarily executed as others were. *See Votes and Proceedings, and Resolutions of the Assemblies.
136
tobacco,
was sentenced to be hanged. About the same time, two white laborers, one of whom had stolen a sheep worth eighty pounds of tobacco, and the other various goods to the value of two hundred and eighty pounds, were sentenced to return those things and make four-fold restitution, and to stand in the pillory for five minutes, and to have twenty-five lashes on the bare back at the public whipping post. Of at two terms in 1790, several were for eighty presentments dealing with negroes, and in one case, a free black paid thirty shillings for an assault, but there were no slaves of thirty-nine at one term in 1794, one was a white for an assault on a negro and another was a slave woman for an assault, but both failed to appear of fifty-three, four years later, one seems to have been the same woman, one was a negro presented for murder, and there was one slave, who was referred to a single magis trate. Among a multitude of civil suits and of bastardy cases, with an occasional assault or other criminal case, it is here and
;
;
we
find a slave
Among
several books of proceedings of the mayor s court, which had apparently much the same jurisdiction as single magistrates had in the counties, and which dispensed justice to all persons
who
little city.
The
court
consisted of the mayor, recorder and several aldermen, but the mayor seems to have been absent often. The cases before the
it
must be
One
citizen
who
;
allowed his
another,
forty shillings
broken bottles before his But door, paid five shillings on submission, without trial. when in 1720 a man had the temerity to utter four separate
who
oaths, one after the other, he was put in the stocks for three hours, and fined for the first oath two shillings and sixpence, and five shillings for each of the others. At the January term
of 1790, there were several cases of assault, and one white man was fined seven shillings sixpence and fees for assaulting
Slaves.
137
another, and a fellow culprit, five shillings and fees for assault The most common offence under the city ordi ing a negro.
of,
and
sale of
One liquor to, apprentices, indentured servants and slaves. who ventured to sell a bottle of rum to a young Dutch person
s service, had to pay five shillings ; and sold a pint of liquor to a negro of Charles another, Carroll, Esq., without the required permission in writing from This sum was the cus the master, atoned by forty shillings.
man
in the
Governor
who
thus selling without leave, or for keeping a find one item of fines due in 1754, from disorderly house.
tomary
a
fine for
We
woman,
of tobacco each, or a total of five pounds sterling. At a session in 1765, the grand jury found indictments for entertaining and selling liquor to servants and slaves, to the number of sixty-
one person, of forty-two each against two others, and some forty and more beside. The first mention of negro culprits is at a session of 1783, when of twenty presentments, five were slaves. One, for suffering hogs to go at large, does not appear to have been brought to trial. Two of them, and confessed to carrying fire through the women, appeared street, whereupon one was excused on payment of costs, and the other probably because she had neither money nor indul
five against
gent master received the only corporal punishment of which we find mention in these dockets, to wit, one lash on the bare
back.
to the sheriff,
the court he had executed the judgment. The two others were men, who paid the court each ten shillings and costs for gal loping on horseback through the streets. The negro boys seem
to
in fast driving
fines.
not guilty, but was convicted by jury and paid the customary One grand jury of this little court desired to be no
respecter of persons, for they presented in 1813, for allowing his sleigh to be driven at improper speed, no less a personage
138
on motion of the prosecutor. Another citizen was presented, had over-driven or overworked a horse. Of nine teen presentments in J785 one was a black; of twenty-three in 1789 two were blacks, but the cases were not brought up till the All three were accused of following year evidently. forcing horses ; one case was declared off, and fines were paid in the others. Two of these were slaves. Of over two hun dred cases mentioned between 1790 and 1805, twelve were of
as his slave
blacks. Of two, of free blacks, accused of keeping a disorderly house and of letting hogs go astray, we find no further notice. That of a slave for assaulting a man a white apparently
was quashed.
and
costs for
and the
by the
court.
Two
free
blacks and two slaves were fined for forcing horses, \vhile the indictments against three slaves for the same offence were
In 1812, there is the mere mention of a negro ac quashed. cused of an assault. The next year, a certain white man was
fined eight dollars for assaulting another,
and was
also
found
guilty by a jury of assault on a negro, and was fined one cent therefor. There is no mention of a case against a negro in the
the abolition of capital punishment except in extreme with the decay of the pillory and the stocks, and with cases, the building of the penitentiary, we find the slaves convicted
With
of serious offences in the circuit courts, ordinarily imprisoned or sold out of the State, and those convicted of minor offences,
before these courts or a magistrate, receiving a whipping. Thus in Baltimore, in 1858, a white man was fined three dol
justice, for pitching cents
and committed in default, by a on Sunday; and a slave brought before the same justice for the same offence, was given fifteen
lars
cents,
lashes.
Another
slave, for
to cover
very largely,
of the
mayor s court
Slaves.
139
nance of the city, got the same punishment; and another atoned by twenty lashes for a threat to shoot a colored lad. One slave who pleaded guilty to stealing a large quantity of
by request of his master, instead of two slaves of Prince George s with robbery, was dropped on condition that county, charged they be sold South. For more serious offences, a slave boy was given ten years in the penitentiary for setting fire to a
iron,
lashes,
The
case of
stable
her.
who
she confessed, to see the fire employer come up, was released by order of the grand jury of engines Baltimore criminal court, as not being bright. slave con
s stable, in order, as
victed in Talbot county court, in 1851, of a violent assault with a knife on a white man, was given five years in the peni
tentiary. young slave girl presented in Caroline county, in 1855, for causing the death of her mistress by putting arsenic in her coffee, and found guilty of murder in the second degree,
was sentenced to eighteen years imprisonment. And a slave of Queen Anne s county was given nearly the same time, for 1 the murder, in the second degree, of a white man.
We
is
timony
1
to the
But we
The local paper adds that a mob was seen about the jail, and that the negro was at once taken to the penitentiary. That part of the old act of 1723 (ch. 15) which allowed the cropping of the ear of a negro or other slave," convicted before a magistrate of strik
"
ing a white person or of certain other offences, was formally done away in 1821 (ch. 240). Whipping, limited to thirty-nine lashes, was substituted.
Niles Register for September, 1826, states that a white man had recently undertaken to chastise a black woman who was not his slave, and, when
she resisted and whipped him, had had her arrested under the old law which provided cropping of the ear of a black who should make defence against the assault of a white. But the magistrate dismissed the case. Several severe and very uncouth laws," added the report, "yet remain on
"
140
must remember that the court in which the slave was most meet injustice was that of the local magistrate, who be called away from business or pleasure, when drunk might or sober, to give sentence within a few hours perhaps of the commission of the offence, while the injured neighbors were
liable to
still
angry.
Of
these
nor are
master
dren.
own property, were sufficient to keep masters occasion from maltreating their slaves. ally If the white servant was unjustly or abusively treated by anyone, he could enter complaint before the authorities, like
their
any of the
colonists.
And
he could
free.
testify in
freely, of course, as if he
were
our statute books in full force, being unrepealed, but unenforced, because of the ameliorated condition of society, and the changes that have taken place in public opinion." The writer evidently did not know that the law had
been changed we are by no means sure that the magistrate did In 1829 was repealed that part of an act of 1793 which allowed the sale at auction, for terms of service, of persons remaining in prison for a month,
!
fines, unable to give recognizance. (1793, 57 1829, 38.) notice the sale, as servants, of a white woman and her bastard mu latto child, in 1790 and of white women for having colored children, in
for
non-payment of
We
The punishment
(1796, 67.)
the act for the punishment of criminals was before the House, in 1793, a motion to strike out the clause allowing female prisoners to be given not over fifteen stripes, for misbehavior, was carried by vote of 40 to
10.
When
stripes.
Slaves.
141
Provincial Court for 1658, for instance, there is mention of But the Council, a half century later, did not allow a servant, we remember, to have his master put
would be inconvenient. In 1692, the attention of the Assembly was called to the most barbarously cut off fact that a certain resident had
" "
the ears of a mulatto girl, a servant for a long term of years. special act thereupon manumitted the girl, as a recompense
And
there
county court should thereafter set free at once any slave who should be dismembered or cauterized by the master, or by the
overseer with the master
seer
s
consent.
And any
master or over
should deny to any English servant or slave suffi cient meat, drink, lodging and clothing, or should unreason
ably burden them with overwork, or refuse to them necessary rest and sleep, should be fined for a first or second offence, in
the
who
The
fines
limited to not over one thousand pounds of tobacco, but there was added that servants and slaves should not be excessively beaten or abused. But the general act of 1715, which super
seded earlier acts on servants and slaves, provided the fine of a thousand pounds of tobacco, and loss of the servant for a
third offence, against any master, or overseer acting by the master s orders, who should fail to provide sufficient food,
clothing and lodging for, or should unreasonably burden or abuse or keep from proper rest, or give more than ten lashes
any one offence to, any servant whatsoever." If a master thought his servant deserved more punishment, he could take
for
"
him
before a magistrate,
who
But
before and
Acts of 1692, 1699, 1704, 1715, 44, on Servants and Slaves. In some sections of the act of 1715, slaves only are mentioned in others, both servants and slaves are expressly mentioned other sections, still,
1
;
142
after these acts
The Negro
in
Maryland.
whether or not the act of 1715 applied to very cruel masters were liable to
be brought before the courts. We find notice of an inquest held by the court of Kent county in 1652, over the death of a Scotchman, a servant,
with the verdict of the jury that his death was caused by fever, stripes given him by his master, not long before
were
"
not material.
77
Some
woman
Court for causing the death of her and was found not guilty. A planter of some note servant, was brought before the Provincial Court, about the same time, for causing the death of a slave who died under his correction. This case was tried at length, the accused being held over from one court to the next in the sum of one hundred thou sand pounds of tobacco. The jury gave a verdict of ignoramus,
tried in the Provincial
was
the evidence not being found sufficient to convict. 1 If we turn to the latter days of slavery, we find that a resident of
bors,
Talbot county, complained of to the grand jury by his neigh was fined a hundred dollars and heavy costs, for cruelty
to a slave.
When
mention, and apply evidently to, servants only. Herty s Digest of 1799 gives this section in question as applying to servants by indenture or other wise. (Herty, 476.) By the Code of 1860, a master who did not provide
his slave sufficient food, lodging and clothing, or who unreasonably over worked him or kept him from necessary rest, or excessively beat or abused him, was liable to a fine of twenty dollars for the first and second offences,
and
ma
maiming or dismembering any one was hard labor for years, at least. 1 See Hanson s Old Kent, 22, 223. Provincial Court Records, 1658-1662, In the case of the planter we read, on the one hand, how 146, 161, 493. the negro was put in chains by order of his mistress for some misdemeanor how he refused then to work, and pretended to be in a fit how he was whipped with a little switch, had hot lard poured down his back, and then,
liciously
; ;
got up, was tied to a ladder. Still being stubborn, he was left a cold wind arose, and he soon died. On the other hand, the over seer testified that the negro would not do even as much work as to get his
tied
;
when he
own
food,
stealing,
"
an
Slaves,
143
grand jury of the same county, an examination showed that the master, who had recently moved there, had been sold a number of troublesome negroes, that he had suspected one of
setting fire to his barn, and had handled them rather roughly, The jury de attaching to one of them a ball and chain.
cided
after
careful
for prosecution.
excitement in
Baltimore county over the case of a slave boy who was found hung after he had been whipped by his master. The coroner s
jury found
it
to be a case of suicide;
sum of one hundred dollars from one of the prominent Baltimore papers which had mentioned the matter, at first, with some In 1847, the atten slight suspicion as to the circumstances.
in a libel suit,
by jury
trial
Court in Baltimore was called to a negro boy who was held as an apprentice by one of the superin tendents of chimneys there. He wore a strong iron collar riveted about his neck, which, the master said, had been put on some six months before, as the boy had run away. The boy himself did not complain of any bad treatment other than this collar. The court examined the indentures of apprentice and found them wholly invalid, and so ordered the boy s ship, Later, in the same court, a man discharge from servitude. was fined ten dollars and costs, amounting to nearly twenty dollars, for an excessive assault on a slave. Again, a colored was thought by the coroner s chimney sweep, aged only ten, The sweep-master was then jury to have died from exposure. brought before a justice and held over to answer the grand jury in the sum of five hundred dollars. He was tried a month But there were other cases of later and found not guilty. cruelty than of white to black. In Howard county, in 1858, a man was fined one hundred dollars and costs, and given a keen rebuke besides, for abusing an apprentice boy. A colored
tion of the Criminal
1 1
21st,
1845
Feb.
10th, 1858
144
woman
in causing the death of her niece, a colored girl, and was given imprisonment for over nine years the full extent of the law.
A white man of Baltimore was put in jail for three months and fined in all over seventy dollars, for severely whipping his daughter. We find here and there in the court records,
those expressions of the brutal side of human nature which are to be seen the world over. But the presence of a servile class,
of a race deemed far inferior to the whites, added temptations to the man who might be quick in temper, drunken in habit,
or cruel in nature.
best elements in the
And
was often impossible however the community may have desired it to have
it
1
Leave was given in the House of Delegates, in 1818, to bring in a bill on and batteries commilted on slaves. All we know of it is that it was to apply to certain counties only, that it was reported by a committee, and that the matter then ended by its being referred back to the committee with
1
assaults
summary punishment of slaves using provoking (House Journal, 13, 36.) As personal property, slaves were subject to sale at their masters Note. will. Many masters, as is well known, avoided any sale of their servants, In some cases in the distribution of estates most especially faithful ones.
instructions for a bill for the
likely
there was attached to the sale the condition that they should not Thus we find in the Eastern Shore Whig, 1830,
s sale of negroes, not to be sold to persons out of Again, in the Baltimore Maryland, or to those who would sell them out Sun, 1858, a negro is advertised, sound, sold for no fault, and not to be taken out of the State. A certain resident of Baltimore had bought a girl for a term of years, on condition that she should not be sold away but finding her vicious and of troublesome habits, he applied to the court, and got leave to sell her in or out of the State. A firm of slave dealers on the Eastern Shore advertised in the Easton Gazette, in 1845, under a large heading, Cash Cash We have returned from the South, and are again in the market with a
"
for every descrip plentiful supply of the needful, which we will exchange tion of negroes," but those who did not care to sell servants out of the State for sale a
were assured that their wishes would be followed. The same firm offered woman, slave for a term of years, and two young children, on con
sales, notice
dition that they be not separated. Of goods and chattels to be sold at sheriffs or constables
was
days previous to
sale,
by
Slaves.
145
public places, except for slaves, who, like lands and tenements, were to be posted for twenty days and published in a newspaper. (1816, 129, &c.) A wife s property was not responsible for her husband s debts, unless acquired from him in prejudice of creditors. The control and management of slaves
owned by a wife were in the husband, and at the death of the wife, the slaves and any increase born up to her death, went to her children, subject to the use of the husband during his life, without liability to his The increase of the slaves born during the survivorship of the creditors.
husband were his in absolute right. If the wife died without leaving chil dren or their descendants, the slaves went to the husband. (1842, 293.
17 Md., 352.) Slaves had frequently to be sold or separated in the settlement of estates. The Provincial Court, in 1749, had decided that the issue of slaves born
during the
slaves to the
life only, passed with the but the Court of Appeals, three years after, held that the legatee for life was entitled to the increase born during the continuance of the life estate. This was on the principle that the bequest
life
of one
who
remainderman
life
a property
in the issue born, as part of the use." Thus, in the case of an ante nuptial contract by which the husband was to be entitled, on the death of
"a
the wife, to whatever profit or issue accrued to the wife s property during her married life, the Court of Appeals held that the slaves owned by the woman at marriage went to her representatives, but the children of the
negroes, born during that time, belonged to the surviving husband, being issues and profits." (1 H. & McH., 109 7 H. & J., 194 10 G. J., 299 ;
"
&
But a case which came before the Chancellor in 1850, in 10 Md., 251.) which land and negroes and other property were left in trust, the income to be applied to a certain person during life, was held to be different, and
"
"
the increase of the negroes was deemed the property of the person for whom the estate was held in trust. "To separate the issue from the involves the necessity of determining at mother," added the Chancellor,
"
what age this may be done. The infant cannot be torn from its mother. No one would buy, and humanity would cry out against Appeal was taken on this decision, the Court of Appeals was divided, and so it stood confirmed. (4 Md., 532). The general principle in such cases was as before
.
.
it."
stated.
(4
Md. Chan.,
162.)
In 1836, also, the Court of Appeals, reversing a decree of the Court of Chancery, decided that the issue of a mortgaged slave born after the title of the mortgagee had become absolute, although the slaves were in the pos session of the mortgagor, was liable for the payment of the debt as well as
the parent, and might be sold, in the process of law, with the parents. The mortgagee being legal owner of the parent must also own the offspring born during his title, subject to the equitable right of the mortgagor to redeem. We are happy to find," said the Court, that in this instance, the law of
" "
10
146
(8
G.
&
No slaves, the subjects of an action of replevin, could be sold during the action. The House of Delegates urged on the Senate the passage of the
prohibition, as slaves had been replevied from their owners and sold at once out of the State. (1833, 274.) There is mention of a bill reported to the House in 1856, to prevent the sale of slaves at the suit of creditors, or for payment of the owner s debts. It is not uninteresting to note that at the Assembly of 1671, a bill for the
of Orphans Estates" was carefully considered. Objection the provision that the guardian should deliver to the ward, on becoming of age, negroes of like ages and ability, because no man can be sure hereafter to purchase any negroes," and guardians might also take or
"Preservation
was made
to
"
the negroes of the estate to their own use. So it was enacted that no negroes should be disposed of in any way as long as there were other goods of the estate sufficient to satisfy all just debts but all slaves should be appraised to the guardians or administrators and employed to their benefit,
sell
;
and the
increase
;
like
number and
any deficit to be made good in money or tobacco, under the appraisement of the county courts. And if the guardians did not wish to accept the slaves on these terms, the courts should so let them out as to best preserve them and their increase, that the wards might have the original stock made good to them in number, value and ability." (Md. Arch., II, 317, &c.) The act of 1729 (ch. 24), which was in force apparently to 1798, provided that no slaves should be sold by an executor or administrator, or
reserved for his own use for payment of any private debt nor should slaves be taken in execution for debt so long as there were other goods. We shall see, in the chapter on manumission, the protection that was given at law to slaves manumitted. An act of 1662 declared as taxables, all male children born in the Prov
;
male servants imported, at or before ten male and female, at ten years. But the age was soon fixed at sixteen years and upwards for all males of the Province, all male ser vants imported, and all slaves whatsoever. After 1715, there were excepted all settled clergymen of the Church of England, all poor living at public In 1725, free negro women, cost, and all slaves too old or infirm for labor. and female mulattoes born of white women, were added. (Md. Arch., I,
;
and
all slaves,
as well as the aged, had been taxed master general fees, under the act of 1662; but as this was found to be a real grievance," there was enacted, four years later, that no slaves whatever, nor any person under sixteen or over sixty or impotent, should be taxable for the fees.
for the
"muster
s"
"
Taxes on slaves were afterward regulated by law according to ages. At the end of the last century,, and as late as 1812, male slaves who were
Slaves.
147
tradesmen were to be valued according to their trade and proficiency. In 1852, the general valuation on slaves was (1782, 4; 1812, 191.) -12 years...$ 75.00 -12 years...$ 50.00 f ... 200.00 12-21 ... 250.00 12-21 Females Males 21-45 ... 300.00 ... 400.00 21-40 100.00 45-60 160.00 40-60 Those who were incapable from age or infirmity were exempt from taxa
"
"
"
"
"
"
,.
,.
tion.
We may add,
may have
CHAPTER
IV.
MANUMISSION.
For a hundred years and more after the settlement of Mary land, there were no regulations by law for the manumission of There was simply the declaration that baptism did slaves. Some masters freed their slaves, and some not give freedom.
slaves petitioned the~courts for freedom ; but such cases were The forms and solemnities by which freedom was vested few.
in the
negro depended, probably, on the legal ideas of the master or of the local magistrate, as was the case in some Northern States always, where the number of slaves remained
insignificant.
tried, as far as
we
Court or the General Court only, for know, in 1693, the Provincial Court received many years. Thus, the petition for freedom of a negro woman who had been born in New England and brought to Maryland, as she claimed, as But the jury found her a slave, and such she a servant. In 1747 a citizen of Queen Anne s county manu remained. mitted several slaves by his will and gave also to them and
in the Provincial
1
hundred years after, the heirs sold a portion of this land, but doubts were expressed as to the validity of the title given, as the original bequests had been made at a time when manumission by will was not authorized by law. So a special act declared the will valid, and the heirs
their heirs a tract of land.
1 Court Records, Liber C, 162, 361. The provision of the act of 1715, that the Provincial and county courts could determine complaints between masters and servants by way of petition, may have brought petitions for
(See 2 H.
&
McH., 29
4 Gill, 257.)
148
Manumission.
149
of the negroes free and in full possession of the land, so as to 1 In 1752, when the slave population may give a good title. have been forty thousand, was enacted the first law on manu
mission.
Some
were
the
profitable,
masters had used their slaves as long as they and had then turned them adrift to burden
to perish
community or
It was enacted, there tells us. that all slaves unable to support themselves should be fore, supported by their masters "in fitting food and clothing,"
and kept from begging. Delinquent masters could be put under bonds to do their duty. And slaves to be manumitted must be sound in body and mind, capable of labor and not And in order that there might be an over fifty years of age. uniform way of granting freedom, there was enacted further, that all manumissions must be in writing, under hand and the papers to be acknowledged and seal, with two witnesses endorsed by a justice, and then to be recorded within six months in the clerk s office of the county. This need of two witnesses, said the Court of Appeals in 1835, was to surround grants of manumission with such form and solemnity that slaveholders might be guarded against hasty and inconsiderate And the grant of freedom to slaves was declared null action.
;
and void,
if
by a
will or deed or
last
master; inasmuch, says the law, as the to give freedom by last will may be attended with many right Manumission was also declared illegal when it would evils.
2 This act was entitled, an operate in predjudice of creditors. act to prevent disabled and superannuated slaves being set
free,
ment.
or the manumission of slaves by any last will or testa It dates from the time when an interesting case was
before the authorities at Annapolis. By the will of a certain citizen, made shortly before his death apparently, in 1747,
nineteen slaves
1845, 327.
1752, 1
;
7 G.
&
J.,
183
H.
&
J., 253.
150
his real
legal
proceedings against the executors, to prove the will null and void. The executors, who made no claims to any
thing under the will, neglected to produce testimony or have witnesses examined in favor of the negroes, so a petition was
presented on their behalf to the judge of probate, Daniel Dulaney, Esq., asking that they might be admitted defendants to defend the said libel," and that they might have the wit nesses to the will. In answer, though the petition was not
"
until after depositions were in and the probation closed, they were allowed two months in which to have depositions taken, in order that all legal rights and advantages might be
shown
given them.
Over a year later, in 1751, Mr. Dulaney gave the opinion that the will was the result of the influence of the slaves rather the will of the slaves than of the master. Such a
will,
was contrary to law, and to pass it would be the greatest encouragement to the slaves of a person in the situation of the testator, to compel their master to give his property to them in prejudice of his own relations. The will was there
he
said,
the prayer of the negroes, a court of delegates was appointed by the Governor to review the decree of Mr. Dulaney ; and this court closed its work some six
On
months
sioners
later,
confirmation.
divided in opinion, two for and two against a Finally, in 1752, another court of commis
;
was appointed the case was reviewed, the decree of Mr. Dulaney declared null and void, and the will established and freedom given, ajid all costs ordered to be paid from the
slaves
In 1786 a petition for freedom of several came before the General Court. Their master had properly executed a deed of manumission, but it was done
testator s estate.
last
illness,
only eleven days before his death. he had spoken of manumission as desirable, but as an injury to the public; but he had since, he said,
earlier
Manumission
151
changed his mind, and his conscience would not rest until he had freed the negroes. The magistrate testified to the ruanus soundness of mind ; but the General Court held that freedom could not be granted, and the Court of Appeals con 1 In 1786, the question of a change in the law of firmed this.
mittor
in the House of Delegates, but was defeated In 1787, there was presented votes to eleven. by forty-four an address on the same subject from the yearly meeting of the Society of Friends, but it was referred to the next Assem
Then it was given a committee of seven members, three of them being from the large slave-holding counties Anne Arundel and Prince George s. The committee reported four
bly.
later, that the subject was well worthy the attention of the legislature. Experience had pointed out, they said, that such laws as that of 1752 were inadequate to the purpose
days
by policy nor warranted was improper and unjust that any person, by influenced by motives of religion or of humanity, should be debarred the right of manumitting his slaves at any time, by deed or will. On the second reading of this report, two weeks later, motions to amend so that the last will, to free slaves, must be executed by a testator in perfect health, or at least three months before death, were lost. Then, the House
justice, for
it
refused to concur with the committee s report by a vote of On reconsideration, the amend thirty-nine to twenty-four.
months before was carried by two votes, and then further considera 2 tion of the report was left for the next Assembly. There, in response to petitions from the Society of Friends and the Society for the Abolition of Slavery, a committee of seven members reported to the House that restrictions on voluntary It should be emancipation were neither good policy nor just. the wish of every free community, said the committee through
that the will be executed at least four
decease,
1
ment
152
and no oppor
be neglected for reaching that end, by silent and gradual steps, with the slave-owners consent. The House in so far concurred as to pass a bill relaxing the stringent
act of 175-J,
dom
unless
it
but providing that no will should give free were made three months before the testator s
This clause was struck out by the Senate. The House insisted on retaining it by a plurality of one vote. The Senate,
death.
by two votes, refused to recede, and the House then voted, by twenty-six to twenty-one, to continue the act of 1752.
Again, at the next session of Assembly, the Society of Friends renewed their petitions, and again did the committee of the House urge the desired changes. This time the House con curred, and the amendment that the will be made three months
was defeated there by eleven votes. The act 790 was passed by forty voices to twenty- three. It allowed manumission freely by deed, properly executed, as before, or by will at any time, saving only the rights of creditors, and provided that the slave be not over fifty years and be able to 2 work, at the time that he was to be free. In 1791 the House committee on Grievances and Courts gave a lengthy report on the inconveniences and loss which certain citizens had received from the action of the Abolition
before decease,
1
of
Society in Baltimore, in legal proceedings over several peti Though one of the counsel for the society s
have no grounds for freedom, yet new petitions were filed. The court had advised the society to pay the costs of former The trials, but found that payment could not be compelled. after hearing the memorials of the society in its House,
and examining some witnesses, condemned its action, and provided by law that no petitions for freedom, except on appeal, could be tried a second time between the same parties,
defence,
1
Ibid., 1789,
13,78,97, 103.
Acts of 1790, ch.
9.
Manumission.
153
unless the costs of the first suit, and all reasonable damages, 1 were first paid or secured.
During the last part of the eighteenth century, manumis became more common. The population of the State, at In 1793 the same time, was spreading out more arid more. there was enacted that petitions for freedom, instead of com
sion
ing before the General Court, should be tried in the counties where the petitioners lived ; but either party could appeal to the General Court on matters of law, where the facts had been
tried
by a jury.
And
compel,
the appearance of masters in such cases. In 1796, the extreme age at which slaves could be manu And there was mitted was made forty-five instead of fifty.
if necessary,
added that
in any case of petition for freedom thereafter in which the petition should be dismissed or judgment be given
against the petitioner, all the legal costs of the case should be paid by the attorney prosecuting or appearing to the same, unless the court should deem that there had been a probable
ground for supposing that the petitioner had a right to free dom. When the House was considering the bill, a motion to strike out this entire provision was lost by thirty-three votes 3 to twenty-one. Two years later a memorial to the House from sundry inhabitants of Charles county, that the time in which slaves could bring suit for freedom might be limited, was referred to a committee of seven, but without result. By an act of 1804 made part of the State constitution in 1805 a party to any suit or action who could give reasonable evidence that a fair and impartial trial could not be had in the county court, could have the case removed to another
House Journal, 1791, 82, 106 Acts of 1791, ch. 75. There was an successful attempt at further legislation on the matter the next year. 2 Either party could apply, of course, for trial by jury. 1793, 55.
1
;
un
3 House Journal, 1796, 82, &c. Acts of 1796, 67. In 1844, in order to end some doubts which had been expressed, it was declared lawful for bodies politic or corporate to manumit under the act of 1796, and deeds already made were declared valid.
;
154
few years later, a negro woman of Charles county, county. a petitioner for freedom, gave her affidavit, according to the law, to show that the trial could not probably be a fair one
The court overruled her motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed this, holding that while a slave could not by law of testimony ordinarily make an affidavit, yet that an appeal for freedom was included in the act of
in that county.
1804.
And
record, in a case of petition for freedom or homine replegiando, before the trial was begun, to the county in which, as shown
by competent testimony, a female ancestor of the petitioner had been held a slave at the time of the petitioner s birth, and where other material testimony could be had. Removal
of the case was also allowed from the county in which the petition was filed to that in which the owner of the slave
There was enacted in 1834, that all appeals might live. from county courts on petitions for freedom should be heard and determined at the first term of the Court of Appeals after
their entry. 2
after a specified
Slaves were frequently manumitted, to receive their freedom term of years, and questions arose as to the
legal status of the offspring of these, born during those years of service. Such offspring certainly became slaves if there was
no provision
the mother.
An
to the contrary in the deed or will manumitting act of 1 809 declared that persons who should
January of the following year, to be of certain specified time or on the performance determine the condition of any issue which conditions, might might be born meantime. Such issue, if there was no provi-
manumit
slaves, after
free after
some
residence of a 1804, 55; 1810, 63; 9 Gill, 120; 3 H. & J., 124. The Court of Appeals, (in 9 Gill, 120) depends on the master s will but if a master, on hearing that slaves were about to petition for should remove them in order to injure their claim, the court of
1
still
case.
1834, 248.
Manumission.
sion to the contrary,
155
would be
slaves.
When
this bill
was
considered in the House, an attempt was made to change it so that such issue should in all cases serve the owners of the
mother, twenty-five years for males and twenty for females, free; but this was defeated by a large
majority.
As
mission to slaves
has been seen, no deed or will was valid to grant manu who would be over forty-five years, or
unable to gain a support, at the time of becoming free. The law, if carried out to the letter, would then operate to shut
out not only the old or infirm, but also infants, who were certain young negress was plainly incapable of work. manumitted by deed in 1803, to receive freedom when she
became thirty years old, and any children born to her before that time were to be free at birth. child of this woman,
born during the term of service, was treated as a free person until she was nineteen years old. On her petition, Baltimore
freedom ; but the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, as no child was capable at birth of self-support, and hence of receiving freedom. Again, a certain negro woman and two children were manumitted by
city court confirmed her right to
When,
some
ten years later, it was represented to the Assembly that those children might therefore be enslaved, and that their
mother had supported them until they were able to support 2 themselves, a special act was passed to ensure their freedom.
1834, ch. 246. petition for leave to man umit a slave who was above the age limited by law. bill was passed, but was defeated in the Senate. In 1825, a special act allowed the manumis
;
USOO, 171. 6 H. & J., 431. * 4 H. & J., 199 6 H. & J., 17 8 G. & J., 19 At the Assembly of 1808, the House received a
;
sion by deed of a slave above the age of forty-five, with the proviso that if the negro became unable to maintain himself, he should in no case come on the county for support, but should have the same claim on his old master
or the master
also
made
s estate, as if the act had not been passed. An act of 1827 valid a deed of manumission to a negress, as if she were under
156
deed of manumission, in order to grant freedom, must not only be properly executed before a magistrate and wit nessed by two witnesses, but be recorded within six months in the county court. In a case on a petition for freedom in Anne
Arundel, in 1802, parol evidence was admitted to show that the two witnesses had been present when the deed of manu mission was attested, though one only had signed ; but the
General Court and Court of Appeals reversed this, and the In 1810, a law declared valid all deeds of petition was lost.
manumission acknowledged and recorded before that time, and invalid only in not being evidenced by two good witnesses saving, of course, the rights of bond fide purchasers of slaves,
and not freeing such as had already been adjudged slaves by any court. A similar bill was passed in 1826 not, however, to extend to cases of petitions for freedom then under litiga tion, and not to grant freedom to any slave who would have been over forty-five or under ten years, when entitled to it, In and who had not been acting as free for seven years.
;
one
case, in
some
Two
years later they were recorded and made effectual by but one of the slaves had been twice special act of Assembly
;
deed of manumission both denied her petition for freedom. not recorded according to law, said the higher court, does not change the relation of master and slave. Nor could the peti
tioner in the present case have her freedom, for
by that her
forty-five
and able
to
a bond must be given to the levy court of the county, with security, that the negress should receive $18.00 annually for her support from the family giving her freedom. (House Journal, 1808, 46, &c. 1825,83. 1827,158.)
It is interesting to note that in nearly all the Northern States, so long as slavery lasted, masters could not manumit without security to the town in some cases, bonds in a goodly sum that the freedman should not become a
public charge.
1
H.
&
J.,
151
1810, 15
1826, 235.
Manumission.
57
In one present owners would be deprived of their property. in 1814, the Court of Chancery had put on record, under case,
authority of a law giving certain general powers to chancery, a deed of manumission made some years before ; but the Court of Appeals held that deeds of manumission could not
In no way could a master be so recorded as ordinary deeds. 1 be compelled to have such a deed recorded. A certain citizen executed in 1812 a deed of manumission by
executor, the black entered an action to recover the value of his services from 1840 to 1846 ; but
s
until
his death in
1846.
On
being
No
any damages were denied in the county court and Court of Appeals. 2 second suit on a petition for freedom between the same
parties could be tried, if the charges of the first suit were About 1855 a case of petition for freedom, removed unpaid.
from Baltimore city, was called in Prince George s county, but was dismissed, as the petitioners did not appear, with judg ment for the defendant for about twelve dollars costs. On the same day, a second petition was filed, whereupon the defendant
1 In 1796 the House passed an act, in 9 G. & J., 115 4 H. & J., 249. answer to a petition from three negroes, to make valid a deed of manumis sion to them, which had been recorded by mistake in the office of the gen
;
On the rejection of the bill by the eral court instead of in the county court. Senate, the House added a saving clause for rights that might have been
already acquired, and urged the Senate to pass it. We are satisfied, said the House, that the principles of this bill have often influenced the Legislature
:
this case seems to require legislative aid especially, as the negroes never had control of the deed, and so no neglect can be imputed to them. The
Senate reconsidered the matter, but refused to pass the bill. (House In 1836 a special act allowed a free negro Journal, 1796, Nov., 13, 69, 73.)
to
for
bill
2
manumit
whom
his wife and children, whom he had purchased before 1831, but he had executed by mistake, instead of a deed of manumission, a of sale to their former owner. (1836, 167.)
8 Gill, 322.
158
of proceedings was ordered. The charges stated by the defend ant, including not only board and jail fees of the negroes but
also cost of counsel,
dollars.
amounted
to over seven
hundred and
;
fifty
From
was
petition
Such large
damages, held the court, and to allow such, or any counsel expenses, would only be to clog the right of further petition which it had been intended
in reasonable
Three years later, the court held that no appeal could lie from an order of the circuit courts ascertain ing the amount of such costs to be paid, if the ascertainment, when made, was within the limits of the court s discretion. 1
should be secured.
But the will validly made and the deed properly exe cuted and recorded could not still give the intended free dom, if it were shown that the rights of creditors would
Several interesting cases under this law were brought before the Court of Appeals. One slave was manumitted by will in 1808 to be free at the age of twentyThe debts of the testator were paid from his personal eight. exclusive of his negroes; but his wife renounced the estate,
be injured thereby.
devises
and bequests, and took her thirds of the estate as allowed by law, and this negro was allotted to her under When he became twenty-eight order of the orphans court.
7
The he petitioned the county court for freedom in vain. Court of Appeals sustained this judgment, holding that, if the personal estate of a slaveholder is not, after payment of debts, sufficient to give the widow her thirds, negroes bequeathed to
be free
may
life.
A certain citizen,
a few years later, freed his slaves by will, declaring that if his personal estate was not enough, without the slaves, to pay his
debts, his executor
might
sell
some of
Manumission.
to leave his slaves free.
159
The personal property alone was found while the administrator admitted that real and per insufficient, sonal together would be enough or more without the slaves.
From the decision of the county court denying their petition, the
The three judges before whom the case was slaves appealed. tried in the Court of Appeals, while differing somewhat in their reasoning, but agreeing in regrets that the wishes of the
master could not be carried out, sustained the judgment of the
lower court, on the ground that the question of the testator s real estate could not enter into the case, nor be dealt with by the
executor, under the laws, without possible injury to the credit ors who were not parties to the case. But in another case,
later,
inability to determine in a court of law as to whether the estate of the manumittor was sufficient to pay his creditors,
could not be taken so as to bar petitioners of their rights to freedom. The law, in its true construction, said the court,
charges the whole of a manurnittor s property, real and per sonal, with the payment of his debts, in favor of his manu
mitted slaves. Nor is it incumbent on the slave to prove, as a condition precedent to his freedom, that the balance of his master s property was enough for all debts the burden ot
:
the proper remedy for a proof creditor is by a bill in equity, where the slaves and all parties may appear, and an account be taken of all property. If the
rests
on the creditor.
And
may be decreed
to be
1
sold, as necessary to pay the debt, for life or a term of years. All negroes, said the Court, again, thirteen years later, declared
by will
any time
by the executor and regularly appraised at full as are slaves for life. And no court would award them value, freedom, and so release the executor, until the time had elapsed
within which creditors were warned to present claims, and the executor was required to settle his accounts nor then,
1
H.
&
J.,
48
H.
&
G., 1
7 G.
&
J., 71.
160
unless the court
creditors.
is
In case of deficiency of
executor
may
hire out the slaves for a time or sell them, if necessary, by leave of the orphans court; the proceedings of the court
And manumitted
proper
charge
parties, complainants, to proceed in equity to enforced on lands for the payment of creditors.
have a
Then,
the legally manumitted slave, either with the executor s assent or by petition, may have his freedom secured by judgment in
All the testator s property, said the Chan the same year, will in equity be charged with payment cellor, of his debts, in favor of slaves manumitted and in a judicial
;
a court of law. 1
proceeding, to determine whether a deed is in prejudice of creditors, such slaves are entitled to the assistance of the heirs
amount of
or persons holding the real estate, in taking the account of the 2 it. The Court of Appeals, in 1858, assured to
several negroes, who had filed a bill in equity, asking the court to marshal their master s assets, the right to an injunc tion, to restrain the prosecution of their petition for freedom,
legacies
could not
To the objection that negroes a proper affidavit to verify the bill, the court replied that documentary evidence would be enough in such 3 slave manumitted cases, to win the confidence of a court
were
settled.
make
by
not
will,
who was
s estate, at
the time of
his death,
still
was enough
pay
all
release had been given, and the official freedom papers secured For the Court of Appeals held that if at the county court.
6 Gill, 299.
17 Md., 508.
for
cuit court for the county, the executor had applied to the orphans court The orphans court had for leave to sell them, to pay the testator s debts.
in
which
it
Ap
Manumission
in
161
due course of administration, and by no fault of the admin an estate changed so as to become insufficient for the the right of manumitted slaves to freedom became void debts,
istrator,
;
been held by the exec utor for payment of debts, could not be resisted in their claim
1
The
Court of Appeals, reversing the judgment of the orphans court of Howard district, declared in 1848, that the State was entitled to a tax of two and a half per cent, from execu
negroes manumitted by will, under an act of 1844, The bequest of freedom to a slave, said the taxing legacies. 2 is a legacy within the meaning of that act. court,
tors
on
all
slaves were clothed with these powers in favor In 1828, a certain resident of Washington county died, leaving the provision in her will that her executors were to free certain slaves, if of suitable age and condition, at such
Manumitted
of freedom.
times as they, the executors, might deem expedient. fourteen years the executors kept the negroes as their
slaves,
For
own
dom.
though there was no legal hindrance to the desired free The Court of Appeals, with one justice dissenting,
held that the negroes could apply to a court of equity that the execution of the powers created by their mistress will might
be enforced.
Though
court, of instituting a suit in a court of law or of equity, yet he has been made capable by law of acquiring freedom by
deed or
nized.
will,
and so
is
recog
Chancery cannot grant freedom, but may direct the execution of deeds of manumission, and so enable slaves to
assert their claims to
freedom
in a court
of law. 3
103 (1837). Act of 1844, ch. 237. Code of 1860, 81, 125. The Court of Appeals said, the next year, that there was no hardship or injustice in this tax that the objects for which the great debt of Maryland had been contracted, the great public improvements, were believed to be beneficial
9 G.
J.,
2
&
6 Gill, 388.
(8 Gill, 316.)
11
162
tioner
Pending or during a case on petition for freedom, the peti was treated as a slave. In 1796, a slave entered an action of assault and battery and false imprisonment against his late master, for having held and imprisoned him for over two years, from the time when he filed his petition for free dom to the time when it was granted but the General Court 1 It was usual, however, for refused to give him damages.
;
the master of a petitioner to be required to satisfy the court that he would allow the slave to attend court when neces
sary.
held on an appeal, in 1802, that a master, in order to retain the services of a slave, a petitioner, must enter into a recognizance to suffer him to prosecute
his case,
and
to use
him
well
further,
should he appeal from a grant of freedom, must enter into bond with security to prosecute the appeal, in order to keep 2 We find an the black in his service pending the appeal.
injunction served in Baltimore in 1857, on certain officers and slave dealers, to prevent the sale of a negro until his In a case in 1831, claims to freedom were determined.
in
which the punishment of a negro convicted of crime would depend on his status as slave or free, we find counsel
assigned the prisoner, and the right of appeal further assured him, by order of the Assembly. There was enacted in 1856,
that
void a deed of manumission, on the ground of fraud or preju dice of creditors, and for the sale of negroes for payment of
debt,
should not be necessary as usual to summon the slaves before the court, but a guardian ad litem should be appointed. The guardian, who should be "some gentleman learned in
it
H.
& McH.,
255.
only cases in which actions were brought for false imprisonment, &c.
2
This case and that in 8 Gill (322) seem to be the by freedmen to recover damages
See Report to House of Delegates on the Baltimore Abolition Soc., 1791, & J., 208. A bill was introduced in the House of Delegates in 1795, to prevent the removal from the State of those who had petitioned or might eleven voices. petition for freedom, but it was defeated by
H.
Man umission.
the
law,"
163
selves, if free,
should defend his wards as they might defend them and the court on full hearing should pass such
as
judgment
free
would be given
all costs,
were
men. including a fee of twenty or thirty the guardian, in discretion of the court, should fall dollars to on the complainant. 1
And
When
petition
county court, in
a certain petition for freedom came before Baltimore 1 848, there was stated to the court that the
in the slave s
was
filed
without his
authority.
on examination, stated that he did not wish to have the case pursued that his only hope of freedom So the case was lay in his mother s effort to purchase him.
slave,
The
dismissed.
In the same court, the next year, it was suggested counsel that the free parent of a petitioner for freedom who by seemed to be under age and whose petition was about to be
dismissed, might have interests which would allow her to maintain the petition, but the court held that the right to free
dom was
And
in
another case, in
which a father petitioned in behalf of his children, a new peti tion had to be filed, in the name of the parties asking freedom,
by
The
nary
a certified copy of a deed was bill was passed always deemed good evidence of freedom. in 1805 to prevent, as we read, the great mischiefs which had
trivial fee for record.
And
arisen
free blacks,
from slaves who had gotten possession of certificates of and had so passed as free. Certificates of free
of
wills,
dom were to
registers
tification
be granted only by clerks of the county courts and and were to contain the particulars for iden
1 We notice that in two cases, county officers were ordered by 1856, 140. the Assembly to pay jailors for taking care of and feeding several peti It is mentioned in one case that they belonged to an tioners for freedom.
insolvent estate.
that negroes before the courts as petitioners for freedom have never lost their rights from the want of generous professional aid. (8 Gill, 331.)
164
freedom had been acquired. No other person could give a certificate, under penalty of five hundred dollars, and clerks
they issued any must prove that illegally. he was the person manumitted, and no second paper would be given unless he took oath or proved by some credible and disinterested witness that the original was lost. Another act, two years later, provided that papers could be given only in the counties where the deeds or wills had been recorded. In
registers
if
and
were
liable to the
same amount
1831, the records of St. Mary s county, and, a few years later, In the acts of the those of Worcester, were destroyed by fire.
Assembly allowing documents to be recorded over again, and the existence of rights and possessions to be established, there
is
no special mention of
certificates
of manumission.
But an
of 1852, after the burning of Dorchester court-house, required the commissioner appointed to re-establish all records
act
and
legal documents, to take all testimony as in other cases, in regard to the rights of such free negroes as might apply to him in writing, and to report this evidence to the circuit
court,
this
From
judgment
for freedom.
time to time, petitions for further legislation, mostly to restrict manumission, were received in the House of Dele
gates
in
From
and
Thus,
emancipation
by
will
bill, in 1823, to com emancipation to certain conditions. all slaves thereafter manumitted to leave the State, was pel
A certain negro woman was manumitted in 1823, and a few years after bought several acres of land, the deed for which was properly executed and recorded. Years after she lost her deed of manumission, which, as was then She was then too old to get ascertained, had never been properly recorded. a new deed from the heirs of her old master. So a special act, in 1847, vested the land in her, as if she were still possessed of her freedom papers.
1
(1847, 206.)
Manumission.
referred to a
165
day of the following summer when the Assembly would not be in session by a vote of fifty-one to twelve.
During these years a number of petitions were presented to House of Delegates, from slaves, that some defective man umission might be declared valid. All were considered, and at almost every session, a special act or two gave the desired freedom to some petitioners. 1 Just before the Assembly of 1 831
the
,
the Southampton insurrection occurred in Virginia. Maryland had for some years encouraged the work of the American Col
onization Society, but now the plan of colonization in Africa was adopted as a State policy. The act of 1 831 ordered the Gov
three managers,
all
ernor and Council to appoint, as soon as convenient, a board of members of the Maryland Colonization Society,
be, in short, to
who might
who might
its
And
the
State pledged
two hundred
credit for this purpose to the sum of not over thousand dollars. Every county clerk who
should receive a deed of manumission for record, and every register of wills, on the admission to probate of a will by which any slave was given freedom, was ordered to send the State
board of managers, within five days, an extract from deed or will, with the names and age of every slave manumitted. The board should at once notify the American or State Coloniza
tion
Society, that the freedmen might be taken to Liberia. Should the Society refuse to remove them, or should they refuse to go, the board was authorized to remove them to such
and
to give
Jn 1829 a fhus, 1821, ch. 117; 1823, 170; 1824, 39 & 78; 1827, 48. resident of Kent county petitioned for a special act to release to him any claims of the State to the personal estate of a late relative. On the other
hand, a number of residents of Kent and vicinity asked that certain slaves of the estate might be freed. The Committee on Grievances could not decide the case, and the House voted in favor of the petitioner by two
votes.
lr
49, 328.
166
they should be able to help themselves. And if any person manumitted should refuse to leave Maryland, and persist in
remaining, the sheriff should be called on by the board, and he was thereupon required to arrest and transport such person.
All slaves, of any age, could be freed. In case any slaves manumitted could not be removed without separating a family,
it
was provided that slaves might if they desired, renounce freedom, before the court, and remain at home as slaves. The board of managers could hire out manumitted persons whom they might have to remove, to pay the expenses of
removal. But to all this there was the important proviso, that the orphans courts might grant annual permits to re main in the State to such manumitted persons as were deserv 1 On consideration of the bill in the ing from good character.
House, it was moved in vain to amend this, so as to allow manumitted slaves to remain, on condition of giving bond for good behavior, to the amount of one hundred dollars, with
security. three.
The bill was passed by thirty-seven votes to twentyThe Senate added the amendment that manumittors
should, as before, be liable for the support of those freedmen who might become burdens to the public by age or inability. At the next session, was added that a sheriff who should
neglect to
remove a freedman within a month after receiving from the board of managers, became liable to fifty But while the Assembly furnished these stringent fine. dollars means for the reduction of the free black population, public
notification
In but a sentiment neglected to call for their enforcement. single instance was a sheriff called on, under the law of 1831, to
The harshness remove a manumitted slave from the State. that prompted the above legislation," says a gentleman prom
"
inent in the colonization work, "soon gave way to the kindly feeling that had always influenced the people of Maryland
population."
Those who were entitled to freedom under deeds already recorded or were exempt from the operations of the act. 2 1831, 281. "Maryland in Liberia," J. H. B. Latrobe, 16.
Manumission.
167
on by some earnest workers, with the encouragement of the State, but manumitted slaves were not carried away against The number of manumissions reported to the their will. board of managers from 1831 to 1845 was some twenty-three hundred and fifty. Of these, eleven hundred were freed forth with ; one hundred and seventy were manumitted to be free on some condition, such as emigrating to Africa; the rest,
after service
From 1845 to 1850, some more manumissions were reported. fifty Some negroes, freed by will without mention by name, probably were not reported. To what extent manumitted slaves received annual permits of residence from the orphans courts, would not be easy to ascertain. There was a favorable report from the House committee, in 1844, for a bill to abolish the power of
for stated terms.
1
the court to issue them, in Calvert county ; and, next year, a bill to the same purport for Charles county another large
slave-holding county
was passed by the House. But if manumitted slaves were not forced to leave against their will, it is obvious that such permits would be needed only to secure
legal,
all
deeds of
manumis
might have been executed but not recorded before the act of 1831, could be recorded then within six months without making the freedmen liable to that act. And deeds of manumission recorded before 1831, but attested by only
one witness, were declared valid.
And,
further,
court that he
or
dom, on which part payment had been made before 1831, was made exempt, on becoming free, from the act of 31. In 1833
a further supplement
made
manumission entitled, as the act reads, to the same consider ation and protection. From time to time, also, special acts
1 Reports of Committees to Assembly of 1846 and to Constitutional Con vention of 1850.
168
manu
By two acts
in 1833, certain
At expressly exempted from any effect of the act of 1831. least fourteen petitions for special acts were the presented House, in 1834. Five were reported unfavorably, bills in
favor of two passed the House but were rejected in the Senate, and seven bills were passed. These acts varied in principle In 1835, a free according to the wont of special legislation. was empowered to manumit his wife and four children, negro whom he had purchased but could not free, owing to the act
of 1831. 1
When
manumitting
dren,
free,
as he
a certain free black died, in 1834, without had planned to do, his wife and two chil
he had purchased, the Assembly declared them capable of holding property, and heirs of each other.
his wife
wife,
whom
The father other children, died without having been freed. but these also his eight children then died without freeing
were declared
free,
and of each
other.
certain free black of Worcester county asked leave to free bill in his favor, introduced by the his children, in 1835.
committee on Colored Population, passed the House, but was Three years latter, he tried again, and rejected by the Senate.
One again the Senate objected, but finally passed the bill. freedman left at his death several hundred dollars, and a
The children of his old master petitioned his only son. that the slave might be bought with the money and freed. This was granted on condition that he be subject to all the
slave
laws then, or thereafter to be, in force against free blacks resid free negro who This was in 1845. ing in the State.
free being freed, they became entitled to all the legal privileges of any law to the contrary notwithstanding. As a slave owner could free his slaves subject to the act of 1831, it is obvious that such acts as these
1
On
blacks
were
and
good
title to
property.
Manumission
169
his wife and children, died intestate without legal relatives within the fifth degree, so that his personal estate, act of after payment of debts, devolved on the State.
owned
An
1846, ordered the administrator to free the slaves, to be sub In two other cases, in 1853 and 1856, ject to the act of 1831.
and nephew and niece of deceased free But when the attention of. of the Assembly or more properly speaking, probably, of was called in 1841 to the case of a free the House committee who had died suddenly without freeing, as he had in negro tended to do, his wife and children and grandchildren, a
the wife and children
negroes, were similarly disposed
special act freed the entire family, with the proviso that they In 1852, leave Maryland within a year, never to return.
two slaves, the sons of a free black who had died without will and near legal relation, were ordered to be put to service, under the orphans court, until they became twenty-one years If they then agreed to remove from Maryland within of age.
a year, they
slaves
;
would be
if
free,
though, 1 give them annual permits of residence, if it saw fit. The intentions of some manumittors, in freeing slaves with the condition attached that they should emigrate to Africa
they became
or elsewhere, were frustrated by decisions of the Court of The will of a certain slave owner, dated 1831, Appeals.
declared that all his negroes should be free at thirty-eight years of age, provided they should leave Maryland within
thirty days after reaching that age, and should not return to If they so returned, they should be slaves to his reside.
the blacks reached that age in 1845, and received a certificate of freedom from the register of wills.
heirs.
One of
He
land.
then went at large as a freeman and remained in Mary Four years later, the second husband of his old mis
tress notified
him
that he
State,
^ee 1833, 97, 231; 1834, 245; 1835, 68, 266; 1838, 385; 1845, 314; 1846, 144; 1852, 207; 1853, 413; 1856, 72.
1841, 232;
170
under penalty of being sold, as he had stayed longer than Of this he allowed by the will which gave him freedom.
took no notice
for freedom.
but was forced to protect himself by applying Both Baltimore county court and the Court of
;
to be free.
testator,
said the
court, may prescribe the period when freedom he cannot put an end to a state of freedom.
may
That the
by
to be free at thirty-eight years is the conditions attached, for the performance of these
was
shown
would
Such conditions were wholly require that the black be free. to the grant of freedom, and were not authorized subsequent
for freedom was filed, in 1856, in Calvert a certain negro woman, Lucinda, for herself and her county, by The will under which freedom was claimed, seven children.
by law.
A petition
which had been executed and probated in 1840, gave the woman to a certain person until she became twenty-seven, when, reads the will, she shall be free to go to Africa at the end of her term, and carry with her any child or children she may then have, under the age of five years. The judgment The Court of the circuit court was that the mother was free. of Appeals also confirmed her freedom, holding that the words
"to
go
to Africa
did
not affect
it.
to be free, to
be slaves
free.
1
if
The
all
children born after she reached the age of twenty-seven were free, as she was, but that such children as were under
five at that
removed to Africa. A master, said the court, may limit the time at which freedom is to begin, and if this is fixed by a not occur, the negro contingent event, and the event does remains a slave. Certain negroes were left in 1837 to an
See 8 Gill, 314; 3 Md., 119; 14 Mel, 109
&
115.
Manumission.
171
executor in trust, to be hired out until all debts of the estate were paid, when the executor might, if he chose, take to Ken tucky or elsewhere such as were willing to go, and should
Twelve negroes, petitioners under this will, were granted freedom in 1859, by the circuit court of St. Mary s county, but the Court of Appeals reversed this judg ment. The will ordered that any of the slaves who should refuse to leave Maryland could be sold, and such a choice, said
there
manumit them.
the court, is not inconsistent with a state of slavery the very act of 1831 allowed manumitted slaves to renounce, if they And, in this chose, the freedom about to be secured them.
:
case, the
mitted by deed or will upon condition of leaving the State or any other contingency or condition, should be entitled to free dom until the condition had been performed. 2 And no slave
could be manumitted
who was
over ten and under forty-five years, and able to earn a liv In 1860, manumission was totally prohibited, ing by labor. and free blacks over eighteen years of age were empowered, if
they chose, to get permission from the courts to renounce free dom and choose masters. 3 The prohibition of manumission
was anticipated largely in some parts of the State. There were said to have been one hundred and thirty-six slaves freed in Frederick county during three months. In Baltimore county, during the last few weeks and mostly during the last few
days before the new act went into force, eighty-one slaves were manumitted.
The
right to
in 1864,
some
six
172
Anne Arundel county was two negro women, Dinah and her daughter But a dozen or more years later, these negroes were Livinia. at large as free women, renting small tenements, going owning property, and in every way living as freemen in the neighbor hood of, and to the knowledge of their old master. He died
About 1784,
known
to possess
in 1805, leaving all his property to his wife, with remainder after her death to his children. She settled the estate and died
in 1824.
None of
the children
to
Dinah, to
sisters,
or to the children of
Livinia, until in 1832 an heir took out letters of adminis on the estate, and seized on the issue of Livinia
life.
as slaves for
The county
Dinah had been legally manumitted, and the Court of Appeals, two years after, affirmed this judgment. A negro in Maryland, said the higher court, was presumed to be a slave, and on petition for freedom must bear the burden of
presumption that
proof of free ancestor or of manumission. Yet, to quiet pos session, the court, upon a proper foundation being laid for it,
will in certain cases direct the jury to presume the existence of a deed of manumission, as in the case of other deeds and patents.
The presumption of a deed of manumission must be founded on acts of the petitioner or his ancestors, inconsistent
with a state of slavery, acts known to the owner, and which could only be accounted for rationally on a supposition that he had intended to free his slave. If the exercise of apparent
shortly before his death, no such presumption could be drawn. In 1836, a negro woman who had been living as a free woman
in Baltimore for six years, was put into jail as a runaway. She petitioned for freedom, but the defendant showed that she
had been born a slave, had belonged to a late resident of Queen Anne s county, and was included in the inventory of the estate, and that he as administrator had received an order from the
orphans court, in reply to his application, to sell her. The the Court petition was denied in Baltimore city court ; but
Manumission.
173
free
of Appeals held that while the fact of the negro s living as was not evidence that all debts of her master had been
paid, as there was no proof that her whereabouts were known to his representatives, yet, on the other hand, the order for sale
sufficient
evidence of the
insufficiency of the estate, in opposition to a claim for freedom. 1 Aban 7 Sent back to the city court, the petition was granted. donment of a slave by the owner, said the Court of Appeals in
another case in 1850, is not a legitimate mode of manumission, nor even in itself a sufficient foundation for the presumption
of a deed of manumission.
Nor
is
authorized, as a matter of law to be declared by the court, or of fact to be found by a jury, on the ground of acting as free with the master s knowledge, unless the negro has so acted
woman was
negro uninterruptedly for a period of at least twenty years. allowed by her mistress, in 1831, to live with her
reputed husband, with the understanding that he should have her free forever, if he would raise for her mistress two of her
children then young. The woman accordingly went at large, and was not molested by her old mistress, who lived until 1846 and who knew of her whereabouts, nor by the heirs of
her mistress.
for
affirmed the judgment, on the presumption that the mother was 2 But the act of legally manumitted when she went at large.
1860, prohibiting manumission, declared that the fact that a negro went at large and acted as free, or was not claimed by
any owner, should not be deemed evidence of the execution previously of any deed or will granting freedom, nor be taken
as a
ground
J.,
for
3 presuming freedom.
6G. &
2
3
86; 8
do., 102.
bill was reported by a committee to the House of Delegates, in 1821, an act of limitations, to prevent slave owners from reclaiming female slaves and their posterity, after having allowed them to marry free men and but it was referred without result to the next Assembly. live as free
for
174
The Negro
certain negro
in
Maryland.
been given certain lands
A
by
freedom by Prince George s by the Court of Appeals, in 1821, on the ground that a de vise of property, real or personal, to a slave by his owner
entitles
him also to freedom, by implication. certain resi dent of Charles county devised by his will, probated in 1857, shall work for that a negro woman- and her four children
"
themselves, by paying my executors, annually, one cent per The balance of his property was left to certain year hire." The executors claimed the a residuary clause. parties, by
freedom of the negroes, the residuary legatees opposed, and The the circuit court, in equity, gave them to the legatees. Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, as the intent of the
testator
was evidently that the negroes should be discharged from servitude, and be free in fact but not in law a state in plain viola entirely contrary to the policy of the law, and
tion of the act of 1831 touching
manumitted
slaves,
and of
that of 1817 prohibiting owners of slaves to allow them to 1 go at large and hire themselves out.
1 The negroes here (17 Md.) were not deemed 5 H. J., 151 17 Md., 23. dealt with by the courts as property. parties to the proceedings, being
&
CHAPTER
V.
aside
from
the relation of master and slave, between Anglo-Saxon and African ; and the growth of the free black population affected more and more all questions of slavery and emancipation. If
we
find, on the one hand, slaveholders anxious for the repres sion or banishment of the free-black, as dangerous to their interests, we find also many zealous opponents of slavery una
and
in peace.
and blacks could live together have left those laws which and slave alike, to be noticed under
We
the head of the free negro, to emphasize the better this race
distinction.
The number of
was
little
mention of them, until the close of the eighteenth The population of Baltimore county including
in 1752,
thousand
tween
the imported felons, five and six hundred convicts one hundred and sixteen mulatto slaves, one hundred and ninety-six free mulattoes, and four thousand and twenty-seven
1 The subject can be studied to great advantage in Maryland. In several of the lower counties there were more slaves than whites, while the total free black population was larger than that of any other slave State.
175
176
1 negro slaves and eight free negroes. proportion must have been less.
The
about eight thousand free colored persons in the State. Some of these, or their ancestors, had come as freemen, most had
been manumitted.
2
From
this
In January, 1807, was begun the with surprising rapidity. of forbidding the removal of free negroes permanent policy
The bill passed the House by or mulattoes into Maryland. No free black coming in, a vote of forty-three to eight. drivers and messengers in the actual except sailors, wagon
service of a non-resident, could stay over two weeks, under And those failing, on convic penalty of ten dollars a week. to pay the fines or give satisfactory security for departure tion,
within two weeks, were to be sold by the sheriff for a term pay fines and costs. No one could employ or harbor a non-resident free black without liability to a fine of
sufficient to
five dollars a day.
3
But
In
1814 and 1816, bills for further legislation passed the House, the second by the casting vote of the Speaker, and were de
cester
year,
In 1822, sundry inhabitants of Wor county petitioned that the free blacks coming into their county from Virginia might be fined or whipped. The next a supplementary act declared that no length of residence
feated in the Senate.
re
turn or remain after being punished, should be again arrested, and ordered the magistrates and officers of nine counties to
enforce the law.
lect.
neg but yielded to the the evils against which the representation of the House that
The Senate
1 The distinction between negroes Griffith s Annals of Baltimore, 33. and mulattoes is interesting. 1 We find the mere mention of the reading in the House of Delegates, in 1802, of a petition from the freeborn people of color in Maryland.
3
4
1806, 56.
1823, 161.
The
counties
Calvert,
Charles, Kent,
177
in ten-fold ratio in
We find mention of peti the counties on the Virginia line. tions for residence on behalf of some twenty negroes, between and 1831, but eight of these only were favored. One
180(>
acter.
employed in In 1824, the House passed a bill in favor of a certain black who had moved from Virginia into Charles county, but The man seems to have then it was rejected in the Senate. moved into another county and to have renewed his petition
usefully
at the next session of
was given legal residence, Maryland for some time, and had proven his good char boating,
result.
colored
woman
land in vain,
bill, to
of Pennsylvania asked leave to move to Mary the ouse refusing, on reconsideration of the
1 1
admit her on condition that she should procure a bond The next of fifty dollars, conditioned for her good behavior. year, 1829, leave was refused for a bill to allow a member of
the
House
as to
work at his forge. Later was again brought in, but so amended limit the residence to five years; and was then defeated.
to import a free black to
On
in their wives.
More
ten days
Nat Turner
insur
rection, in 1831.
The
fine for
remaining
dollars a
on
to the informer
twenty dollars a day after the expiration of four days half to be recovered before a justice, with the
And any negro who might right of appeal to the court. leave Maryland and remain away over thirty days, would be
deemed a non-resident and
liable to the
leaving he should deposit with the county clerk a written statement of his plans, or on returning, could prove by cer tificate that he had been detained by sickness or coercion.
sailors
on
178
vessels
who might
sickness or accident.
And,
might go and come at will between Maryland and Liberia. Each Assembly received some half dozen petitions for resi
dence.
the
black to bring in his wife, passed out in the Senate; while, several
years later, a black of Washington county was allowed to bring in his wife, on condition that she should not leave that
One negro was allowed, in 1833, to move into county. Charles county from Virginia, on paying fifty dollars to the State, and giving bond with two securities, citizens of that
county, in the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, for his good behavior for a year. Another was given residence, in
1837, on payment of fifty dollars for the State Colonization Out of six Society, and a bond of two thousand dollars.
applications for residence, in
1835, one only was granted. were rejected the next year. And the next petitions year, again, seven were rejected and one granted. Some were signed not only by the negroes but by friendly citizens.
Four
In 1836, petitions were presented in the House of Delegates from sundry residents of Baltimore and Harford counties, and one, two years later, from Queen Anne s county, for more A motion to inquire into the expediency of stringent laws. allowing free blacks to enter the State for the shad and her In 1839, there was en ring fisheries, was lost by one vote.
acted that no free black belonging in any other State, could enter Maryland, except servants with their masters, under as penalty of twenty dollars for the first offence, to be given
a reward to the taker-up, and of five hundred dollars for a second offence half to the taker-up or informer, half to the
Colonization
Society.
All
cases
In default of payment of these fines or orphans courts. and costs, the blacks would be sold as slaves to the highest If a black bidder, whether a resident of Maryland or not.
who had
first
remove
179
within five days, he would be deemed liable to punishment But it was made lawful, by another act for a second offence.
of the same session, to encourage emigration, for free blacks to visit, and return from, Trinidad or British Guiana, with
view to possible colonization there, provided they could first satisfy the courts of their sincerity of purpose, and obtain
go and come, and that they return within eighteen Free blacks unless detained by a reasonable cause. months, we have seen, remain out of the State of Maryland could, as
licenses to
for less
permit.
than thirty days, at will, and for a longer time by In 1844, this privilege of a longer absence was lim
yearly,
between the first of May and November and the permits were given in the discretion of the orphans courts, on the written recommendation of three The act of 1839 had forbidden the well known citizens. entrance of any blacks belonging to any State," and as much annoyance was said to have been caused by blacks coming from the District of Columbia, the words district or terri were added, in 1845. In 1840, the answer to a peti tory"
1
"
"
tion of ninety-five citizens of Caroline county, against this In 1847, strict legislation, had been leave to withdraw.
sundry
for such action as would wholly from going and coming. The committee on Colored Population was divided. The majority deemed The minority said it was very the existing laws sufficient.
citizens of
Kent asked
necessary for the protection of the slaveholders bordering on the free States, that all communication should cease between
the free blacks of
Maryland and of
those States.
If the
former were allowed to go and come, there was great danger of a coalition being formed which might result in most alarm
This minority report was ing consequences to slaveholders. accepted, but the bill introduced accordingly was not then passed. Two years later, there was enacted that any free black
of Cecil, Kent or Queen
1
Anne
counties
who might
cross the
1839, 38
1844, 283.
180
State line
liable to the
act of 1839.
This evidently bore hard on farmers and other residents near the boundary. Two hundred and thirty citizens
of Cecil petitioned, in 1853, for
to this effect
its
repeal.
Though
a bill
ment, the petitioners were favored in so far that free blacks in the employ of any white resident of Cecil county were free
to return after an absence of not over twenty-four hours, for And, three years transacting business for their employers.
the time of absence was lengthened to ten days, to all in 1 So the law remained. regular employ in Cecil and Kent.
later,
Attempts to secure admission or residence by special acts, met with varying results. One man tried in vain for leave to work in Maryland between April and November. The fisher
men of
employ
respectable beyond the State lines during fishing seasons. who paid taxes on property colored minister of Annapolis asked in 1846 for an assessed at over five thousand dollars
act to allow his children to visit
to time,
and
again in 1861, to allow his sons to return to Maryland, but both petitions seem to have remained with the committee. On
the other hand, legal residence in Cecil county was given in 1846 to a family of nine blacks, on the representation of a
number of
the laws of
of
Maryland, had removed to Pennsylvania to seek employment, and being unsuccessful wished to return to his But each of the family had to give bond to the old home. State in one hundred dollars, with surety, that they would not if found elsewhere, any justice could have leave Cecil county
the bond collected, half to the informer, half to the county. The steward of the Naval School at Annapolis, who had been
in
for over twenty years in the naval service, asked to be allowed, 1847, to bring to Annapolis from Philadelphia his wife and
children.
as he
181
we read, a high character for subordination and faithfulness in on condition that the family should not his various duties reside out of Annapolis, and should remain so long only as
the father should be steward at the school.
free negro
of
the District of Columbia obtained permission to visit his wife, a slave of Prince George s county, by giving bond with
security in fifty dollars that he would not come there for employment, that he would not stay over four days at a time,
barring
illness,
ington firm,
and that he would behave well. which had a hotel and health resort in
free
Wash
Mary
s
St.
negro servants,
who
had, however, to restrict their movements to the grounds of the establishment, and to leave at the close of the season.
others of these occasional special acts are interesting in 1 colored pointing out reasons for the general legislation.
Two
family was allowed in 1856 to return to its old home in 7 Maryland, if the orphans court of the county should be sat isfied, on examination, that the parents were of good character
to support their children. free negro of Prince county had appointed by will as his executor his son, George a resident of the District of Columbia, and leave was given the
s
and able
son to enter that county freely during the settlement of the estate, for a disposition was felt, we read, among the citizens
of the county, from the good character the family had always borne, to extend such privileges to them as would not materially
State
interfere with the policy of the State. The plain policy of the was to free itself of the black population.
to
have
Early
in
1842, a justice
there from Virginia five years before, to pay fifty dollars a week apiece for the two hundred and fifty and more weeks of
their residence there, or be sold in default of fine
and
costs,
364.
182
The Negro
in
Maryland.
under the act of 1831. Appeal was taken to the county court, which quashed the writ of certiorari and remanded the case to the justice but the Court of Appeals stating that the writ of certiorari should not have been quashed held that the act of 1839 superseded that of 1831, where it covered the same ground and gave penalties for the same offence, and thus all such cases should be tried before the courts and not before
;
In this case, too, the blacks were not liable magistrates. under the act of 1839, having come into Maryland before that time ; nor, as the court pointed out, could the informer sue
to be
old law required such suits in general within a year from the date of the offence. begun find mention in the Baltimore papers, between 1850 and 1860,
for the fines, as an
We
of ten arrests for entering the State. One of these was a respectable and well-to-do barber of Baltimore, who had been away for several months, chiefly on account of his health, and
a justice under the act of 1831, to be accordance with the opinion of the Court of But within a week after this, another justice of
woman
to
and
five weeks stay in Maryland, and to be fifty dollars for sold for the necessary term in default, evidently under the act
2 of 1831.
notice the case of one negro fined twenty dollars the court, by the act of 1839; and another black, com by mitted to Cecil county jail to await court, left the State with out fine or other hindrance by climbing the jail wall. When
it
We
was represented
to the
Assembly
were
about to be
made
worked on a Virginia wood-boat plying to Talbot county, but had lived for several years in that county in the employ of a number of citizens who testified to his good character, a
^20. &
*
J., p.
329.
Baltimore Sun, Jan. 4th and 10th, 1856. We notice that there was a black in Baltimore jail in 1832, and another in 1838, for entering the State
contrary to law.
183
special act was passed to give him legal residence and exemp tion from the act of 1831. It is to be feared that some free
who did not secure able counsel, suffered from igno rance on the part of magistrates of the decisions of the Court of Appeals. The act of 1839, in so far as it imposed a penalty of twenty dollars only for a first offence, was indeed, as the
blacks,
law of 1831. l
Within the State, an orderly free black would be master of movements without hindrance, in the communities where he was known, but beyond these he might be liable to annoy ance and possibly to arrest and delay. Color created the pre that a man was a slave, and the burden of proof of sumption freedom, by certificate of freedom or otherwise, rested on the
his
black.
read in the Baltimore papers of one negro who was chased as a runaway, roughly handled and struck by
We
officers,
station
how
man brought
to Baltimore,
and
good looking colored boy whom he found at Annapolis Junction and presumed to be a runaway, and how the boy spoiled the sale by taking to his heels, by
tried to sell to slave dealers, a
being caught, being heard by a magistrate and discharged as 2 free. Suspected runaways were taken before magistrates to
be discharged at once if found to be free to be locked up and duly advertised otherwise for a reasonable time, at the end of
which,
The
if there
majority report of the committee in the slaveholders convention of it was believed that the general act against the return
inefficient,
but that the special and stringent law for Cecil, Kent and Queen
counties had recently been enforced.
2
Anne
Baltimore Sun,
May
23rd, 1853;
interest of the
June 2nd, 1859. The boy then got policeman who had caught him.
184
slaves, they
7
would be discharged by a judge of the circuit or orphans courts, and all fees would be paid by the county. While fears of such arrest or of kidnappers could not have troubled most free blacks, it is certain that, especially in times
when
more
or less about, the customary salutation of a white to any strange and suspicious looking black Well, boy, whom do
:
sometimes ended in an unpleasant delay in you belong to the business or pleasure of a free Nace or Pompey. The act of 1838 forbidding the transportation of slaves without passes,
!"
made all colored persons liable to examination by officers of Thus, a colored woman on one of the railways and steamers. West River steamers, without a pass or certificate of freedom,
was arrested on suspicion
committed, as
it
could not be
at the instance of the captain, and shown that she was not a slave.
Again, a colored boy on a Baltimore and Philadelphia train, who did not make satisfactory answers to the conductor, was brought back and delivered to a magistrate.
1
One of the objects of the Maryland Abolition Society of 1789, and of the philanthropic work of the Society of Friends, was the prevention of kidnapping. In 1790, the penalty of three hundred pounds fine was provided for fraudulently carrying, or causing to be carried, from Maryland any black known to be free. The Friends, the Abolition Society, and sundry citizens of Kent and Caroline counties which bordered on Delaware asked for still more stringent laws, but the House committee replied, that if offences were not always detected the fault was not in the law. After 1796, the penalty for the and sale of free blacks was fixed at eight hundred importation
dollars, or in default, labor
185
transporting them fraudulently from the State until 1809, when the act on crimes gave imprisonment between two and
ten years for transporting or arresting with intent to transport a black known to be free. find the Society of Friends and others asking for further legislation, in 1815, and again
We
when the grand jury of Baltimore county presented a memorial to the Assembly to the same effect. These efforts seem to have been directed against the transportation both of free negroes and of those to be free after a term of service.
in 1816,
lengthy
the
bill
was introduced
in the
House
in 1816, to for
purchase of any slaves for transportation, except under certain forms and conditions. Also, it ordered magis
trates to hold for the courts all parties suspected of
bid
fraudu
lent purchase,
and
to require the
file
defendent to give special bail, a petition for freedom and institute a suit
And, further, as there was repre sented that negroes committed as runaways were sometimes
for false imprisonment.
and were prevented by imprisonment from pro evidence of freedom, it provided that all negroes held curing as runaways and duly advertised, and held then for a limited
free persons,
time after the notification of the reputed owners, should not be sold as heretofore, but should be set free, all costs being This bill practically failed to pass the paid by the public.
House
the
two
vital clauses
were lopped
its
off;
but
next
Assembly passed
bill
embodying
essential
mention of
bill
imprisonment.
at that session against kidnapping. with one opposing vote only, but there was considerable opposition in the House, directed pro bably against the discharge of unclaimed runaways. The
The
preamble to the bill states that servants and slaves had been sometimes removed by fraud from the State, and the children of free negroes sometimes kidnapped and sold as slaves for 1 life in distant places. In 1824, the penalty of death was
See House Journals. Journal Runaways and Sale of Slaves.
1
See
186
prescribed for the
entitled
to
to be free or
arresting such with the intention of transportation beyond the State. There were several motions for further legislation, with no result ; and a
bill to repeal the act
files
freedom, committed
of 1817 was
left
on the
table.
The
and of the Baltimore papers, show what we might expect, that the laws and the stronger public opinion of all good citizens were not able to prevent kidnap
of Niles
Register
ping entirely.
napper just sent to the penitentiary for five years, that "this infernal business was carried on to a great extent, owing, in
his opinion, to ineffective laws;
number of
and again, in 1826, that a 2 colored children had been stolen. This most
all trades,
abominable of
of money. We find notice of several suspected kidnappers given over to the police by slave dealers in Baltimore. In
I860,
when
the Baltimore police were making special efforts were ten arrests at least for kidnap
cases, the blacks
ping. those
In several of these
kidnapped were of
who had
the courts
By the Constitution of 1776 the right of suffrage was given to all freemen of age who held a certain amount of property. It is certain that some free negroes voted in the early years For instance, evidence was given in Baltimore of the State.
1822, 127; 1825, 260; 1845, 465; 1826, 355. See Niles Register, 13, 80; 15, 110; 20, 303; 29, 419. 8 See Baltimore Sun, 1849, March 28th, June 21st; 1858, June 25th; 1860, May 17th, 21st, &c. One case mentioned by Niles is that of a free
1
House Journals,
black
He
who had kidnapped, and probably sold as slaves, three free blacks. was given a fine of 300, and 3 years at hard labor. (Niles Register,
October, 1818.)
187
county court, about 1810, that a certain free black of that county had voted at elections, and had been allowed to give 1 evidence in a case in which white persons were concerned.
But
was enacted in 1783 that no colored person freed there nor the issue of such, should be allowed to vote, or to after, hold any office, or to give evidence against any white, or to
it
enjoy any other rights of a freeman than the possession of property and redress at law or equity for injury to person or An amendment to the Constitution, adopted in property.
Free blacks enjoyed fully the right, ascribed to everyone by the Declara tion of Rights, of petitioning the Legislature in an orderly
1810, limited the right of suffrage to whites.
manner
for the redress of grievances. Most of the special were in answer to petitions, presented
usually by the members from their counties, and there is every reason to believe from the Assembly journals, that the com
mittees on Colored Population gave due attention to these The Declaration of 1851 repeated the words of the
petitions.
Declaration of 1776, that no freeman should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by judgment of his peers or the law of the land but added that this should not be construed
to prevent the Legislature from passing such laws as it might deem fit, for the government and disposition of the free colored
2
population.
3 H.
&
J.,
71.
We
who was
also in the
habit of voting, and did not know of the law of 1810 until his vote was refused at the polls in Baltimore county, that year. It is said that when in a strain his vote was refused, he addressed the crowd about the polls
"
eloquence,"
in breathless
(Md. Hist.
s
note that the House committee on Grievances, &c., reported to the House, in 1798, that they had found in the jail of Anne
It is interesting to
188
The Negro
in
Maryland.
Many free negroes owned small houses and pieces of land, and some of the most industrious not a little personal property. The acts of incorporation of some savings banks limited de
white persons, others could receive from any In Annapolis, for instance, several free blacks were persons. depositors at the savings bank, and one at least owned shares
positors
to
The act of 1852, allowing the formation of homestead or building, and of other associations, to promote economy and frugality among the people and an increase of the
of the bank stock.
taxable property, expressly excluded free blacks. There were evidently doubts as to whether real estate could be held legally
act of 1831.
by blacks, or the descendants of blacks, manumitted after the In 1848, the chancellor held as void a devise
of certain real estate to several negroes, by the will under which they were freed, as such freed men could not remain in
the State
Ten years later, however, the enjoyment of the property. Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court
for St.
Mary
county, that the taking of real estate in trust manumitted blacks was not inconsistent with
might promote
this, indeed,
emigrate, if called on to do so by officers of the law; nor would 1 it The act give any rights not enjoyed by other free blacks.
of 1831, as
executed.
When
a certain negro
petitioned in
to be free,
justice of peace by an order not under seal and which did not specify the in short, without those forms and solemnities which warrants offence should have, by the law, "to have the effect of depriving a citizen of his
personal liberty." The committee advised the passage of a resolution, to order the black to be brought by writ of habeas corpus before a judge of the
This was to be discharged or remanded, according to law. adopted by a vote of 25-21. Note act on habeas corpus, 1798, 106. (House Journal, January 18th and 20th, 1799.) 1 Md. Chancery, I, 355 12 Md., 87. We find property held in trust for
General Court,
189
children, the House committee on Grievances answered that the laws did not prevent free blacks from holding real estate,
or from transmitting
it
In 1836,
many that voluntary emigra tion was not likely to succeed, a member of the House moved an inquiry by the committee as to the expediency of forbidding
it
when
to
free blacks to acquire or hold real estate, with the suggestion that two years at the utmost would be time for those already
This was laid on the holding real estate to dispose of it. table. Two years later, a motion to the same effect was
evidently allowed in the Senate, but
tion of the matter.
we
find
no further
men
petition presented in 1849 by seventysix citizens of Caroline county, for a law to allow free blacks
to inherit
as a pro
of the chancellor, or else for exemption for freedmen from the law of descent, which hin dered transmission of property to children not born in lawful
The fact that the marriage of a slave was not rec ognized at law, as well as the looseness of the marriage tie among the free blacks, would have caused the estates of some
wedlock.
There are a dozen or negroes to have devolved to the State. more acts in the statute books, relinquishing the rights of the State in favor of colored families. For instance, a certain
freeman died about 1832, leaving a house and land in Fred erick county, and some personal property. His reputed and
acknowledged wife, unable to furnish legal proof of marriage, was freed by special act from danger of having this forfeited, to the school fund of the county, in default of heirs. One
eight colored families to inherit and enjoy the of their respective fathers. property By another, the property of a free negro was allowed to descend to his only child, sub
act allowed ject to right of
dower of the
wife.
1849, 475
1856, 337
There was a favorable report in the House, in 1860, on making the law
giving certain allowances to widows, apply to free negroes as to whites.
190
in the chapter on manumission that free not infrequently owned as slaves their wives and chil negroes dren whom they feared, perhaps, to manumit, lest the right to residence might be questioned. It would seem, also, that
We
other free negroes owned and hired slaves, as did their white hear of one free black, of Dorchester county, neighbors.
We
receiving payment for a slave, whom he had bought for of years, and who was sold out of the State for crime In 1827, a member for the same county had court. duced a bill to forbid anyone owning slaves for life or
a term
by the
intro
a term
of years, from hiring such to a free negro there. Kent and Somerset were added to Dorchester and, later, Worcester and
added, and Kent struck out; and then the committee on Grievances, ordered to inquire into the expe diency of preventing free blacks from purchasing slaves under
legislation
on the subject
evidence in the Code of 1860 was very simple, and based strictly on the color line colored persons, free or
;
The law of
any case
regular marriage between free negroes was duly recognized, of course. find two cases in which colored men were brought before Baltimore city criminal court for bigamy, but were dismissed from lack of proof of second
We
marriage. (Baltimore Sun, February 5th, 1856; August llth, 1860.) On the other hand, an indictment against a black for bastardy was quashed in Baltimore county circuit court, the judge holding, after consultation with
the Court of Appeals, that the act of 1781, 13, against fornication, and other similar acts, did not apply to negroes. (Baltimore Sun, January 18th, find mention of a marriage license for blacks; and of an appli 1853.)
We
cation by a colored
1
woman
1852, 114;
black apprentices were forbidden by 1846, 355, to allow them to remain in the employment or custody of free blacks. This may have been to prevent their remaining at home with their parents.
191
But the law had not in which a white person was concerned. always been so simple, and the history of its growth is most In 1717, there was enacted that no Indian or significant. slave or free, nor mulatto slave should be admitted as negro,
evidence before court or magistrate in any case in which a This was at a time Christian white person was concerned.
when
ship-load after ship-load of the rudest Africans were imported yearly, and it must have been long before many of
not to protect the whites only, for these Indians and negroes were not allowed to testify against their fellows except where other evidence was lacking in petty cases not punished by
or member. Nor, apparently, could a slave testify And further, while the child of a white a free black. against man and a mulatto slave would be during life incapable of
loss
of
life
witnessing against a white, the child of a black man and a white woman there were not a few cases of such offspring
for
would be so disqualified during the limited term, only, which he was put to service. A free mulatto was good In short, the status was evidence against a white person. In 1751, as heinous felonies not dependent on color only. had been committed, the testimony of slaves was allowed against slaves accused of capital crimes, where there were
pregnant circumstances to confirm it, in the judgment of the court. And slaves were always to be warned by the court
of the severe corporal punishment to be given them, if they The imported convicts, mostly felons perjured themselves. from England, were at the same time declared good evidence
against one another
as they had been encouraged to wicked ; the fact that they were not legal witnesses. read, by nesses, In 1792, the House of Delegates considered a bill to prevent stealing by free negroes, which provided, among other things,
we
might
testify to
con
vict a free negro of illegal dealings with a slave; as there had been great inducements for slaves to steal and dispose of the
who
192
The Negro
in
Maryland.
of white persons only, who were seldom privy to such deal ings. This clause was struck out by a vote of thirty to twentyseven.
later, slaves
or
few years later, in 1808, the of Queen Anne s county asked the attention of the grand jury Assembly to inconveniences which had arisen from the ina
bility of a free
capital cases ; and it was therefore enacted that in all criminal cases any negro or mulatto, slave or free, could testify for or
against
free.
To
the
House
general act on negroes, of 1796, the Senate offered the amendment that no free colored person, free as descended
bill for the
from a
free ancestor,
should be allowed to
for freedom.
nor the descendants of such freeman, testify in favor of any slave petitioning
as
should rest with the jury. The Senate receded, but the act for bade persons manumitted since 1783 to testify for petitioners for
freedom.
Since 1783, no
2
a white person.
tors,
were
still
testify against Mulattoes, free as descending from free ances good witnesses. The Court of Appeals, in
1810, sustained Baltimore county court in its just ruling under the act of 1717 in refusing to allow a free black
which a Christian white was was shown that her brother, a free concerned, although black of that county, had once been allowed to testify, withto testify in a case in
it
woman
this bill did not pass. 1801, ch. 109; 1792, 80, 98 In 1815, the act of 1728 was abolished, which gave to free mulatto women and to their offspring by negro slaves, the same penalties given to white women and to their offspring by negroes. After 1796, colored chil
House Journal,
1808, 81.
for their
mother
crime.
193
in
But
sustained Frederick county court, in a case on petition for freedom in which a white was concerned to a considerable sum
in allowing the evidence of a free mulatto, whose mother, though a colored woman, was descended from a white woman. 1 In 1846, the religious distinction of the old act of
of course
1717, in favor of Christians, was wiped out; and all colored persons were disqualified in cases where whites were concerned.
House committees
newspapers, was advocated at the session of 1860, to admit the testimony of negroes, subject to ordinary rules of evidence, when whites were tried for enticing or aiding slaves to abscond,
or for circulating documents and to allow inflammatory the jury to convict on such evidence, when accompanied by 2 proof of additional circumstances tending to confirm it.
"
"
In the trial of a white man for the manslaughter of a black, before the circuit court for Baltimore county, in 1856, a wit ness was about to give the declarations of the black after the
assault,
the counsel for the prisoner objected to such as being virtually that of a black against a white. testimony, The court held that the declarations of a negro, when part
res gestae
when
of the
it
would be a most unjust theory, that the exclamation of any man when assaulted must be debarred from notice. Nor was the question a new one, for it was stated that the court for Balti more county had in two previous cases admitted statements of 5 negroes when part of the res gestae.
held, in 1820, in an appeal over a for freedom, that declarations of a colored person petition
102, 110; act of 1796, 67 Baltimore Sun, Feb. 10th, 1860. Baltimore Sun, Dec. 18th and 19th, 1856.
3 H.
&
J., 71,
379.
13
194
from
whom
title to
freedom, might
case in ques
The
tion, said the Court, sustaining the ruling of the county court, did not come within either the letter or spirit of the act of
1717 on evidence.
to
prevent possible injury from incompetent or dangerous mony, to the whites above all others.
testi
free
Assem
bly, in 1823, to prove accounts against white persons; but the House committee deemed the prayer unreasonable. free
black of
Anne Arundel,
large repairs on the farm buildings of a found himself unable, when the neighbor died, to neighbor, prove the accounts to the executor, and had to enlist the inter
est
of a white man,
2
who knew of
the
work done,
to testify to
his statements.
There seems
to
negro could maintain an action at law without first stating in When a his pleadings, and proving, the fact of his freedom.
entered an action, in Baltimore city court of Pleas, in 1855, to recover wages as a seaman, and the defendant raised the question of his status, the court held
colored
man
Common
that as he was colored, he could not maintain the action with out showing that he was a freeman. The Court of Appeals
free negro were not essen declared in 1858, that the words tial in the averments of the pleadings, for an action to be maintained, except in case of a petition for freedom ; the word
" "
ISH. &J.,
2
4i.
make
regular affidavits to
negroes, as we have seen, make assets of their masters estates. affidavits, in calling on the courts to marshall
remove their
(3
H.
&
J.,
124
12 Md. 274
Md. Chan.
I,
296.)
195
negro being enough to notify the opposite party of the fact an opportunity to show the of color, and thus to afford him condition of slavery, if such be the case, by pleading that dis
"
The question, added the Court, is one of great importance, and all doubt should be removed. There practical are but two cases in which, at law, a negro suffers a disquali
ability."
fication because
of the presumption arising from his color as a witness in a case in which a white
concerned
and where the question is his freedom vel non, the burden of proof. From the earliest
history of Maryland, free negroes have been allowed to sue in courts, as well as to hold both real and personal property ;
to thrift
1
and as long as they remain there could be no greater incentive and respectability than the protection of their earn The Court of Appeals also refused to allow a man who ings. had treated a negro as a freeman in a lower court, to turn about and try to prove him a slave, on an appeal, so as to
deprive
him of a
Some of the English serving women imported early into the Colony, married negro slaves, and a law of 1664 gave pen alties for such shameful matches." The marriage of such
"
women
as soon
probably as attention was called to the presence of free negroes. The master who allowed the marriage, and the minister or
1 Baltimore Sun, July 9th, 1855 12 Md., 450. This decision confirmed the judgment of the circuit court for Dorchester. *7 Gill, 211, (1848). In a case (8 G. & J. 53) involving the status of a colored man, in an appeal from an orphans court, in 1836, the Court of
;
Appeals held that however it might be urged that the man was from his color presumably a slave, the facts that he had not been claimed by an owner, that he had engaged on a voyage at sea as a sailor and recovered wages in his own name, were sufficient to repel that presumption so far as to justify the courts in granting an administration.
196
The Negro
in
Maryland.
magistrate who performed it, could each be fined ten thousand pounds of tobacco. This heavy fine dates from about if not
immediately after the time of the marriage of an Irish ser vant, brought over by the Calvert family, to a negro slave. After 1715 there was a fine of half that amount for the min
who should marry with a white person any negro whatever or a mulatto slave. But a law of 1717 pro vided that any white who should marry any colored person should serve for seven years, and that a free negro or mulatto
ister or magistrate
inter-marrying with a white should become a slave for life except mulattoes born of white women, who should serve seven
years only.
The
law
is
of 1860, with this distinction in favor of certain mulattoes, and with the disposal of white culprits as servants for the
benefit of the public schools, shows that public attention could 1 if ever, called to it in the nineteenth century.
The
In the next few years, there were urgent demands for more troops for State and Continental In service but recruits seem to have come forward slowly.
the service to whites.
1780,
all
liable to draft,
males, those previously exempt included, were made and able-bodied slaves were received as recruits
with their
own and
their masters
consent.
The following
one-fifth only of certain quotas called for months year, before for the Continental service had been raised, two extra
when
1 1681 1692; 1715, ch. 44 1717, 13 Code of 1860, Art. 30. The status note that by of the free mulatto under these laws is very interesting. the acts of 1692 and 1715, a white man who became the father of a colored child was liable to service for seven years, if the mother was any slave or a
;
We
There were afterwards penalties only for white women allow ing themselves to be with child by colored persons, and for colored persons getting white women with child the same penalties for slaves and free
free negro.
colored persons.
197
enlistment of volunteers and the conscription of all vagrants free males over sixteen years, idle and without family or
apparent means of support. Free blacks could certainly have been enlisted under the act of 1780, but now we find them all freemen, not conscripted as vagrants, specially included
being enrolled in the militia and liable to draft, though negroes
and mulattoes. 1
gentleman at Annapolis, at that time, wrote to Washington of the plan to raise seven hundred and it fifty negroes, to be incorporated with the other troops ; but
is
official
An not probable that such large numbers were enlisted. return of negroes in parts of the Continental army, in
1778, gave sixty as belonging to the second Maryland Brigade, 2 The militia act of whom one- fourth were sick or absent.
of 1793 limits the service again to whites.
The education of free negroes and of slaves was not for bidden by law in Maryland, but the black was indebted for what he got to the interest of individuals or of such societies
as the Society of Friends. Nevertheless, he was obliged, if he had property, to give his share of the assessments necessary,
over and above the school fund of the State, for the support of the common school for white children. In 1860, there seems to have been one exception to this rule, Carroll county,
school children. 3
where these taxes were levied on the parents or guardians of For some time, earlier, the free colored of Cecil and Montgomery counties, too, had been spe people cially exempted from school taxes. Sundry citizens of a district
in Caroline
Oct., 1780; May, 1781. Correspondence of the Revolution, June, quoted in Williams Negro Race in America, I, 362.
M715, 43;
2
Sparks
1781.
Document
After 1852.
198
and a bill in answer was passed The chairman the House, but was defeated in the Senate. by of the House committee on Education reported a bill two
free blacks of their district,
years later, to exempt a certain free black of the same county, 1 but this was rejected by the House.
The act of 1818, empowering the orphans courts to bind out as apprentices those free black children who might be neglected or not usefully employed by their parents, provided
that the courts might require as a condition in any indenture that the child should be taught to read or write, or in lieu thereof that a sum of not over thirty dollars should be given
The Code of 1860 in addition to the ordinary freedom dues. not be necessary in binding out colored stated that it should children, by the orphans court or trustees of poor, to require
that
petition of thirty-two citizens of Frederick county, in 1858, for a law to free blacks from holding schools, was referred to a
prohibit
Schools were held, from the committee, without result. African Institute, with its hundred or more scholars, on Sara toga street, Baltimore, to the half dozen urchins learning their
words under the counter of the little tobacco shop in Annapolis. The census of 1860 stated that thirteen hundred and fifty-five 2 free black children were attending school, in the State.
USSS, 327;
224, 253, 254.
amount
1849, 221; House Journal, 1843, 401, 411,446; do., 1845, In several counties, free blacks who did not pay taxes to any or were not hired out regularly to a taxpayer, had to do some extra
Anne Arimdel,
;
counties
for
The census gives the number of adults (over 20) who cannot read and The tot-d white population write, as 15,819 whites and 21,699 free blacks. was over half a million the total free black was some 84,000.
;
on the best authority that in Annapolis, early in this century, a free colored woman kept a little school, attended by some of the young white children.
It is said
199
Tumultuous meetings of
as
we have
seen
had early been forbidden, one object being to guard against the spread
slaves
of any possible spirit of disaffection or rebellion. By the act of 1806, any free negroes found by constables at noisy or sus
picious meetings of blacks, were to be taken before a magis trate, to be committed to jail unless they could give recogni
If zance for good behavior and appearance at next court. convicted then of breaking the laws of good order, they were 1 Sixteen years after, a committee to be fined or imprisoned. was appointed in the House of Delegates, to consider the pro
priety of further legislation against undesirable meetings, but nothing seems to have been done. Three years later, again, the Governor s message spoke of the pernicious tendency
"
"
of meetings of bodies of blacks for dissipation and riot and again the matter was referred to a committee without result.
;
In
1827, a committee was appointed in the House, to bring from roaming abroad or meeting in
;
numbers on Sundays
Assembly. The act of 1806, mild in its provisions and milder still in its results, might have remained long on the statute
books, had not the work of Nat. Turner and his handful of followers in Virginia cast suspicions over the movements of
the blacks far and wide. By the act of 1831, all colored per sons were forbidden to assemble or attend meetings for reli gious purposes which were not conducted by a white licensed
clergyman or by some respectable white of the neighborhood The white person had to be authorized by the clergyman.
present to the close of the meeting, and any meeting held oth erwise would be deemed tumultuous and might be broken up
by a constable.
Any
to the
owner of the
See 1806, 81. Leave was given in 1809 to place, got a good whipping. bring in a bill to prevent free blacks and slaves from attending musters or
drills.
200
five to
But the
by slaves at home, with their masters while in Annapolis and Baltimore and the consent; growing
free black population in
Baltimore made this an important could hold their services by themselves, exception negroes up to the hour of ten at night, with written leave of a white
licensed preacher. ,, In 1841, leave was given the committee to introduce a bill to prevent secret societies of colored per
sons.
1
The next year, the judges of Baltimore city court com municated to the Assembly the presentment by the grand jury of a number of associations of blacks in Baltimore for secret
The grand jury of Baltimore county had similarly purposes. called the attention of the county court to such societies, pro There was enacted accordingly that fessing to be Masonic.
free colored person convicted of becoming, or of continu ing to be, a member of any secret society whatever, whether it held its meetings in Maryland or without, should be deemed a felon, and be fined not less than fifty dollars half to the
any
or, in default,
pay the fine. For a second offence, the was sale out of the State as a slave for life, the pro penalty ceeds to be divided as before, between the informer and the
of service
sufficient to
slave would be sold out of the State, or given thirtynine stripes on bare back. For forming or attempting to form any such society, or association of blacks and whites, or for
State.
trying to induce any black to join such, or for allowing any societies to meet on one s premises, there were the same fines or
sale for a free black.
white
man who
meet on his premises, was liable to fine of not hundred dollars or imprisonment for between
;
and ten
years while for taking part in the formation of them, there was the long term of imprisonment only. And all persons
1831, 323, 7. A number of citizens of Frederick county petitioned, in 1840 and again in 1845, for a repeal of the restrictions on religious meet ings but with no results.
1
;
201
were authorized to disperse any assemblage of blacks whose proceedings and objects were not lawful, and to carry partici pators before a magistrate, and peace officers could summon as Any officer who neglected his large posses as were necessary. duty could be fined not less than one hundred dollars, and any citizens who refused to serve on a posse, between twenty and In 1844, the committee on Colored Pop a hundred dollars.
1
ulation
was ordered to enquire into the need of imposing still heavier penalties than those provided for constables who neg
In 1845, negro campand other protracted out-door meetings were forbid meetings In addition, den, as being deemed nuisances to the public.
lected to disperse unlawful meetings.
meetings of blacks for religious purposes, except those held at regular houses of worship under the provisions of 1831, were forbidden including evidently Baltimore city and Annapolis; but this was repealed at the next session.
all
still allowed, of course, to attend regular camp2 In most of the incorporated held by the whites. meetings free negroes wandering about the streets after certain towns,
Negroes were
as,
a moderate whipping or be shut up till morning, by the con But in Baltimore, free stables, by virtue of local ordinances. blacks were evidently subject in their movements, as whites
3 were, to the single police rule of orderly behavior. It is easy to see here, again, that the demand for stringent laws was often a very local matter, and that the strictness
with which they were executed depended much on variable A goodly number of citizens of a certain dis public feeling.
trict
1828
of Prince George s county petitioned the Assembly of for the correction of evils arising from frequent assem-
1842, 281.
These
acts
*1845, 94; 1846, 166. 3 See, for example, the law for Easton, 1790, 14; the ordinances for napolis and the powers of bailiffs in various towns, in Code of 1860.
;
An
202
blages there, for the apparent purpose of religious worship, in a meeting-house used exclusively by negroes. They stated that the meetings were a nuisance to the neighborhood and
The House committee on was referred, reported that the com plaints were strictly local and had best be left to the members from Prince George s. A bill was accordingly introduced by a special committee, and finally passed, having first been re
tended to demoralize the slaves.
Grievances, to
which
this
jected
in that
1 Thus, after 1828, no colored persons one district, under the pretext of
other than at services or for the purpose of public worship attended by white citizens except between the hours of seven
in the
mas
morning and five in the afternoon, on Sundays, Christ days, Easter Mondays and Whit-Mondays. For meeting illegally, slaves were liable to be whipped, and free blacks
fined in moderate
sums
the district.
The
fact that in
Baltimore county instructed the sheriff to summons a force and free negroes who might there
after be
ates the
found at camp-meetings of blacks in that county, cre presumption that the act of 1845 had not been strictly
2
enforced there.
When
Talbot
neighborhood planned a, movement during the approaching Easter holidays, one object of the large and respectable meeting held at Easin particular, for ton was to take precautionary measures suppressing effectually the schools and meetings illegally held
by blacks without supervision of whites. These meetings, says the Easton Gazette, have been held in Easton until they have become an annoyance, and it is time to have the laws
enforced.
truth in the rumors, it was deemed best to adopt a resolution asking the citizens to keep their servants at home during the
1828, 151;
Code of 1860.
203
certain justice of Baltimore county was called in 1859, to try nine blacks for fighting at services in on, early dismissed them, after a severe repri a colored church.
holidays.
He
the explanation to them and the witnesses, some to hold thirty blacks, of the laws forbidding blacks both without the presence of a white, and to meetings for worship
mand and
2 According to the papers of Montgomery carry firearms. county, a thousand or more negroes met together there, one
Sunday
but
up by the
sheriff.
much
work of
abolition
so dangerous to slave interests, that meetings of negroes for any purpose had come to be opposed by almost
3
had become
everybody.
The
act of
1842 forbidding
all societies
a bill passed the Senate to it for Baltimore on the representation of a large city, modify number of highly respectable citizens that it had operated with
in force
when
The plan was that free blacks who bore good characters, and who paid taxes to the amount of five dollars, could form charitable societies, with written per
mits from the Mayor, given annually, with the proviso that all meetings should be inspected by police officers, to be sent
This bill, though favorably reported by the committee on Colored Population, and supported by the mem bers from Baltimore city only five in number, however
by the Mayor.
was
rejected
to nineteen
but was afterwards reconsidered and passed by thirty-seven to We should note here what will be entered into twenty-nine.
2 3
Easton Gazette, April 7th, 1855. Baltimore Sun, January 20th and 28th, 1859. Eockville Sentinel, quoted in Baltimore Sun, August 6th, 1860.
204
at length, later
was
represented in the legislature by only one senator and not over six members, though it contained nearly a third of all the whites and of all the free blacks in the State. 1
came to be the custom for negroes of Baltimore who wished have any assembly or entertainment at their houses, to procure from the Mayor s office a permit therefor, to be shown
It
to
any policeman who might visit the scene of festivity. The daily papers show that negro meetings, "cake-walks" and balls frequently ended in noise and disorder. On one occasion, in answer sent to a police station at three o clock in the
morning by peace-loving neighbors, thirteen policemen arrested thirty-three colored men and women engaged in a row at a
dance.
whom
colored
Again, we find thirty-six noisy dancers taken up, of One eighteen were bailed and the rest committed.
man was
by a
On
One
was
broken up by the police, who thought the proceedings noisy, and thirty or more blacks were taken to the station house.
Niles Register for 1835 (vol. XLIX, 72) prints a letter from three of the colored clergy of Baltimore, representing their congregations. It pledges their support to the cause of good order among the blacks and of friendly relations with the whites, and states that they have no sympathy with any
thing which tended to disturb those relations. It states, also, that the free blacks of Baltimore had then 35 or 40 benevolent societies, numbering each
from 35 to 150 members, whose funds were largely in the savings banks. There were many week-day and Sunday schools, and ten churches. Many of the blacks had purchased houses and land, horses and wagons, and other property, and the letter bore witness, also, to the respect shown to the "orderly and discreet" blacks by captains of boats and owners of public
conveyances. The colored people, it said, always feel the greatest pressure from anything that disturbed the peace. Another letter, from the trustees of a colored church society of Baltimore, deplored the efforts that were being made by abolitionists efforts which make more precarious the position of the free blacks and "rivet the fetter
still
more
closely
on the
slave."
205
But the permit from the Mayor was produced, and they were There is need, added discharged as not guilty of any offence. the paper, next day, of the exercise of a little more care and 1 There should be added that in discretion by the police.
respect to behavior at entertainments, as in the lower classes of whites in Baltimore set
to the
many
other ways,
no good example
at his house, in
negroes^ A
Soon
certain colored
man gave
the
summer of 1858,
be orderly.
after
a tea and fruit party, which was said to midnight the police called to see his
Mayor s office, and finding this without the counter-signature of the captain of the watch, put him in the Released watch-house, together with many of his guests;.
next morning by a magistrate on payment of
suit against the city for thirty dollars
he had been told at the Mayor s office that the counter-signa From a judgment in his favor by a ture was not necessary. s court the city appealed, but the court of Common magistrate
Pleas held that the arrest of the black was illegal, as there was
no law forbidding such meetings as the one in question or requiring permits for them, and custom could not allow the police Within a few months the city to place restrictions on them.
government passed an ordinance forbidding any number of colored persons to meet for any purpose, other than religious worship or as beneficial societies, under the State laws, without written permission from the Mayor, and the presence, in addi
tion,
black present at any of at least one white person., meeting illegally held, could be fined between five and ten
dollars.
2
State,
There were many churches for the blacks throughout the some of them under white pastors, others under blacks
Baltimore Sun, May llth, 1859; October 3rd, 1860; January 1st, 1857; March 10th, 1854, &c. Common Pleas, February, 1859; Baltimore Sun, September 4th and The black men 6th, 1858, and February, 1859 city ordinance, 1860, 39.
;
206
licensed
religious bodies, and some evidently independent. Conferences of some of the colored church mem bers were held, and the Baltimore paper speaks of one of
by the regular
which met in that city for a week in 1855, as a model of decorum, even for similar assemblages of those who made There were in Baltimore in 1847, at least higher pretensions. thirteen colored church societies, ten of which were Methodist. The membership of the Protestant colored bodies there in
these,
1859, was nearly six thousand four hundred about a quarter of the total free black population of the city. 1
occupations, from the small farmer, or livery or inn keeper, to the vendor of cakes in the markets, were followed by free blacks. But there were two which were forbidden
Most
days of slaveholding they could not be run any vessel of any size. In 1833, a bill was introduced in the House, to prevent owners of vessels from allowing them to be navigated by negroes only. This was amended so as to except scows or lighters used on
licensed as pedlars, nor
them
in the latter
rivers or creeks,
perhaps
trade,
and was rejected by the Senate, in answer to a certain black commanding a vessel in the Bay
petitioned for leave to pursue his occupation.
who had
At
Two
was again under inquiry in the next session, 1836, was enacted that any vessel of the size required by government laws to be registered,
years later the matter
the
House.
worked
in the waters of
See reports of the various societies. African conference of the M. E. Church, May, 1855 (Sun, of May 8th, &c.). When an address of an incen diary nature was announced to be given at Zion s Independent Church in Baltimore, a magistrate and several police attended and dispersed the meeting, under authority of the act of 1831, as the church was not under
the control
of,
religious body,
nor the preachers licensed by, any regular conference or and the exercises were conducted mostly by blacks (Balti
26th, 1858).
207
over eighteen years of age, would be forfeited half to the On information under oath, a informer, half to the State.
justice
might seize the boat, summon the parties and try the and sell the boat at auction, unless the owner appealed. case, The preamble to the act declared that great inconvenience and
injury had resulted from the navigation of vessels entirely by negroes, by which a clandestine trade was carried on and
1 It is interest running away. ing in this connection to note that the House, in 1787, had struck out from a bill under consideration the provision that
slaves
had found
facilities for
no slave, except pilots, should be allowed to manage any boat, over twenty feet keel, conveying goods which belonged to any one but the owner of the boat. In 1 838 a free black asked
own boat, but the House committee reported But, the year before, citizens of Baltimore and unfavorably. Anne Arundel counties had been specially exempted from the
leave to sail his
and so able to navigate their vessels by their bill to repeal this exemp hired blacks only. by tion was passed by the House in 1844, but defeated by the
act of 1836,
slaves or
Senate; and not till nine years later still was it done away 2 In 1856, a bill passed the Senate, without opposition, with. to allow two free blacks of Harford county to run their own
vessel to
between Baltimore city and the Bush and Gunpowder rivers, but the House threw it out by a vote of forty-four to five and the petition of another black, two years later, to run a vessel without a white on board, was left on the
and
fro
table.
"
In May, 1854, the Baltimore Sun, tinder the heading Novel Action," stated that a schooner was condemned under the law of 36, and that the owner had appealed. And there
mention, in October, 1859, of the trial before a justice of a colored captain.
is
1
1836, 150.
bill was reported, the next 1837, 23; Journal of 1844; 1853, 446. year, to allow owners of vessels to employ colored men as captains in cer tain cases, but was not evidently considered.
3
208
The Negro
bill
in
Maryland.
to a petition
from
of Charles county, forbidding any colored person in Charles or Prince George s counties to keep or use any boat on the Potomac, without license, from a master to
sundry
citizens
a slave, from a justice of peace to a free black. To obtain such a license, a free black must get a written certificate of good character from two respectable landholders of the neigh
borhood
and
if
requested in writing the suppression of the license, the justice was bound to summon the black and hear the matter fairly.
No
license could be
forfeited.
The pen
alty for using a boat without leave was a fine of from five to on conviction fifty dollars and costs, and loss of the boat,
slave who crossed the Potomac or before a magistrate. a trip to the District of Columbia, without leave, could took be given from ten to twenty lashes by order of the magistrate;
and his boat was forfeited, unless the owner was a white citi 1 zen, and ignorant of its use. Free negroes could sell liquors and fermented drinks, with
to
But after 1831, licenses were granted the customary license. them by order of the courts only, not by clerks of court, as
The act of 31 urged the courts to exer sound discretion as to the continuance or withdrawal of licenses, and empowered them to require, if advisable, satisfac In 1852, in answer to sev tory securities from the blacks. eral local petitions, one of which was signed by as many as one hundred and twenty-four citizens, was passed, with little
in the case of whites.
cise a in the Senate, a bill by opposition in the House and none which free blacks of Somerset, Worcester and Anne Arundel counties were forbidden to sell ardent spirits, and were re
sale of all merchandise. quired to obtain licenses for the to be gotten only by special order of the courts, Licenses were on the recommendation of not less than twelve respectable freeholders in the neighborhood in which the black proposed
1858, 356.
209
to do business. Beside, no white person in partnership with a black could get any license, nor could a white employ a free black as a clerk in any business, under penalty of five
hundred
dollars.
In Annapolis, the
thrifty black
found no
trouble in getting his recommendations, nor is it likely that one lacked friends, elsewhere. In May, 1860, a resident of 7 Baltimore was indicted, under the act of 52, for employing
as his clerk in a retail store in
city.
Annapolis a colored
man
of that
On
Anne Arundel
costs
circuit court,
for the
pay
father of the clerk, a prosperous and re 2 spected mulatto of Annapolis, became his surety. At the session of 1827, a memorial was presented the
would forbid colored persons there from obtaining licenses to keep hacks, carts or drays, as well as from driving such vehicles. The very next day was presented a counter-memo rial from sundry merchants and citizens of Baltimore. The of the two members from Baltimore and committee, consisting one from Allegany, reported that such matters should be left to the city government, which would know best the special wants and interests of the city. And a considerable source of
revenue might be affected by any such prohibition, sug In 1836, the committee on Colored gested the committee. Population was ordered to inquire into the expediency of
city
requiring
1831, 323 petition from
citizens
1
additional
security
as
1852, 288. House Journal, 1852, 92, 141, 318, 553, 619. The Anne Arundel, with forty-four signatures, speaks of the serious
injury inflicted on the honest industry of a large portion of our white fellow by the presence of the free blacks, and of the utter destitution in
this
which thousands of
anomalous
class are
vicious propensities. The idle should be hired out and the children apprenticed to learn useful arts and avocations before emigrating to Africa.
Baltimore San, May 5th, 1860. An act of 1827, to protect public wor ship more effectually, forbade any negro to sell liquor or beer or cider within a mile of a camp-meeting, under penalty of a whipping, on conviction
2
by a
justice.
The whipping
14
210
traders
from them
altogether.
stringent
bill,
which passed the House, four years later, was twice rejected 1 In 1837, the committee was ordered, on mo by the Senate. tion of a member from Prince George s county, to consider
the expediency of forbidding free negroes to pursue for a live lihood any business, mechanic art or trade, in order to encour
reported, through the same member, a bill entitled an act to encourage the emigration of free negroes and to advance the
interests of tradesmen, mechanics and other laboring persons. After some amendment, the bill was killed by striking out the enacting clause though by a vote of thirty-eight to 2 In 1840, a member from Baltimore ob twenty-four only.
tained leave to bring in a bill to prevent the employment of negroes in the State tobacco warehouses at Baltimore, but the In left on the table. bill, reported at the next session, was
1844, two petitions came from divers citizens of Prince George s county one to prohibit free black carpenters from working there, the other to impose a tax on free black me chanics; but the House committee reported adversely. Three of Balti years later, a memorial from a number of citizens more for a law to prevent free blacks from huckstering hay or straw was referred, without result, to the committee on Ways and Means and no better fate seems to have met the
;
number of citizens of Baltimore, in 1860, petitions of a large that free blacks of that city be barred from pursuing any
3 mechanical branch of trade.
The
white mechanics
1827, 119, 125, 410; Senate Journal, 1840, 68, 147. 1837, 25, 447, 527. caulk 1844, 259, 261, 379; 1860, 309. The colored ship
to
ers of Baltimore
seem
injustice at the
hands of
their white rivals, in 1858, the police being required to keep the peace. But the paper adds that the same disposition was shown the German caulk ers who succeeded some of the blacks. See Baltimore Sun, 1858, May 18th,
211
and were
Those of the
free blacks
who went
into business
unfortunate, or otherwise got into hopeless debt, had appa rently the benefit of the insolvent laws as fully as their white
Several citizens of Caroline county petitioned in neighbors. for a law to prevent negroes from taking those benefits, 1829, but in vain ; and the petition of some citizens of Dorchester, in
own making,
a similar petition years later, was received from Anne Arundel, leave was given the com mittee on Colored Population to bring in a bill for the sale of
Two
when
was made to pass a bill to pre vent free blacks from stealing and selling stolen goods. In 1805, a bill to prevent them from selling corn, wheat, tobacco
As
or other articles, without a license for the purpose from a House, after an attempt to refer it to the
next Assembly, by a margin of three votes only. As finally amended, evidently by the Senate, it required a certificate of good character, under hand and seal of a justice of the county,
for the sale of
license
should be good for one year, and the black who sold these articles without it, was liable to a fine of five dollars. Any
the act states that
sale
The preamble to purchaser became liable to twice that sum. much inconvenience had been felt from the
by free blacks, as the product of their labor, of corn, wheat and tobacco received from slaves. Two years later a
June
9th, July 5th and 22nd may note, in passing, 1859, June 28th. that an act of 1811 (ch. 100) on county surveyors, required chain and pole carriers to he free white males over 21 years. And the sale of lottery
;
We
tickets
to colored persons
or minors, doubtless
to protect
1
them
against fraud.
;
House Journals, 1829, 487 1860, 44, 192; Acts of 1822, ch. 185. The Commissioners of Insolvency discharged in 1834, for instance, 140 whites and 17 free blacks; in 1835, 134 whites and 30 blacks, &c. See Baltimore
Jail Reports.
212
bill was brought in ; pro that the certificate from the justice should specify the quantities of corn, wheat and tobacco which might be sold as estimated from a written statement of two respecta
ble neighbors of the black, of the probable amount which his lands could produce during the year and that every purchaser should endorse on the certificate the quantity of his purchase,
under penalty of five dollars. This bill, after consideration, was 1 In 1 825, there was enacted defeated by thirty-three to twenty. that no one, under penalty of one hundred dollars, should buy
of any free black any quantity of tobacco in transfer or parcels, unless the black produced at the time a certificate from a justice of the county giving the quantity and quality of the
tobacco.
And
respectable citizen
cents.
2
a certificate could be gotten only on proof of a of the neighborhood that the black had
The
sold out of the State for not less than five nor
more than
ten
years service, and be forbidden ever to return, under penalty of 4 Half the proceeds of the sale went to the informer. the law.
1
80
seers.
Slaves had to have a permit from their masters or over 9. question was raised without result in the House in 1844, as to whether free blacks should be forbidden to ship on vessels any produce
3
The
out for
life. 1842, 279. This act appears to have been See Crimes and Punishments of Free Blacks.
213
The
sale
act of 1831
by anyone of ardent spirits to any black who had not a permit in the case of a free black, from a justice of peace of the county in which the black lived, and directed to the seller.
At
the session of 1832, the statement was made by a member from Dorchester county, which had a large free black as well as slave population, that this provision of the law had been in its practical effect, as was manifest to every person who had
given the slightest attention to it, complete and entire 7 failure. His motion for an inquiry into the matter and for
"a
further measures was adopted ; but nothing was reported then. bill to repeal that provision of the act of 31, reported at the 1 following session, was left on the table.
passed a
bill entitled,
better protection of slaveholders in Calvert, Anne Arundel and St. Mary s counties. Its provisions applied to those counties
only, oners.
and exempted travelers and blacks employed as wag No retailer or distiller of liquors was to allow any col
ored person, except servants or slaves with proper permits, to be on the premises where liquors were sold, between sunset and
sunrise.
and imprisonment
fifty dollars, half to the informer, for not over three months, in default. And
the fact that a black was on the premises after sunset was suffi cient to convict the proprietor, unless he could prove igno
rance of
it
all
And no possible means had been taken to eject the black. one could receive any goods whatever from any black who did not hold a permit from a justice, under the same penalty of 2 This bill had first been rejected fifty dollars fine or the jail. by the House, but was passed on reconsideration. At the next session came a vigorous appeal from the citizens of Annapolis, seconded by the members of the House from Anne
1832, 55; 1833, 110, 197. evidently the meaning of Section 5 (1817, 227), the permit to be under 1805, afterwards 1831.
2
1
House Journal,
is
This
214
Arundel, to exempt Annapolis from the act. A bill for that purpose quickly passed the House, but was rejected by the Senate. Two weeks later, the House requested the Senate to
action, stating that the bill was desired by the of Annapolis li with an unanimity of voice seldom but the Upper House not only adhered to its first equalled decision, but refused to appoint a committee of conference on
its
reconsider
citizens
;"
But at the same session, the act was extended to Prince George s, Somerset, Dorchester, Charles and Talbot counties, with the addition that no liquor should be sold either
on
the matter. 1
Sunday or
after
sunset,
to
any
free
black, or to
any
without leave from his employer. 2 The next year, another petition was received from Annapolis, and a bill was
slave
finally passed to
exempt that
city
from the
restrictions as to
harboring blacks, so that retailers and distillers should be governed in that respect by city ordinances only, but
keeping buying unlawfully from a black. The entire act had already been repealed, early in the session, for Talbot and Dorchester counties. Four years later it was re-enacted for Dorchester, only to be done away
the fine of
fifty dollars
or the
jail for
citizens.
bill to
defeated.
repeal it for Prince George s county, in 1824, was It is to be found in the Code of 1860, in force in
the other counties mentioned, except Somerset. 3 More rigor ous provisions still against the harboring of blacks by liquor dealers, were enacted in 1854 for Anne Arundel, Calvert,
Howard, Prince George s, Saint Mary s and Somerset 4 A bill was intro counties, but were repealed two years later. duced in the House, in 1827, by a committee of two members
Charles,
1 The chances of this bill may have been injured by a slight passage at arms between the two Houses, the House having reminded the Senate that the bill had been kept in the Senate for a month before being considered.
House Journal,
8 3
1818, 28, 60, 82, 85, &c. The act of 1817 simply forebade the harboring of blacks. 1818, 184. 181 9, 77, 18; 1823, 15; 1824, 57. House Journal, 1824, 141.
99.
215
from Anne Arundel county and one from Annapolis, to reg ulate marketing by blacks in that county and city, which pro
vided a penalty of five dollars only against persons dealing with blacks without the proper license. This passed the
House by
but was unfavorably reported and rejected the yeas and nays 1 in the Senate. For some time, by an act of 1818, it was not
lawful for anyone in
Kent county
any goods with, any black, between sunset and sunrise, un if a free black, a certificate of less the black had a permit
good character and special permit from two justices of the Such permits were to be recorded and were valid for county. a year. A person who dealt with a black otherwise was liable to forty dollars fine or, in default, not over three months in was liable to jail, and a freeman who counterfeited a certificate
six months.
Innkeepers could
still
entertain blacks
who were
passing through the county, and dealings in markets at the 2 After 1858, all persons, lawful hours were not included. whether licensed or not, were forbidden to sell or give any
Annapolis or its neighborhood, to minor or slave without a permit from the parent or owner, any or to any free black who did not have a written order from a physician or a certificate from three respectable freeholders of the city, stating that he was of good habits. The penalty for a first offence was from fifty to two hundred dollars, and
double that for a second
Slate.
permits must be dated, and were good only for two days from the date. 3 The license system of the act of 1831, by which the free black must get a permit from a justice in order to buy liquor, may or may not have been a complete and utter failure, as the member from Dorchester
said
it
And
but
it
House Journal,
2
3
1827, 78, 252. 1818, 170. 1858, 55. In default, there was the jail.
216
in Baltimore, the courts holding that the act did not apply to the city, through lack of precision in wording. Several liquor
had under it had been suppressed, and that to try would be as unjust as ex post facto legislation. 1
1855, for violating the act, pleas stated, on appeal, that the act been held to be inapplicable to the city, that all action
by
justices, in
common
to enforce
it
The House of Delegates, in 1805, referred to a committee a petition from some residents of Harford county for a law to limit the number of dogs which any family could keep, and to forbid all negroes to keep any dogs. The next session,
came another petition from Harford, that negroes might be barred from keeping dogs and guns. bill was accordingly passed Allegany county being first exempted and then in
by amendments allowing a free black to keep one dog only, by a yearly license from a justice, and making any free black who should go abroad with any fire-arm, liable to forfeit the same to an informer, and to pay all costs, unless he had a certificate from a justice, renewable yearly, that he was an orderly and peaceable person. Slaves could not keep dogs; and they had long been forbidden to carry fire-arms off their master s estate without leave. 2 Efforts for further and evicluded,
The city counsellor also stated, on inquiry from the council, that the corporation had no power, under the existing laws, to prohibit the sale of liquor to free negroes. Court of common pleas, reported in the Baltimore
J
March 29th and 30th, 1855. The courts were empowered to revoke any licenses, ordinarily, when complaints were made against the holders by the grand jury. But acts of 1841 (273) and 1845 (131, 281) empowered the courts for Anne Arundel, Calvert, Howard and Prince George s, to examine into the case of anyone
Sun,
holding a license, on complaint of one inhabitant of Maryland except in and to revoke the license, Calvert, where three residents must complain
if
217
time,
dently more stringent legislation were made from time to and in 1824, free blacks were absolutely forbidden to
carry fire-arms.
The next
Kent,
House committee reported that had been under the impression for some time, as these they intelligent and respectable petitioners then were, that such privileges might be allowed under careful provisions, but had concluded that action was not then advisable. Several years
free blacks of that county, the
later the
in a similar unfavorable re
restrictions
were
evidently directed chiefly against injury to sheep and other farm property. By the act of 1831, free blacks could carry
fire-arms, if they could obtain licenses from the courts. These licenses were to be renewed yearly, and could be withdrawn
any time by the court or by any one judge. The right to carry powder or lead was included ; and a black who might be convicted by a justice of carrying arms or ammunition without leave, had to forfeit such to the informer and pay
at
costs
;
offence, to
be subject to punishment
for a felony, or be whipped. And the sale of gunpowder or shot or lead to a free black was prohibited, under fine, unless
justice, directed
specially to the
the next session, there was added that any fire arms taken already and not forfeited to the informer, should be sold by the officers, and the proceeds, after expenses, be
find mention in the paper in March, given the blacks. of the arrest for examination of two blacks, coming to 1859,
At
We
John Brown
Baltimore in a Philadelphia train, with a gun. After the attack on Harper s Ferry, the courts in several
of the lower counties, with large slave populations, withdrew
provision, like
House Journal, 1825, 241; 1830, 198, 222. A slave had to have a permit from his employer. This that against the sale of liquor to blacks, could not have been
See above.
218
all licenses for
In many
places, search
was made
for
fire-arms on the premises of blacks. 1 In 1838 and again in were sent the Assembly, in vain, from Som 1852, petitions erset county one bearing the names of one hundred and one
voters
from the
evil conse
quences of allowing negroes to keep dogs, but the orderly black still kept his one dog, if he had a justice s license. white could keep as many dogs as he wished, but those
dogs
killed.
free negro, mulatto or "any found by a magistrate, on examination, to be person," living idly, without visible means of support, could be put under bond of not over thirty dollars for good behavior, or in default, be ordered to leave Maryland within five days.
By
other
to go, or returning within six months, the va grant could be committed to jail. In this case, if prison charges were not paid within twenty days, he could be sold
For refusing
by the
sheriff,
county, to serve for not over six months, the balance of pro 3 These ceeds, after charges were paid, to go to the county.
but for vagrant provisions are repeated in the act of 1 825 free colored persons only ; and fifteen days instead of five were
Baltimore Sun, Dec. 12th, 17th and 23rd, 1859. Executive messages. House Journal, 1838, 228. See Code of 1860, article on sheep. An act
of 1854, to protect sheep, put a tax on all dogs in Kent county, outside of the towns, and forbade negroes to keep any bitches there. 3 See acts of 1796, 30, and 1797, 56, giving powers to Annapolis and
Georgetown to suppress vagrants. In Annapolis, by a by-law of 1797, any live person who could not give good account of himself and of his means of lihood could be put under bond, or committed in default; and then, in lack of means to pay prison fees, might be sold in the same way for not over four
months, in the discretion of the mayor.
219
given, before banishment, with the important proviso that the black should not be compelled to go if, within that time, he hired himself for not less than three months to some respon
sible citizen.
He
might
also appeal
appearance and prosecution. Old and infirm free blacks who could not labor for a living were to be cared for by the coun ties. Constables were ordered to take special oath to take up
By
the act of
orphans courts,
or where there were none, the were to summon all necessary witnesses for
the examination of any free black arrested as a vagrant. If found to be without the necessary means of support and not of good and industrious habits, he, or she, would be sold
at auction as a slave for the current year. bond, with was then given the black for the payment to him, security,
end of his service, of the price paid, less certain fixed The purchaser was also ordered to give him good charges. and sufficient food, lodging and clothing. But if, within
at the
ten days
from the end of the term, the black did not leave Maryland, or hire himself out to some respectable white, to serve as a slave for a year, he would be again sold by the 1 So the law remained, save that courts, and so on, yearly. after 1842 jurisdiction under the act was given also to justices
of peace.
The children of lazy and worthless or vagrant free negroes could be bound out as apprentices in the same way that the children of pauper or vagrant whites were bound. In 1818,
a
the orphans courts to bind out, in their those free black children who were not at service or discretion, not learning a trade, passed the House of Delegates by a small
bill
to
empower
majority, and was amended by the Senate so as to exempt those also who were employed in the services of their parents.
M796,
2
1793, 45,
220
The terms and conditions provided for the idle and neglected who were bound out, were those in use for whites, save that a
female might be bound to eighteen instead of sixteen years, and that the courts might require, in place of the customary instruction in reading and writing, an extra freedom due of not over thirty dollars. As with whites, the wishes of the parents were to be consulted in the choice of the masters, as
far as possible. After 1839, the orphans courts could bind out any free black children whose parents had not the means
them and were not willing to care for them and them honestly employed, so as to learn habits of indus keep
to support
to masters, the choice of the or of the chil parents orphans was to be consulted as far as possible. apprentice could be transferred to another master, if in the
try.
As
dren, if
An
same county, and if the court approved. And runaway ap might be adjudged to serve additional time, as was done with whites, or might be sold for the balance of the
prentices
were
satisfied that
they had not been induced to run away by ill-treatment or fraud on the master s part. A special act for Harford county,
which
trate
creates the
ill
least,
who
failed to
constable or magis
called on, liable to
be turned out of
office
were forbidden
to
and fined. Persons holding apprentices allow them to remain in the custody or em
ployment of free blacks. Throughout the State, constables were entitled to a fee of two dollars from the master to whom
a black child was bound, for bringing the child before the
In several counties, after 1856, the courts were em court. powered, in their discretion, to require masters to give addi tional freedom dues to black apprentices and to secure reason
able
sums
free black
who raised them were left in poverty, and as it was but just that the services of black apprentices, who had become valu able to farmers and others, should be compensated in certain
221
White
children, of course,
especially orphans, children of paupers, and those to the House of Refuge and other institutions.
We
find mention in the papers of several sales of vagrant One constable, in Caroline county,
to
was reported
court, of
whom
bound out. 2 The punishment for vagrant and vagabond whites was usually a short term in the almshouse or jail. In Baltimore city, by authority of special acts, any person found to be idle, without visible means of sup port, a vagrant, a beggar or disorderly person, was to be bound out, or put in the House of Refuge, or to be sent to the almshouse after 1854, for not over two months for the first The number of offence, and never for more than six months.
"
"
vagrants thus committed by magistrates to the almshouse of Baltimore city and county in 1853, for instance, was two hun dred and thirty whites and thirty-seven blacks; in 1854, two hundred and sixty-nine whites and thirty-nine blacks. After
greater efforts
to put down rowdyism and number of white vagrants rose, in 1857, to over four hundred, and in 1858, to over five hun The dred, while that of the blacks remained under fifty. total number of blacks in the almsvagrants, paupers, sick
vagabondism
in Baltimore, the
house in January, 1853, was one hundred and thirty-two to five hundred and eighty-five whites; in January, 1854, one
hundred and twenty-two to six hundred and forty-eight whites; in January, 1857 and 1858, the proportion of blacks was less it may have been on the average, for several years, about one black to five whites. In Baltimore city and county
1 1846, 355. 1856, 87, for Caroline, Kent, Somerset and Worcester. There were some differences in the different counties in the binding out of ap prentices, but the orphans courts had general oversight, everywhere. In Worcester and Somerset counties, free black apprentices might be hired out, by leave of the courts, for not less than a year. 1856, 78; 1860, 75. 2 Denton Journal, quoted in the Baltimore Sun, July 31st, 1855.
222
together there was, in the same round numbers, about one free black to seven whites. 1
of the laboring class to hire themselves out by the year. The House committee reported, the next year, in reply to the sug gestion of a member from Calvert county that all free blacks
at
be forced to labor by the year, that such a measure would be war with all preconceived opinions of propriety, as it would
bring the free blacks in direct contact with the slaves a state of things to be carefully avoided. 2 In 1845, a bill was intro duced in the House, to compel the free blacks of Prince
George
Calvert,
County, capable of labor, to hire out by the year. Charles and St. Mary s, all large slaveholding
counties, were added, but the bill was rejected by the Senate. Two years later, leave was given for a bill to better the condi
George
s,
but we
know
noth
In 1852, the House committee ing of the plans proposed. was ordered to report a bill to enforce the provisions of the several acts of Assembly for the suppression of vagrancy
among
for
the blacks.
"the
mention, at that session, of a bill government, regulation and disposition" of the free
is
There
a rule
were not certainly not as from the fact of these com mitments under the acts of 1818, 169, and 1854, 116, for Baltimore, and as we have not seen mention of any sale in the daily papers from 1850-1860. The change in proportion between white and black inmates of the almshouse, and between whites and blacks committed to it as vagrants, may be due to the fact that efforts were made to enforce the laws, and if we may believe all reports of that time the vast majority of the rowdies and dis
We
for the city and county. idle or vagrant free blacks sold in Baltimore under the act of 1839,
orderly persons in Baltimore were whites. See the papers, the messages of the mayor, as in 1850 and 1858, and the reports of the marshal of police. Thus, of 1003 persons arrested for violations of law in May, 1859, 907 were white and 116 colored. Of 537 police "lodgers," the next month, only 48
were black.
2
House Journal,
223
to the next
from what
stricter
said of
its
contents, to
binding out of free blacks, and to have forbidden man umission except on condition of emigration to Africa. Brought
up
in the
House,
1
times rejected.
At
at the next session accordingly, it was three the same session, a bill to furnish a rem
edy against
out,
free blacks
who might
was
first
rejected
by
thirty-six to eight,
to ten,
and then
At
the next session, 1854, the same or a similar bill was rejected by twenty-six to nineteen, was then reconsidered and
by twenty-eight to twenty, and was finally passed by In the Senate, it was first rejected by forty-one to nineteen. to four, and afterwards passed without opposition. This eight act declared guilty of misdemeanor any free black who might
rejected
leave without proper cause, before the expiration of the time agreed, the service of one to whom he had hired him
self.
arrested on a warrant,
and judgment
on the case was to be given by the magistrate according to equity, each party having the right to produce witnesses. The oath of the employer and the evidence of some other person
that the black had engaged in such service, was declared prima facie evidence of the contract; but the justice must be satis
fied that the wages were reasonably secure to the black, and that he had not left service from improper treatment or other
If convicted, he had to fulfil his agreement, good cause. compensate for lost time, and pay costs. If duly convicted of a second offence, he might be put in jail for not over a week, and be treated as a free negro apprentice. If a black were con
victed of having agreed in writing, or by supplement of two years later, of receiving wages in advance on a verbal agree
ment, to hire out, and of having then hired out to another without cause for breaking his agreement, the first employer could sue to recover two-fifths of the wages agreed on. But
1
May.
224
it was specially provided that nothing in the act should be construed to debar any free black from prosecuting any action for cruel treatment or improper usage on the part of his
1
employer.
counties of scarcity of labor. Likely negroes were bringing high wages, and several farmers of Queen Anne s, according to
the Centreville Sentinel, had gotten apprentices from the PhilThere were the same complaints the
following summer. The Cambridge Democrat says that some farmers of Dorchester had called a meeting to consider what
Another rates were expected. the next year, that the farmers paper wisely regretted, could not get hold of the able-bodied men who were loafing about the cities. 2
wages should be paid, as high
local
It was during the winter of 1829-30 that Mr. William Lloyd Garrison was editing in Baltimore the Genius of Uni
versal Emancipation, declaring that to hold slaves longer in bondage was both unnecessary and tyrannical, that justice their liberation, and that to recompense slave owners for emancipation would be paying a thief for giving 3 But the press was free, and for such up stolen property.
demanded
1854, 273
knowingly employ
after conviction.
1856, 252. There were also penalties against those who might free blacks convicted under the act, within a limited time
The
first
the black.
8
16th
3
See Baltimore Sun, 1850, Jan. 15th; 1855, Jan. 3rd, Feb. 16th, June 1856, Jan. 7th, &c. Life of Garrison, Vol. II, 143, 151. The indictment under which Mr.
;
certain persons.
Garrison was imprisoned in Baltimore Jail, in 1830, was for libel against He left Baltimore some weeks after his release.
225
general statements, however displeasing they may have been, In 1835, a supplement to the there was no redress at law. act of 1831 declared it to be a high offence, to be punished by
imprisonment for from ten to twenty years, for any person whatever to take any part, knowingly, in the preparation or
circulation of
among the colored people, or to stir them In 1841, a further supplement prescribed the same penalty for any free colored person who should, know ingly, call for or receive at any postoffice, or receive or have in his or her possession, any abolition hand-bill, pamphlet, newspaper, pictorial representation or other paper of an inflammatory character. And it was declared the duty of everyone, under penalty for neglect of a fine of not less than five hundred dollars or of not less than two months in jail, to
to create discontent to insurrection.
might have grand juries were ordered to have summoned before them at every term of court, for due examination, all the postmasters, deputies and agents,
free black
be, or
who might
been, in possession of
And
This bill passed the House without or special mention, but was first defeated by the 1 The next year, the Senate, and passed on reconsideration. act was so modified that postmasters need not be summoned
in their jurisdictions.
roll-call
before the juries unless it were deemed necessary, and there was added that on the complaint to a justice of anyone, under
oath, that a free black was thought to be or furnishing to slaves, any abolition or
stable
having or circulating
"
and
free papers, a con not less than three respectable citizens should be
empowered
to search the premises of the black, using as little violence to his feelings as might be compatible with a diligent search.
the April term, 1857, of the circuit court for Dorchester county, a free black was tried before the court by his choice
At
on two indictments.
On
15
226
on the other, for knowingly having in his possession "Uncle Tom s Cabin," he was given the minimum term of ten years.
courts may, of course, have regularly charged the grand juries with these acts at each term, as they were bidden to do,
The
without any mention being made of it in the Baltimore papers, but in the spring and summer of 1860, after the John Brown
invasion, we find special mention of charges to the juries by the courts for Baltimore, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Kent
The Helper Book" and the and Queen Anne s counties. New York Tribune seem to have given the most uneasiness. A free black was arrested in Harford county in February, 1860, but the indictment was quashed at the spring term of court. The incendiary document in this case was said in the papers to be the New York Tribune. In November following, a white
"
man was
Helper
Impend
ing Crisis,
The
tiary,
act of 1809 which, with the building of the peniten marks most prominently the era of new ideas of crimes
the Governor of Maryland in
18fi2,
on con
dition of his leaving the State, on the representation of a prominent citizen of Baltimore that he had been innocent of any attempt at violation of the
law.
2
It
left in his
house by people
who
wished
to get
him
into trouble.
We find mention of the arrest of two other whites in the spring of 1860. See Baltimore Sun, for May 3rd and May 24th. The Chestertown News says of Kent thought it the duty of postmasters to read t hat the grand jury
everything in papers received, but the judge said the general character of a paper was sufficient. See Baltimore Sun, April 24th, 1860. It is inter were not esting to note that the Baltimore city Police Commissioners allowed to employ on the police any "black Republican" or endorser of
the
"Helper Book."
wter.Vol.
XLIX, 7)
See Code of 1860, Local Laws. In 1835 (NU&f Eegfourteen ministers of the annual conference of the Metho
dist Episcopal church, while approving of gradual emancipation, begged abolitionists to desist from spreading inflammatory papers, which could only
embarrass the blacks, slave and free. In 1847, the House of Delegates laid on the table petitions from the citizens of Cecil county, both to allow and
to prevent abolition lectures in
Maryland.
227
and punishments provided that slaves convicted of crimes for which the penalty was not hanging, might, in the discre tion of the court, be whipped and banished by sale into some foreign country"; but there was no line drawn between free men, white and black. In 1817 there was enacted that no
"
colored person should thereafter be sentenced to the peniten tiary for less than one year ; and that in all cases where the
term prescribed was less than a year, or where the court, in the exercise of its discretion, might deem so long a punish
ment
as a year unjust, the black should be whipped, fined or imprisoned in jail, as the court might adjudge. The next year
the penitentiary was closed entirely to slaves who, in non capital cases, were to be whipped or banished from Maryland.
In 1821 a bill was introduced in the House to forbid also the punishment of free blacks by imprisonment in the peniten tiary, but it was referred to the next Assembly. The question does not seem to have come up again until 1825, when a bill for that purpose was passed, after some opposition. No person was to be sent to the penitentiary for less than two years, and no free black for any term. For any crime not punished by
hanging, a free black would be sentenced, in the discretion of the court, to not over forty lashes on the bare back a slave
could be given up to one hundred, by the act of 1809 or to banishment from Maryland and sale as a slave for the same
that a white would be imprisoned. The convict was given an official copy of the judgment. The pro ceeds of the sale paid for expenses, indemnified any injured 1 parties, and the balance went into the county or city treasury.
number of years
Within a few days of the beginning of the next session, a res olution was offered to refer the operation of this new law to
the committee on Grievances, to report amendments, if desir able ; as it was obvious that great abuses would prevail under
it,
inasmuch as
1809, 138 (9) 1817, 72 ; 1818, 197 1825, 93. bia was excepted in the acts of 1818 and 1825.
;
;
The
District of
Colum
228
it was feared that in most cases destroyed by the purchasers the sentence of sale for a year would in effect amount to sale for life. This resolution was adopted after two readings; but
when
bill
the
mover asked
leave,
two months
later, to
introduce a
to repeal or
against him by forty to thirty-two, the ayes and nays, and the committee was discharged from further consideration of the matter. Later in the session, how
ever, the
was again im but on discharge from was, the penitentiary, whether by the expiration of the term or by pardon, he was given not over thirty dollars, from the results of his labor, and was banished the State within sixty days
law was so changed that a
free black
man
to the
original sentence, for the benefit of anyone who might find him and could prove the facts of the case to a judge or two
The act of 1831 allowed the courts, justices of the county. in their discretion, to punish free blacks for offences not capi
by the ordinary penalties, or by banishment by transpor tation into some foreign country." It does not seem probable that many were banished under this provision, for we find numbers of them sent to the penitentiary in the following From November, 1832, to November, 1835, one hun years. dred and forty-nine were sent from Baltimore city and county, as against one hundred and four whites. The act of 31, also, we remember, made free negroes liable to the same treatment
"
tal
and penalties
as were given slaves, if they were convicted of with slaves in any misdemeanor for which slaves taking part were punished by a justice. For many petty offences, notably under local laws, free blacks could be whipped where whites 2 The next important general law was would be put in jail.
in
House Journal, 47, 422. Thus by 1852, 57, any negro who took oysters unlawfully Worcester county, and who could not pay the tine, might be given not
1826, 229
;
1831, 323, 8.
In Baltimore
jail,
58, prisoners
229
that of 1835, which ordered the criminal courts to examine every free black convicted before them, and empowered them
if they
to the penitentiary for any crime, to have him sold for a term The proceeds of such sales, after of years without the State. the expenses of prosecution, went to the public treasury. paying
Three years later this was changed so as to pay one-fourth the net proceeds as a reward to the officer who apprehended and 1 In 1842, as we saw, the penalty for prosecuted the black.
any
fixed at banishment
years,
and
of dealing in any stolen goods was sale as a slave for from five to ten
in
taking part in unlawful societies, was sale for life. Also, by act of 1849, the penalty for a second conviction of certain frauds on the revenue, might
punish by sale as slaves for life out of Maryland, free blacks convicted of felony in general the old act of 25 revived with greater harshness. The com
bill, to
were worked with their own consent, but vagrants, slaves and free negroes had to work without option, if ordered. By 1837, 228, the penalty for injuring certain gates on public roads in Charles and Prince George s coun ties, was fine of not over ten dollars, or not over thirty -nine lashes for a slave, on conviction before a magistrate, and "any white person aggrieved
"
By many town
for
l
roaming about
whipped
This must have been intended to reenforce the which had banished from Maryland all free blacks discharged from the penitentiary, under penalty of sale for the benefit of the finder. A petition from sundry citizens of Caroline, for a repeal of this provision of the act of 1826, was presented the House in 1838; but it is found in the Code of 1860, art. 30, 99. In a case before Baltimore county court, in
lS3b, 200; 1838, 69.
act of 1826,
1841, the counsel for the negro claimed that the identity of a negro punished under the act of 1835, was a question for a jury to decide; but the court held that the act was merely for the regulation of the court in inflicting punishment, and raised no new issue. (See Nil-eat Register,
230
advised
its
This com
In
to
no
result,
all free
ment, and
in
for whipping on Crimes did not evidently approve of any change. In 1853 there were two requests for enquiries into the wisdom of
1845, certain citizens of Charles county asked and transportation for them ; but the committee
changing the laws so as to sell free black convicts for the benefit of the counties, instead of supporting them in the peni
In 1856, a bill was introduced, to sell out of Mary tentiary. land for the balance of their terms, all the free negroes then
in that institution, the proceeds to go to the State treasury; and to sell the slaves for life, the proceeds to go to the coun
which had already paid the masters. 1 Baltimore city and county had sent to the penitentiary, in 1852, twenty-nine whites and eighteen blacks, slave and free; in 53, forty-seven
ties
number
54, sixty to nineteen ; in ; 57, twenty-eight to nineteen. of blacks were sold out of the State, most of them as
;
in
having been already prison-birds, probably. At one term of Baltimore criminal court, in 1853, nine were sold; at another, The next year, two were sold at one term, four at an two.
other,
and one
were
sold.
At the following winter term, four number of blacks committed to the peniten The
at another.
tiary had not increased in proportion to the whites, though slaves had been again imprisoned for serious offences after
cient for the total
1845, but the accommodations of the institution were insuffi number of inmates. The executive message
of 1854 called attention to the fact that for twenty years, with three exceptions, the annual expenditures were in excess of the
receipts
from labor.
At
618, 683.
231
of the buildings was carefully pointed out. The message of 1858 declared the institution in great financial embarrassment,
one wing of the building having been burned, in addition to the usual deficit, and advised a change of the law so that slaves might be transported, as before 1845, in order to reduce
the four hundred and
more inmates, of
whom
from a third
to
a half were negroes. special House committee reported at the same session the need of fifty thousand dollars, and
declared boldly that the over-crowded buildings were almost 7 a pest house/ Something must be done, and a change in 1 the punishment of petty larceny was suggested. The Assembly
"
chose to change radically the punishment of the free blacks. For stealing any goods under the value of five dollars, or for
breaking into any store, barn or outbuilding and stealing goods under the value of one dollar, or for simple larceny above five dollars, the penalty for a free black was sale as a
slave for from two to five years. For wounding or killing wilfully a horse or mule not trespassing on his land, from two
to four years.
2
For
two
to fourteen years
stealing any horse or mule, sale for for stealing a vessel or a slave, ;
from from
for persuading or aiding any slave or ; black apprentice to run away, for not less than five years in all three cases, either within or beyond the State. For arson,
instead of hanging or not over twenty years imprisonment, a free black must be hung or sold as a slave for life, within or
beyond the
left to
In cases of robbery, only, the choice was State. the courts between the ordinary imprisonment in the
"
1858, Doc. O.
Should a
in
prison,
its
added the committee, visit the his mercy avert, no prediction can be made as to
"
contagion,"
If consequences, not only as to the prison, but to the city in general." the solution of the problem was to be the reduction on a large scale of the
inmates, it is obvious that the Governor s suggestion would be insufficient, an for the larger part of the negroes were freemen convicted of larceny offence for which slaves were not imprisoned.
8
for
to the peni
fixed at eighteen months (1839, 37). Imprisonment for enticing or aiding a slave to escape was from two to five years (1844, 80).
tentiary
232
penitentiary for from three to ten years, or sale for ten years. The proceeds of the sale of any black paid for the expenses of
prosecution and any just claims for damages, and any balance was given the county or city for the use and maintenance of
leave. Not only was the convict furnished with a certified copy of the judgment, but the sheriff was ordered to give notice in the paper of the neigh
been convicted or by posters in each election district of the if there was no county, paper published there of the coming expiration of the term of service, for
three successive weeks preceding the There was expiration. provided also the penalty of not less than one hundred dollars fine, or not over two months in jail, for a sheriff or clerk of
court neglecting wilfully the duties of the act. And anyone who sold a convict for a longer time than his term, or in any
of freedom, when it was due, was liable to be fined double the sum paid for the black, and in default, to be imprisoned for from thirty to ninety days, or to be fined
this act,
eighty-nine free blacks in all were sold, twenty- four by the courts of Baltimore city, eleven in Baltimore county, eight in
Harford, seven, each, in Dorchester, Frederick and Talbot, &c. Four of these were sold for life ; but the average term
was between four and five years. The crime seems to have been invariably larceny of some degree. Without the act of 1858, said the committee on Colored Population in their report
House, the number of free blacks in the penitentiary would have been two hundred and ten instead of one hun dred and twenty-one. The number of slaves imprisoned was only thirteen. During the year 18GO, sixteen men and ten
to the
1
Report of House committee, Feb. 7th, 1860. Baltimorejail had twentyone free blacks and two slaves. In 1861, there were seventeen blacks sold and one black and thirty-seven whites sent to the penitentiary from Balti
1
more jail.
233
and one negro only
women were
sent thence
It
is
penitentiary against fifty-three whites. obvious that the objections raised in 1826, that the sale
of free blacks for a term of years out of the State amounted often, to say the least, to sale for life, were equally patent
For larceny and two other offences, against this act of 1858. the act of 1858 ordered simply the sale as a slave. One who was sentenced for simple larceny by the circuit black,
court for Baltimore city in 1859, to be sold out of Maryland for five years, carried his case to the Court of Appeals, which held the sentence to be illegal, as allowing the black to be
purchased by a non-resident only, instead of by a resident or 2 In non-resident, according to the chances of sale at auction.
1860 the law was changed in so far that a free black con any offence for which a white man would be sent to the penitentiary, was sold either in or out of Maryland, at the
victed of
would be imprisoned.
discretion of the court, for as long a time as a white man The proceeds went, as before, after
paying the expenses of prosecution and damages, to the family of the convict, but if there was no family, to the county or
3
city.
The number
>
234
in
Such, in general, was the legal status of the free negroes Maryland. One is not likely, in studying it, to lose sight
;
but
it
most unjust
hostility to
sale
to
measure
free black. The easy license system for liquor to free blacks in the counties, must have injured the liquor dealers only and been of real service to the blacks. The fondness of the negro for drink is well
the
the
of
known.
trouble over the sale of his produce, there were many others who felt no conscience to keep them from pilfering. Of the convictions in Liberia, as reported by the officials from 1828
to 1844,
eighty-two for
other offences.
Many
Maryland were going to the towns, one to become prosperous and respected, while a half-dozen others stood about in the
sun, working at small jobs for a week in order to live from the proceeds for a month. The idea that the free blacks were not a desirable part of the population was not confined to the
We have touched, in passing, on plans that were advanced for the further regulation or disposition of the free
1
to be nearly 2400.
As
a rule, emigrants
to Liberia
2 See, for instance, the report of a committee to the Massachusetts Legis lature in 1821, by Mr. Theodore Lyrnan, Jr. See NUa? Register, Vol. XX,
311; and Dr. Moore s Slavery in Massachusetts. Dr. Chas. Deane says (Proceedings Am. Antiquarian Soc., Oct., 1886): It is not to be denied that the negro race, bond or free, was not regarded,
here (i. e. in Mass.) as a desirable element of the population. They were generally ignorant and degraded, and required to be looked after and cared for as children, and strict regulations were made to ensure order among
them, to see that they should have employment, and to provide for a
healthy sanitary
condition."
235
and other
carefully, in chronological order. plans, In 1817, a number of gentlemen of Baltimore had associated together, to further the work of the American Colonization I O
more
and the Assembly of that year resolved unanimously communicate to the President of the United States and to the senators and representatives from Maryland, the opinion that a wise and provident policy suggested the acquisition of a tract of land on the coast of Africa, for the colonization of the free blacks of the country. Two years later, another and
Society
;
to
similar communication
was sent to the members of Congress and the House of Delegates regretted that the State, State finances would not allow a contribution to the deserving In 1826, one thousand efforts of the Colonization Society. dollars was appropriated, to be given annually for the work
from the
of the Society
among
the only
plan, reads the act, which can promise practical benefit both to the country and to that class which it is intended to relieve.
porated.
In 1830, the Maryland branch of the society was incor 1 In 1818, a bill for the registration of all free blacks in Maryland passed the House but was rejected by the Senate.
In 1821, there was some effort made in the House for a bill of the same nature. The free blacks, then growing into quite
a class of the community, were looked on with growing dis In a correspondence, over runaway slaves, with the favor.
authorities of Pennsylvania, the Maryland commissioners said that it seemed to them impossible in the nature of things
that
free
blacks
liberal
could
be
However
towards them, said the com cannot be given the enjoyment of every poli missioners, they tical privilege, and must be in some ways a distinct portion
feel
we may
of the community.
And
were
true,
had already
felt
1 Griffith s Annals of Baltimore, 223 1817, Res. 5; 1819, Res. 58, House Journal for Jan. 3d, 1820 1825, Res. 53; 1826, ch. 172; 1830, 189.
; ;
236
tion
a people usually extremely dissolute and idle, and con series of papers in Niles sequently a public nuisance.
Register, published in Baltimore, had already called earnestly for the abolition of slavery "this blot, or curse," it
said,
which no righteous man or lover of republican institutions could believe to be permanent but on condition that pro vision be made for the separation of the freed-inen from the slaves, as the mixture of them was fatal to the improvement of both and at open war with the safety of person and prop
erty of the whites. special committee of five members of the House of Delegates, on certain communications from the
Legislatures of Georgia and Missouri, on colonization, in 1829, expressed the opinion that no one probably, at that enlightened
tion
day, would doubt that the existence of a free black popula was a national evil, which might tend to embarrass the
:
wholesome operations of the government but all this pre amble to their report was struck out by the House. At this same session, the House received four petitions, mostly from citizens of Somerset county, for changes in the law on manu mission doubtless to restrict the privilege and for a tax on free blacks. These were referred to the committee on Griev
ances, evidently without any answer. Late in the summer of 1831 occurred the insurrection in
1
Southampton county, Virginia. Early in the session of the Maryland Assembly, the December following, a joint committee of five senators and seven members was appointed, on the sug gestion of the House that the colored population of the State had been a subject of absorbing interest, and that experience demonstrated that some legislative action was indispensable
at that session.
To
referred
some twenty
all
parts
House Journals, 1818, 37, 116; 1821,9; 1822,164; NU&! Register, Vol. House Journals, 1829, Jan. lst-18th, pp. 336/547. Mr. Reverdy Johnson was probably the writer of the communication to Penn sylvania, as the House asked him to continue the correspondence.
1
237
notably one from Baltimore respectable Others desired to have for abolition of slavery.
citizens
manu
mission
made
still,
more stringent police regulation of the free Others, blacks. A motion to have all these memorials printed for the use of the House, was lost by a large majority, but a thousand copies of the report of the committee were ordered. After several weeks, the committee introduced a bill on the free black population, which, after some amendments, became the act of 31 on free negroes and slaves. Copies of the bill Avere distributed, and it was laid on the table for several weeks
by request of the committee. After careful consideration, it passed the House by a vote of forty-five to ten. We are familiar
1
on the immigration of general provisions free negroes and the importation of slaves, on the use of fire arms by blacks, on the sale of liquor and other dealings with them, on religions meetings; and the grant to the courts
with
its
restrictions
of the power to banish free blacks convicted of non-capital, serious offences, and to punish like slaves such free blacks as
might be convicted of petty offences with slaves. But harder questions for the committee to answer were those relating to abolition of slavery and to the black population already in the State. That this population was injurious to the prosperity
of the State, they frankly granted. Recent events had proven to the people that there must be a separation of the races. The question was to find a remedy which the State could
apply, consistent with its honor, and with a due regard to the welfare of the blacks, that unfortunate class of the population.
Emancipation, as
to all concerned
;
it
had been
tried,
gift
economic
value of
from the removal of slavery; and so the committee advised the plan of colonization in Africa, of manumission conditional, as a rule, on emigration.
lands,
result to the State
1
would
House Journal,
238
An
two
Such was the persons in Maryland within a generation. policy proposed for the State. Meantime, the Maryland Col onization Society was being formed by a number of gentlemen,
for the
The act of willing to go, and of slaves freed for the purpose. 1831, embodying these suggestions of the committee, provided
for the appointment
agers,
by the Governor of a board of three man members of the Maryland Colonization Society, to take
charge of the removal from the State of such blacks already free as should consent to emigrate, and of all those to be there
manumitted, whether they consented or not, unless they 7 obtained annual permits to remain from the orphans courts. Manumissions were to be reported to the board, and all sheriffs were to report a complete census of all free blacks,
after
under penalty of two hundred dollars, and to keep the board informed of any who might be willing to emigrate. And the State appropriated then the sum of twenty thousand dollars for the expenses involved in the work during the current year, and pledged itself to further sums, not to exceed two hun dred thousand dollars in all. An annual levy was ordered on the various counties and on Baltimore, in proportion to the free The vote on this act in the House was black population.
The publication of these acts thirty-seven to twenty-three. on negroes was ordered by the Assembly, in two of the news resolution papers in Baltimore and in one in every county.
on con
by proposing an
&c.,
The committee consisted, on the part of the Senate, of Messrs. Taney, Emory, of the House, Brawner, of Charles county Dennis, Wootton, Pigman (chairman), Blakeston, of St. Mary s Brewer, of Annapolis Pearce, of Kent Lake, of Dorchester Carmichael, of Queen Anne s, and Handy, of
; ;
;
Worcester.
2
1831, 281.
239
free blacks of
amendment
removing the
the country. 1
among
its
Colonization Society numbered members some of the most able and respected citi
The Maryland
zens of the State, and the abolition of slavery, as well as the removal of the free blacks, was one of the objects of the work
which they now entered upon with the patronage of the State. But as compulsory emigration under the act of 1831 was not enforced the members of the society not desiring it and sentiment not demanding it that work became the public removal of those free blacks who could be persuaded to go, and of some of those who were freed especially for emigration. It was more costly work, too, than the committee of 31 had In 1832, one hundred and forty-four of whom expected. some seventy-five were free born were sent to Africa, at the cost of over five thousand dollars. This was the largest expe The next year eighteen were sent out, and eight dition. thousand dollars were spent the next year, again, fifty-seven were sent at a cost of nearly three thousand. Nor had the col onization taxes been cheerfully paid in some counties they had not been levied by the spring of 1835. Some of the counties indeed had received no benefit whatever from the Of the first and largest expedition to Africa, ninety-one law. blacks, nearly two-thirds of all, had gone from Somerset, four teen from Worcester, twelve from Caroline, ten from Cecil, &c., but here emigration from Worcester and Somerset had stopped, and eleven only had gone from Caroline, further, in 1835, and sixteen from Cecil in 1836. There were already requests from Somerset and St. Mary s counties to be exempted from the special tax. One black only had gone from the latter but its quota of the tax was two hundred and sixtycounty,
?
;
1 1831, Ees. 124. As "recent occurrences in this State as well as in other States of our Union, have impressed more deeply upon our minds the
of means for such removal. A resolution of the next session asked for the appropriation of the funds from the sale of public land, for internal improvement, aid to education and aid to colonization. (Res. 28.)
"
necessity
240
emigrated from it up to 1836, when seventeen went. An act of 1834 ordered the levy courts to charge interest on back payments still due, and deficits in future were to be made up,
In 1835, a bill to abolish the tax throughout the State was left on the table. At the special next session, the committee on Colored Population, being called on to report on the expediency of repealing entirely the act of
colonization
funds in the
1831, of giving up colonization as the State policy, stated that adopted after the melancholy issue of the South
insurrection
ampton
to.
be lost in
It has laying foundation for future security still boded well. long been a maxim, added the committee, that the existence of
separate and distinct castes in society is an inherent vice, pregnant with the most baneful consequences. The free black, dead
to every generous
ultimate aim,
deepest,
prompting of ambition, because debarred of Our has ever been an incubus on society.
warmest sympathies they have, but while they remain among us, little more can be extended. A curse to our slaves, whom they are constantly corrupting, an evil to the whites, between whom and them the laws of God and nature have drawn lines never to be effaced, they must leave our shores if On this report no they would be happy and prosperous.
action seems to have been taken.
2
to renew annually their certificates of freedom ; but the com that confusion in which the House agreed mittee reported
1 1834, 197. In 1832 (Ch. 314) the appropriations to the American Col onization Society had reverted in part to the State, as these had not been drawn for several years. Certain taxes also went to the work of the State
as those on the introduction into Maryland of slaves who had been acquired by marriage, bequest or in distribution ($15 for every able negro, &c.). 1833, 87. See Report of Committee, 1840. *See Report of House Committee on Colored Population, 1836.
Society
241
would ensue and facilities for escape be given slaves, by the great number of certificates required, and that additional burdens would be thrown on the blacks, a large portion of
whom
life.
1
were then scarcely able to procure the necessaries of there were thirteen
votes against taking up their time over the matter to con sider the expediency of compelling free blacks to emigrate To drive the free blacks away, an within a stated time.
free
make
easier the path for runaway slaves, and to fanatic abolitionists. Then justice cries aloud
of Maryland may desire to see her rid of the free blacks, at present a vicious and degraded population, yet we do not
think, said the committee, that the enlightened legislators of the State are prepared, in the accomplishment of that desir able end, to steel their hearts against every consideration of
justice
and right. Should the proposed legislation be carried out, our consciences might remind us that the glorious result
had been dearly purchased at the cost of State faith and justice; and some malignant foe of our institutions might point his finger at the Declaration of Independence and the State Bill of Rights, and call them unmeaning parchment. This report was left on the table, apparently. 2 The Governor s message of 1837 spoke of the value of the colonization scheme, and stated that the attempts of the friends of immediate and general abolition to defeat the work of the In 1841, the Colonization Society s agents were losing force. committee on Colored Population summed up the work done since 1832 by the State board of managers. The total number of emigrants sent out had been six hundred and twenty-seven to Africa and twenty-five to Hayti. The amount drawn from the State had been over sixty-six thousand dollars.
1
House Journal, 1835, 39, 48. See Keport of Committee on Colored Population, 1836.
16
242
The Negro
in Maryland.
There had always been room in the vessels for more emigrants; owing somewhat to the work among the blacks of the enemies
of colonization, the abolitionists. 1 number of slaveholders of Anne Arundel county met in September, 1841, and issued a call for a general convention of
persons favorable to the protection of the slaveholding inter ests of the State. Delegations of twenty were to be appointed in each county and Howard district and the cities of Balti
more, Annapolis and Frederick. The convention, accordingly, assembled at Annapolis in the hall of the House of Dele
in the following January; but the list of members appointed give only one hundred and thirty-one and Allegany, Caroline, Carroll and Worcester counties were not rep
gates
resented at all
called for
instead of
eighty, as
The
prominent members urged prudence and caution let these mark your deliberations, said the chair, the eyes of the whole world are upon us. The time was, said one member, when we had but few free blacks among us, and we entertained different feelings to them then from those feelings we hold now when, by their approximation in numbers to the
r
1 In July, 1832, thirty-one blacks had been sent off under the old State appropriation for colonization adding these to those send under the act of 1831, some 800 were sent in all, at a cost of about $900.00 apiece. In one
;
case only, we remember, was a sheriff called on, under the act of 1831, to remove forcibly a manumitted black. In this case, the fellow had had some dispute with his old master, and was carried over the line by the
the harsh features of the act been enforced, the results of would, of course, have been very different. Under the auspices of the American Colonization Society, some 200 blacks had been
sheriff .
Had
colonization
Baltimore American.
A number of
the ap
pointed delegates were not present, evidently, or at least did not remain, for on the second day there were only eighty-five. reporter for a Northern abolition paper, who ventured there, was saved from summary punishment
by the
of the
police.
He
members
The
president of the
243
we are forced to look to the shield of law to protect The increasing demand for relief from every part of the
some
action
We
unless they have the The work of the sanction of the whole people of the State. convention was a long list of suggestions for legislation, to be
and must
The most impor presented to the Assembly then in session. tant of these were, prohibition of manumission except on condition of instant transportation at the expense of the manusome place out of the country. 1 Prohibition of all manumission by last will as well as by deed, if prospective.
mittor, to
;
No
Maryland except
as servants of trav
elers
and
strict regulations
might once leave the State. any train or steamer out of the State, unless vouched for as a freeman by some one known to the conductor or captain and the courts to appoint bailiffs, monthly, to watch the arrival and
;
departure of all
slaves.
"common carriers," to prevent the escape of rewards to be paid by the State for the convic High
tion of those inducing or aiding slaves to escape ; as well as rewards to be paid by the owners, according to the distance
from home which the runaway had covered, when caught. The State to pay all expenses of any cases which might arise from the conflict between the laws of any State and the Fugi
tive Slave
law.
No
in order to test the constitutionality of the free black to be allowed to hold any real estate, or
Law,
any leasehold
interest
No sales
or gifts of slaves to free blacks, under penalty of fine to the master conveying, and of sale out of the State to the black
so conveyed.
Every
be renewed
This clause provoked some argument. One member he who had defended the Northern reporter opposed it as tending to entail slavery. Another said the blacks had long been invited to leave, but had refused
to go.
at all.
244
annually, for good behavior, under penalty for neglect of being hired out by a magistrate; ten dollars of his wages
and attempts
to
of sale out of the State, if caught. After 1843, the children of all free blacks were to be bound out by the courts, from the
ages of eight to eighteen or twenty, when males were to receive seventy-five dollars and females twenty-five, from
All free masters, on condition of leaving Maryland. blacks to register themselves and get new certificates, yearly, in the county offices. Sale out of Maryland or banishment,
the
free blacks for all offences not capital. of negroes for any purposes whatever, after sunset ; meetings and fine and imprisonment with sale out of the State for a
as
punishment of
No
second offence
for
license to preach,
fine
who
who
might attend
any
of one hun
retail dealer
might give or
to
sell, in
any negro.
And
any way whatever, any wine or liquors an increase in the cost of a license for a
traveling pedlar. Such were the recommendations of this con vention, which adjourned sine die, on the third day of sitting,
having named a committee of five members to present memorials to the Legislature. The House committee on Colored Population had been asked
after
already to take some action, and leave had been granted them, two weeks before the slaveholders met, to bring in a bill "for
the better government of the free colored population of the State, and for the protection and perpetuation of negro slavery
The memorial of the convention, duly presented a week or so after the adjournment, was read and referred to the same committee, and over a hundred copies were printed
therein."
for
the
members and
senators.
This clause,
it is
One
interesting to note, brought up considerable argument, clause called, also, for the prohibition of fire-arms and
weapons
to blacks.
245
against the work of the convention soon began to come in ; the House received twenty-six, and the Senate some eight Public meetings were held in Baltimore, Centreville others.
in
Queen Anne
of
letters,
s,
series
Chestertown in Kent, and elsewhere; and a signed Vindex, in the Baltimore American,
and
to crush
down
colored men, did not probably represent a seventh of the 1 Meantime the committee s bill had people of Maryland.
received
many amendments
"
in the
title
was
color."
much we know
" "
an annual registration of free blacks the sale for a year of all those without visible means of support and not of good and industrious habits/ and the binding out of children whose parents were not of good character or could not honestly employ them. Every black manumitted should leave the State within twenty days, under penalty of sale by the year. Blacks could attend religious meetings after dark, provided there were present some authorized white clergyman, resident in Maryland, and at least three respectable slaveholders. And lockmen on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal were to stop all boats whose captains were blacks. The bill passed the House,
7
late
the
On February, by a vote of forty to thirty-one. three memorials against such extreme day before,
in
See Nile* Register, Vol. LXI, 368, &c.; LXII, 16, &c. of these petitions were not signed by many names, and some of the meetings may not have been large but it is safe to say that the action of the convention was disapproved by the majority of citizens. In the
Some
petitions, opposition was directed noticeably against the prohibition of See House Journal and Senate Journal, religious meetings after dark.
1841, February Ist-March 8th. The Vindex letters begin in Baltimore American, January 22d, 1842. There were few public expressions in favor of the suggestions of the convention.
246
two which came in later, were then sent to the Senate. The bill was rejected by the Senate, March 8th, by fifteen to six.
have already noticed that Baltimore city was not fairly 1 represented in the Legislature. The solemn claim of the slave
a meeting of citizens of Maryland appointed in conformity with public notice to represent the wishes and feelings of their respective counties
"
We
and
cities, to thus constitute a general convention," may well turn us to study the matter more closely, as a matter indeed of vital importance. Under the constitution of 1776, each
county was entitled to four seats in the House of Delegates, and Annapolis and Baltimore to two seats each. The Senate
was a body of
(/.
fifteen,
chosen at large by electors, the only must live on the Western Shore
This system e. of the Bay), and six on the Eastern Shore. After that, and until the adoption of continued until 1838.
the constitution of 1864, each county and the city of Baltimore chose one senator; and each county, until after 1851, sent from three to six delegates, according to population, counted in
numbers/ and Baltimore was entitled to the same number as the most populous county. After the adoption of the constitution of 1851, the smallest counties had but two members, and Baltimore was given ten. In 1840, fully onequarter of all the whites in the State were in Baltimore city,
"
federal
all
By
1850, the proportion of both races had risen to one-third. As Delaware and New York were equally represented in the
national Senate, so in the Maryland Senate, after 1837, Calvert county, with some thirty-five hundred whites, fifteen
hundred
1
free blacks
and
forty-five
hundred
slaves,
had equal
247
weight with Baltimore with one hundred and forty thousand whites, twenty-five thousand free blacks, and three thousand In the popular House, the delegation from Baltimore, slaves.
at its largest,
it
was
less
Thus
the Assembly might happen large majorities would be a gross misrepresentation of the people of the State. 1
that
bill to require
blacks to take
papers, at charges proportioned to their age, but the Senate rejected it. 2 At the session following, the ques
tion
new freedom
was again
raised,
all
able free
blacks, for the support of the State ; and a bill to require them to be registered was considered, and the enacting clause
The same questions were brought up the and a committee bill for the registry of free blacks passed the House but was rejected by the Senate. 3 But of greater moment seems the report of a special committee of
finally struck out.
;
the House appointed to consider evidently a proposition that the free blacks of Charles county be removed that measures be taken to cause all the free blacks in Maryland to emigrate.
At
whom
the next session the delegates from Charles county, to the matter had been referred, presented a lengthy re
The presence of the free blacks, they said, is deemed port. an evil by almost everyone, and with continued increase in
numbers, the whites must eventually amalgamate with them, or leave the State, or be reduced to slavery. All plans for removing the blacks with their own consent were destined
their
perhaps to prove illusory, as the negro had shown an invinci ble indisposition to go. The testimony of the agents of the
House Journal, 1842, 144, 550. House Journal, 1844, 42, 60, &c. again in the House the next year.
3
bill
was up
248
Colonization Society, indeed, showed that force alone could remove them. And that the Assembly could force them to go, followed from the fact that they were legal and not consti
tutional citizens, and that their status could be changed or abolished at the pleasure of the legislators. In accordance with this report, a bill was introduced in the House to remove
the free blacks of Charles county, but action on it was post poned, and we find no further mention of it except that the House received a memorial against it, as well as against a bill
for taxing free blacks, from nine hundred citizens of Baltimore. This bill for special taxation if we may accept the report of
it
1
in the Easton Gazette required all free blacks between the ages of twenty-one and fifty, who were able and capable of self-support, to be registered yearly during the months of April and May, in the county offices, and to pay one dollar
and ten
to be hired out.
the
The report says that this bill was passed by House by a very close vote it was surely rejected by the
:
Senate.^
A bill
county
Mary
for the better regulation of free blacks in St. passed the House also, and was also rejected in
to repeal the act of
7
the Senate.
A bill
opposed by the committee, and was referred to the next Assem find a bill to forbid the courts to give permits to bly. freedmen to remain in the State, laid on the table and ordered
We
of seven was early appointed, to consider to the free blacks, and to report a plan
all
"
"
Reports of committees, 1844, 1845; House Journal, 1845, 58, 153, 380. Easton Gazette, Feb. 8th, 1845. However legitimate an object of taxa tion free negroes may be, adds the Gazette, we are inclined to look on this
1
bill as
to the
hard and unreasonable such provisions are liable, to say the least, most gross and tyrannical abuses 6O palpable as to strike the atten
:
tion at once.
249
Four months
later,
made. The increase in the free blacks of the State from 1790 from 1830 to to 1850 had been over a thousand a year
;
1840, when the plan of colonization was actively taken up, the average increase had been the same; from 1840 to 1850, even more. If that rate continued, the free blacks would soon
exceed the whites in number, in eleven counties. Only one thousand and eleven had been colonized in Africa since 1831, at an expense of two hundred and ninety-eight thousand dol
lars,
nearly two-thirds of which came from the State. Consid ering this and the vice and ignorance of the blacks, the com mittee recommended, to be inserted in the new Constitution,
that the
ment of
to
Assembly be empowered to pass laws for the govern the free blacks and for their removal, and be ordered provide immediately for their registration; that no black
should be capable of acquiring real estate in the future, nor of holding by lease for terms longer than one year ; and that no
free black
be manumitted except on conditions of leaving within thirty When the consideration of this report was asked, some days.
by the chairman of the committee, a motion it was carried by forty-two to thirtyA second attempt to bring it up later, in the same eight. 2 This was sitting, was defeated by forty-four to thirty-three. in the convention. But we find a bill for the government,
five
later,
weeks
to indefinitely postpone
By motion of Mr. Jacobs of Worcester, who was made chairman, and reported the work of the committee. Two petitions were received from Frederick county for stringent legislation.
* Of the forty-four opposed to the report were the entire delegations from Baltimore and Washington counties; f of the delegates from Cecil and Harford f of those from Queen Anne s and Talbot counties and Balti more city. Of the thirty-three in favor all from St. Mary s and Prince from Calvert, Charles George s f from Montgomery f from Worcester and Kent f from Somerset. The votes of those present from the other counties were divided Frederick, 4 against and 1 for the report; Dor chester, 3 against and 2 for; Allegany and Carroll, 2 against and 1 for; Anne Arundel and Caroline, 1 against and 1 for.
;
250
regulation and disposition of the free blacks, before the As sembly of 1852. It gave more strict provisions for binding them out, and forbade manumission except on condition of
emigration to Africa.
Then
it
was
was rejected by thirty-two to eighteen. was rejected by thirty-three to twentyBrought up again, one. And it was then withdrawn from the files of the House. The Assembly was not discouraged by this gloomy report
reconsideration,
it
it
On
was put off to the next session. vote of thirty-one to twenty-two. rejected by
It
thousand dollars a year, which expired in 1851, was continued 1 for six years more, to carry on the policy of the State." in 1852, as in 1847, some one Again got leave to bring in a bill
"
tion
for taxing the free blacks this time, for the benefit of coloniza but we find no mention of it further. The free blacks
themselves were by no means unanimous in advising coloniza tion. meeting of some of the most intelligent blacks of
Baltimore was held in May, 1852, to consider colonization and plans for the elevation of their people ; and a call was issued
for a convention of delegates from the free blacks of the 2 State. According to the newspaper reports, the chief object
of the preliminary meeting was to rouse greater zeal for emi gration, the separation of whites and blacks being deemed
desirable,
and
sail,
to provide pleasant
about to
1852, 202.
Baltimore papers, May 25th, July 26th, &c., 1852. A gentleman promi nent in the work of the Maryland Colonization Society, wrote in an open capable of the highest improve letter, in 1851, "The black man s heart ment, as Liberia has already proved, clings to the natale solum with vast tenacity, more so even than the white man feels, and the black man cannot,
8
therefore, be expected to
faces
and familiar
places,
without a clinging hold, yielding only- to the sternest circumstances." (Baltimore American, September llth, 1851.) There had been a movement in favor of colonization in 1841 (Niles, LX, 227). The Baltimore Sun for May 17th, 1851, speaks of similar efforts among the blacks in Baltimore
and in Cambridge.
251
accordance with the address that was issued, the convention met in July, in Baltimore. The object, as given, was to con
sider the present condition of the free blacks, and to adopt such measures as might tend to its amelioration. Several
delegations at once asked leave to withdraw, as they were convinced that any action by the convention, instead of im proving the condition of their people, would produce an agita
among them, to their injury. This was greeted with cries of approval from all parts of the house, and although the statement was plainly made that the convention had no direct
tion
work of
colonization, but
was
for the
improvement of the social and intellectual condition of the blacks, the sitting ended without accomplishing anything.
In a
mele"e
without the
hall,
gathered, one boy was cut in the face with a tumbler, and a dozen men were arrested. And as the reporter of the aboli
tion paper at the slaveholders convention had barely escaped a laying on of hands, so here, a minister of one of the black
7
congregations of Baltimore, a zealous advocate of coloniza The next day tion, had to be escorted home by the police. officers were chosen, a strong police force being present and the resolution adopted, that all men are equal, and that
free inquiry should be given to all matters aifecting their wel fare; and that while the zeal of those who had labored for
twenty years to put the whites and free blacks of the country on a social and political equality, had been fully appreciated,
the fact was evident that the condition of the free blacks as a
class
was
less desirable
than before.
At
this sitting
and the
lively discussion as to the advantages of to Liberia. Earnest and able speeches were made, emigration considerable knowledge of Liberia and Hayti, but showing
next, there
was a
some
felt
that to
to
among
the
was resolved, finally, that the "disparity of thought, and intellectual advancement" which was seen to exist feeling between the white and black races, showed that mutual preju-
252
dwell together in harmony and equal privileges, and that a separation from the whites many of whom the blacks could
not
admire
to
be
desired, as tending to the advantage of both whites and blacks. To these resolutions there was but one opposing voice, and the
convention adjourned after having named a permanent com mittee and recommended the formation of local societies, to
establish schools for black children,
and
The Governor
message to
the Assembly of 1858 spoke of the favorite policy of coloniza tion, suggesting the use of further inducements to make the
free blacks of the counties leave,
on immediate removal before those who were freed might become contaminated by their new associations or on pay ment of a sum sufficient to ensure the colonization of others.
At
that session, the renewed appropriation having expired, work under the managers, five thou
sand a year for four years, and in addition, seventy dollars for every black above ten years and thirty-five for younger
the entire expenditure not to ones, safely started for Africa exceed the previous appropriations of ten thousand a year.
In September, 1858, a goodly number of the slaveholders of Worcester county met together to recommend the calling of a general convention of the Eastern Shore, in the following
At a national convention of colored people in Philadelphia, in October, 1855, a letter was read from a black of Baltimore eulogizing Liberia. Sev eral members thereupon spoke against colonization, determined to demand their rights in the country where they were born and a motion to burn the
;
letter
was carried by a large majority. So reported the Baltimore Sun of October 20th. The author of this letter appears to have been the temporary chairman of the convention in Baltimore in 52. The Baltimore conven tion adjourned to the following year, but the papers have no mention of any further meetings. See the reports of the National Colored Conven tions, in Philadelphia in 1831 and 1832, opposing emigration to Liberia and Hayti, and asking the American Col. Soc. to desist from its "unhal
lowed
persecution."
II, 61.
253
November, and
of the laws and police regulations concerning slaves, especially to prevent runaways and the spread of abolition papers. This be helped by empowering postmasters in all the for the resolutions looked to action slaveholding States
to
all
was
to open as well as by the State Legislature and documents addressed to slaves and free 1 In response to this call, delegates from Caroline, blacks. Dorchester, Somerset, Talbot and Worcester met at Cam
by Congress
letters
committee of ten reported resolutions the follow which were adopted. It was evident, they said, to ing day, the people of Maryland that it was an impossibility under the existing laws, to control and regulate the black popu
bridge.
lation
great
in a proper manner. Attention was called to the number of free negroes; to their habits of idleness
and
dissipation ; to the heavy cost to the public of criminal prosecutions against them ; to their well known tampering with slaves and aid in inducing slaves to abscond ; and to
example and influence on the slaves, whom they with bondage and comparatively worthless to the owners. Maryland is, and should be, a slaveholding state, true to the interest of herself and her Southern sisters. A system of legislation was needed to protect slaveholders and
their evil
made
dissatisfied
for their own interests as well as for the regulate all negroes Free blacks and slaves could not exist side by side, whites.
and the
"
vicious habits
"
"
their refusal to
labor, their incapacity for self-government," leave the alterna tive of making them go from the State or go into slavery. Public feeling was ready for the question, and delegates of all
the people should be called together to consider these propo sitions and make recommendations to the Legislature.
Baltimore Sun, Sept., 21st, 1858. Riles Register mentions local meetings of slaveholders in Anne Arundel, Charles and St. Mary s counties, in 1845
(Vol.
LXIX,
52).
County,
also, in
February, 1845.
254
an address to be
In the following June, 1859, the general slaveholders con vention met in Baltimore. The plan had been to have each
county and Baltimore city represented by as many delegates as each sent to the Assembly. And the meeting indeed seems to have been a large one. Allegany appears to have been the only county not represented. meeting of citizens of Balti
more
fore,
interested in the
called shortly be
but so few responded that no organization was made. However, a delegation from Baltimore was nominated by the
convention, the chairman stating
in response to the question
of a
member from
that
Calvert, as to
whom
on failure to choose members, after proper represented the people would be voiced by those who were pres notice, A large committee of twenty-one, from the various ent. But the committee counties, was chosen to report action.
Two questions, in general, are be fore us, reported the majority, first, the proposed expulsion of the free blacks from the State, and secondly, whatever leg islation may be necessary to give vitality to the law of 1831,
was divided
in opinion.
2
highly They are inexpedient indeed an evil in a slave-holding community, but the major Their re ity of them are not idle, unproductive and vicious.
to try to
making manumission
is
moval would be a greater evil than all the harm ever suffered. In Baltimore they number twenty-five thousand, mostly ser Much of our soil could not be tilled vants and laborers. without them. Then such an act of force would violate pubThis committee of seventeen includes Baltimore Sun, Nov. 6th, 1858. Cecil and Kent, so those counties were probably represented also. The Easton Star says of the convention: A number of resolutions were
1
names from
adopted which amount to nothing. 2 The chairman had said, on undertaking his duties tion every man has his own theories.
On
255
it would lie sentiment, which is generally just and kindly Nor should not be tolerated by the people of the State. On the rights of freedom already vested be taken away.
other hand, the policy outlined in the act of 1831 was wise
blacks being willing to leave had been almost forgotten 1 But certain evils arising except by members of the Bar.
from the increase of free blacks have been almost universally admitted, and are more evident than in 1831. Slaves run
away mainly through their influence, or are encouraged by them to insubordination, and the thriftless of them set evil examples to slave and free alike. They should be in well
It is also contrary to the policy of regulated subordination. the State, and productive of evil, to allow them to acquire 2 real estate. The provision of 31 against the return of free
is believed to be inoperative and wholly Therefore, there should be no removal of the blacks then free, or to be born free ; but they should be well controlled so as to be orderly, industrious and productive ;
blacks to Maryland
inefficient, also.
"
"
and emancipation should be prohibited entirely, or be allowed only on condition of removal of the freedmen. The policy of The minority report, on 31 should be renewed with vigor. the contrary, advised putting an end to free-negroism at an on the most advantageous terms to our white early day, and
"
"
"
population."
The
and those who wished State, they would remain free should be allowed to become slaves to the citizens. Failing so to leave or become slaves, they and their posterity should be sold for life, and the prices be put so low, and payments so
if
1
to use their
2
settlements
on
little
to the imperfections of its details. happens, reads the report, that free blacks form thick parcels of ground, cultivate less than can support
them, labor but little for those who would be glad to hire them on liberal terms the conclusion being that they eke out their living by unlawful
256
easily arranged, that citizens of small means might get them. Apprentices and slaves for terms of years were to be included
at the
in all cases, a
favor of those
or meritorious.
There should be efficient police regulations for the blacks, throughout the State. The point of this report was that the labor of free blacks was needed, provided it did not come in competition with the whites; it was not just to
"
it
to the
dogs."
The gen
tleman
wish
who presented the minority report said he did not to drive away the free blacks, for their labor was
wanted.
member county wished them to work, but they would not. from Frederick said that further legislation was necessary for
a State half slave and half
free, that
a slave
who would
bring fourteen hundred dollars at New Orleans could not be kept with any security in the counties bordering on Pennsyl
vania.
said that his county was because it was opposed to holding such represented simply conventions; there had been slaveholders conventions, but
Finally, after several substitutes for these convention adopted the resolu
2
tlemen to petition the Assembly, and adjourned sine die. The message of the Governor to the next Assembly, in January 1860, spoke as had that of 1858 of the need in
of the counties of further legislation on the free blacks. In Baltimore and the larger towns and in the Northern coun little complaint against the free blacks ; nor ties, there was
many
it is in the lower indeed was the evil of their presence felt is taxed to counties, on both shores, where the community
"as
is
subject to their
See minority report, presented by Mr. Jacobs of Worcester. Baltimore Sun, June 8th, 1859. The number of delegates was over
ninety.
257
and the
ill
effects
made that every under just conditions, and with freedom of choice of master and of change. The House
population."
And
idle black be
bound out
for wages,
committee on Colored Population presented a lengthy report. 1 There was, it said, an alarming state of excitement on the
In the rural parts of the there was an evident feeling of distrust to the free State, blacks the increased number of house-burnings and poisononings and other manifestations of insubordination had given
subject of the colored population.
;
alarm for the security of life and property. These feelings were clearly announced in petitions presented the Assembly, as in that of the slaveholders convention. As to the plans
to be pursued to remedy the evils, experience had the free blacks would not voluntarily emigrate,
shown that
and a great mistake had been made in allowing manumitted blacks to 2 remain. The act of 1831 had been a failure. Nothing short of an ultimate wiping out of the free blacks would meet the
emergencies besetting the peculiar condition of Maryland. think it would be unjust, and perhaps cruel," continued
We
"
the committee, to force them to leave the State; but they should be held in perfect subordination to the citizens, and made to work under their control. If it be admitted that the
negroes are once absolutely free, any laws that may be passed, affecting them and not all freemen, will be regarded by them as oppressive, and will also secure for them a large amount of
whites. By manumission the negro does not get the rights of a citizen, but merely ceases to belong to one man, and really becomes the property of the whole State."
"
Burgess, of Charles; Dennis, Bryan, of Prince George s Gordon, of Allegany Holland, of Dorchester; Claggett, of Frederick. 2 This act, said the committee, has been in operation for twenty -seven
;
of Somerset
a- expense from the State of $280,000 and from all sources of some half million, but the free black population had grown from 52,000 in 1831, to some 90,000 or more. Of blacks born free, not over 300 had emigrated.
years, at
17
258
The
work out on the farm, where nor does he look to the future. In short, an needed, inferior class of our population, we owe to them the enactment
labor
"as
of such laws as will restrain them from self-destruction, and make them subordinate and useful to our citizen population
interests of
our State.
The recommenda
tions of the committee, to this end, were the repeal of all taxa tion for colonization ; the entire prohibition of emancipation ; T
the grant to free blacks under fifty-five years of the privilege of choosing masters and going into slavery at any time ; pro vision for the hiring out of the blacks for terms of ten years
the children to be born in future to be the property of the and a number of strict police regu ;
of postmasters to withhold from mail addressed to them. 2 So far the committee negroes any could agree, but some of them had wished to put the free blacks back into slavery complete and at once. Several bills
lations, including the right
re
regulations as the punishment of persons for teaching negroes, and of slaves for being away from home without passes, and 3 Other plans were brought for the prohibition of meetings.
ward, the prohibition of any gifts or conveyances to free blacks of either real estate or slaves, with the sale of such then
held by blacks on their death
;
Even those blacks who had been freed on condition of leaving but had remained, under cover of a judgment of the Court of Appeals, were to be returned to their old masters. 2 This was, in the opinion of the committee, the best disposition to make of the free blacks, "for their own good, for the welfare of the industrial
1
good order and security of society, and The restora sound and real humanity." tion of them back into a state of slavery does not meet the approbation of a majority of the committee, though some of us do consider it the most
interests of the State, for the peace,
"
humane
3
disposal to
make
of
them."
This committee, too, was not of a mind in all things, but a duced by the minority was afterwards withdrawn.
bill intro
259
to
con
on the
is
of whites for aiding slaves to abscond. not without thought of the whims and persistency
trial
we draw from Assembly jour frequent inquiries that were asked for, these repeated bills that were introduced, these occasional reports that were submitted, all in vain, with the aim of further and
of individual legislators that
these
nals
more stringent legislation against the blacks ; but these, how ever worthless they may or may not have been as exponents of any public sentiment, show that the subject was kept fresh
in the
mind of
successive Assemblies.
7
It
had been
stated in
convention that the people were ready for and since that convention, had occurred the attack action, If there ever was a of John Brown on Harper s Ferry.
the slaveholders
regulations against the blacks of Maryland, it was in the autumn of 1859. The Assembly, meeting in the January
some steps, perhaps There were some warnings, however, of popular As early as October, a meeting was held at disapproval.
following, surely appeared ready to take
long steps.
the court house of Baltimore county, small in number but of prominent citizens, and an address to the people of the
When
the hiring out of free blacks was circulated in St. Mary s^ the Leonard town Beacon stated that the citizens in general were opposed to any forcible measures. Over one thousand of the
prominent
in
citizens
vention.
Also, a petition in remonstrance was received from some eighty citizens of Harford county. The Cumberland Telegraph stated that a number of industrious blacks, members of a beneficial society there, had withdrawn their funds from the bank and distributed it, on learning of the proposition
in the
Assembly to dispossess negroes of their property. See Baltimore Sun, Oct. 16th, 1859, and January 14th, Feb. 17th, 20th, I860.
260
The Assembly finally passed four measures. The State board of managers for colonization was done away, with only two opposing votes in the House ; and no general appropri
fixed sums as before were to be paid for black sent oif by the State Society, up to a total of five every thousand dollars a year. Secondly, manumission was abso 1 The vote on this stood thirtylutely forbidden thereafter.
ation
Thirdly, any free black over eighteen years of age was allowed to renounce freedom and become a slave for life to the
ate.
any children that she would become slaves also, while older children would be bound out by the courts. Applica tion would have to be made by the black to the circuit court for the county in which he, or she, had lived for three years preceding, and would be granted by the court only after full
selection
;
master of his
own
if a female,
five years
examination, in open sitting, to be sure that no force, fraud or undue persuasion had been used. 2 The fourth measure was
the residuum of the various plans for hiring out the idle free As it passed the Senate, the bill ap blacks of the counties.
plied
only to Baltimore,
s counties.
Mary
Charles,
Calvert, Howard, Kent and St. The House added Anne Arundel, Caroline, Dorchester, Prince George s, Queen Anne s, Somerset,
Talbot and Worcester, but, at the request of the Senate, struck out Anne Arundel, Caroline and Dorchester. A board
of commissioners, of three sober and discreet men, was to be appointed in each district by the commissioners of these
counties, to be the
"
commission
"
and
be-
management
1
These were
to
summon
wills already
2
made
or probated.
House Journal, Feb. 16th, March 9th. It will be 1860, 283, 322. pertinent to add that an exemption bill, to secure persons against the seizure of furniture and other property to the amount of $300, was amended by a vote of thirty-five to thirteen in the House, so as to exclude blacks
from
its benefits.
16th.
261
free black of
them on every
first
their district
who
hundred and
fifty dollars
actually reside with parents having, in addition, for every son or daughter, fifty dollars worth of assessed property. The
blacks, on appearance,
expiration of a month, the commissioners were to sell at auction as slaves for a year, all those who had not hired themselves
The
out to labor for a year to industrious and respectable citizens. hirers had to give bonds, to secure wages, satisfactory to
the commissioners, and liable to suit ; and if a black tried to on proof of his abscond, he could be sold as a slave for life
by some disinterested and reliable person, under oath by the commissioners, for the benefit of the primary school The wages agreed in the bonds were to be collected by fund. the commissioners and paid the blacks in presence of a magis trate, after deducting expenses and the necessary contributions to a fund for the support of all those free blacks who could not be hired from age or disability. And all free black children aged from four to twelve were to be bound out to citizens, males to the age of twenty-one and females to
offence
The masters might be chosen by the mothers, if these but they had to give bond, in all cases, for the good desired, treatment and care of their apprentices. The last and most
thirty.
important provision of the bill was that the act was to be null and void unless accepted by a majority of the voters of the
counties mentioned, at the presidential election of the follow The Assembly seemed ready to leave the deci ing autumn.
The bill passed the Senate without Several of opposition and the House by forty-one to three. the counties to which the provisions of the act were offered
sion with the people.
numbers of slaves, as Calvert, Charles, St. and Prince George s; others, as Baltimore county, Mary Kent, Worcester and Somerset, had fewer slaves and many more free blacks. At the exciting election of November, 1860, the act was rejected, taking the counties together, by a
had
large
s
.
262
And many
1
of those
who
voted
upon
it.
We close with the adjournment of the Assembly of 1860. In the course of the Civil War, which soon broke out, Mary land passed practically under military law. Slavery in as in West Virginia and some parts of Louisiana Maryland, and Virginia, was not included in Mr. Lincoln s Emancipa tion Proclamation. It was abolished by the adoption of the State Constitution of 1864. This Constitution, however also
declaring paramount allegiance to the United States, and pro viding that the State should not compensate former slave
cannot be taken as an expression of the people of Maryland. It was rejected by a majority of nearly two thou sand of the forty-seven thousand and odd citizens who voted at the polls, and was ratified by a majority in all of three hundred and seventy-five votes, counting those cast in the
owners
Union camps by
1
soldiers
The
bill)
according to re
Conclusion.
263
severe in
of the Constitution
its
itself.
blame of
"
"
of the rebellious
the
States, yet
chievous
any
interference
by
general
;
government
South
and
the Constitution of 1867 declared in vain that as slavery in Maryland had been abolished under the policy and authority
"
of the United
States,"
and an important word in closing. We have from various sources and marshalled together, act on gleaned act, judgment on judgment, report on report, many of them
One word
facts
of
little
importance
in
Maryland.
And we may
citizen
we to-day follow the proceedings of our legislatures and courts or actually feel the working of law about us, except in so far as our own immediate, tangible
of them
to slavery
except as concerning the negroes well consider, that the average probably gave as little heed to those
There was a bright and touching side which led many to think no ill of it, as there was a dark side which branded it. But all will agree to-day, prob
interests are concerned.
it
has gone.
to describe
"the
We
"
old
plantation"
of the
South, for the task has been well done by some who knew it. For an inter esting account of life on a large and well ordered plantation, see, for
instance,
Memorials of a Southern
Planter,"
1 The number of those who had voted in the presidential election of 1860 had been over 90,000. The vote on the Constitution of 1864 was home vote, 27,541 for, and 29,536 against, and 61 blanks; soldiers vote, in camps, 2,633 for, and 263 against. That on the Constitution of 186727,152 for, and 23,036 against. See Charter and Constitutions of the U. S. 1861-2,
Resolutions
2, 3, 9, 13, 15.
264
must remember that such books (Baltimore, 1888, Cushings& Bailey). deal with the bright side of slavery. On the other hand, the injustice done
We
by the abolition literature, so called, is that it may be taken as pictures of Southern life, instead of pictures drawn in exciting days, and often by those who were foreign to their subject of that side of slavery which was
happily the least known. The student of the institution of slavery cannot refer too often to
Kurd
Law of Freedom and Bondage, and Moore s Slavery Much of value will be found, also, in Cobb s Inquiry into
Slavery (1858, Phil, and Savannah).
in
Massachusetts.
the
Law
of
Negro
POPULATION OF MARYLAND.
NDEX.
Abolition, efforts for, 52, Ac., 237; Maryland society for, 52, &c., 57 society in Baltimore for, 152, 184 of slavery in Maryland, 262. Abolition matter, spread of forbidden, 224. Annapolis, records of Mayor s court of, 136.
;
Court, study of old records of, 135. Apprentices, colored children bound out as, 198, 219; efforts to force certain free blacks to become,
260.
Entertainment, of servants and slaves, restrictions on, 100; by blacks in Baltimore, must be licensed, 204. Evidence, law of, 190, Ac. See Tes timony. Exportation of blacks, efforts to pre vent, 57, Ac.
False imprisonment, suits by manu mitted slaves for, unsuccessful, 162.
Felons, importation
of,
118;
of,
testi
mony
of,
of,
121
numbers
in Bal
of,
Freedom, petitions for, 36, 148, Ac. removal of trial on petitionsfor, 153. Free blacks, numbers of, 175, 249;
;
97, 111.
of, forbidden, 176, Ac., 178, 181, Ac. entrance of, allowed by special acts, 178, 180 liable to detention as runaway slaves, 183
; ; ;
entrance
Carroll, Charles, efforts of, for aboli tion, 53, 54. Charles county, effort to remove free blacks from, 247. Colonization, the state policy. 66, 165, decisions &c., 237, Ac., 252, 260
;
186
to,
169;
235,
convention of blacks on, 250. Conversion to Christianity does not give freedom, 28, &c. Cruelty to servants and slaves, efforts
to
law to prevent, from quitting ser vice, 223 punishments of, for un lawful meetings, 199 for belong ing to secret societies, 200; for
;
;
Ac.;
to
slaves,
Delaware, escape of slaves to, 85, Ac. Dogs, number of held by free blacks
limited, 216. Duties on slaves imported, 42, Ac.
dealing in stolen goods, 212, for handling abolition matter, 225 laws on crimes and punishments touching, 226 sale of, as punish ment, 227, Ac., 232, Ac.; not deemed a desirable part of popula tion, 234, Ac., 237, 240, 242, 253 efforts for increased restrictions on, 240-260.
; ;
266
Index.
French West
96.
267
Friends, society of, efforts for aboli against exportation tion, 52, &c. for unre of blacks, 57, &c., 60 stricted manumission, 151, &c. ;
; ;
Military service, exemption of blacks from, 110 enlistment of free blacks in, in Revolution, 196.
;
New
&c.
to, 85,
New
Garrison, Wm. Lloyd, and the Genius of Universal Emancipation, 224. Guns and ammunition held by blacks,
restrictions on, 216.
to, 88.
Indentured, idle free blacks, &c., see / records, 130, &c. Free Blacks. ^Passes, use of, for blacks, 89. Indians, the Spaniards and the, Patrols, 97, &c., 110. the colonists and the, 5, &c., 9 Pennsylvania, escape of slaves to, 85,* &c., 88, 235. 11, &c. enslavement of, prisoners, 12, 19; mention of slaves, 13, 20; Pinkney, Wm., efforts for abolition, trials of white offenders against, 53, 152; against exportation of 15 restrictions on, 17 conversion blacks, 57. trials and punishments of. of, 18 Population of Maryland, in 1860,
;
;
<&
116.
Insurrections, rumors of, of papists, Indians and negroes, 91, &c., 97 in West Indies, 96; local, 96; rumors of, of slaves, 97, &c., 202.
;
See Southampton.
Introduction of slaves to Maryland,
26.
265. i/See also 38, 175, 249. Prisoners, ransom of Christian, 3; enslavement of heathen, 4. Property, of slaves, ^104; of free blacks, 188. Protection societies, for insurance of slave property, 91.
Jacob s Bill, against free blacks, 260. Jail treatment of blacks, 81.
Ransom
Kidnapping,
Liberia, 165
in,
;
of,
3,
&c.
199,
Religious
205.
241, 249.
Runaways, white servants, 72, &c., 78; skves,y72-91 Indians, 74; black servants, for terms of years,
;
78.
Manumission,
;
not
Servants, black, see Slaves for terms of years. White servants, 20, &c.,
of,
conditional, 169, &c., 237 / punishments of, 114, 119. by devise of VSlave code, on crimes and pun property, 174. ishments, study of growth of, Manumitted slaves, powers of, to 112-126. secure freedom, 161 status of, 162. Slave trade, by Europeans, 4, 6, &c., See Slaves for terms of years. 9 African, 38, &c., 40 growth of
;
167
by presumption, 172
opposition
of, 45.
to, 43,
46
prohibition
268
Slavery,
treatises
Index.
in
antiquity,
of,
2;
early
;
on war,
&c., touching, 7,
&c.
basis
in Maryland, 26-37
legalized, 37 ; abolished by State constitution of 1864, 262. Slaves, introduction of into Mary land, 26; in England, 27; con version does not alter status of,
28, &c.
38, &c.
; ;
Society of Friends, see Friends. Societies, secret, of blacks, forbidden, 200; beneficial, allowed in Balti more, 203.
Southampton
insurrection, 65, 66, 96, 99, 165, 177, 199, 236. Suffrage, right of, once open to free blacks, 186.
increase in
numbers
of,
restrictions put on intro duction of, 45, &c, 64, &c., 66, &c., efforts to prevent ex lessened, 71
;
portation of, 57, &c.; outlawry of, for certain offences, 76, 81 pun
;
Taxables, slaves, 146. Testimony, of blacks illegal against whites, 119; of convicts, made valid against convicts, 121 of
;
ishment
of,
&c., 81, 91, for absence from home, 100, &c., for sale of liquors, &c.,
valid against slaves, 121; of white servants, 140; growth of law touching evidence, 190, &c.
slaves
made
103; laws on crimes and punish ments touching slaves, 117-130, 138 restrictions on transporta
;
Tobacco,
growth
of,
as
affecting
slavery, 39.
tion
of,
by
common
carriers, 82,
&c.
^efforts to restrict,
free, 104, &c.,
from act
ing as
tions
174 ^restric
102, &c.
Vagrant
abled, required, 107, 149 ^sales of, &c., 144 issue of mortgaged, 145 owned by free blacks, 190. Slaves, for terms of years, restric tions on exportation of, 60, &c. restrictions on sale of, 61, &c.
; ;
;
children
bound
Villeinage in Europe,
Vindex
can,
vention, 245.
runaways,
78
exportation and
;
as sale of, punishment, 124 status of issue of, 154. Slave-holders conventions, at An napolis. 242, of Eastern Shore, 252, at Baltimore, 254.
War, laws
2, 4, 7,
of,
as affecting slavery,
of,
Ac.
blacks, status of issue
Whites and
32,
&c.
marriage between,
for
RETURN
GENERAL LIBRARY
U.C.
BERKELEY