The free Negro in Virginia, 1619-1865

THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA
1619-1865

THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA
1619-186?

BY

JOHN HENDERSON RUSSELL

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Board of University Studies of The Johns

Hopkins University in Conformity with the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

1913

BALTIMORE

1913

V \ A

COPYRIGHT 1913 BY
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS

PRESS OF

THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY
LANCASTER. PA.

CONTENTS

PAGE

PREFACE vii

CHAPTER I. Number and Distribution of the Free

Negroes 9

CHAPTER II. The Origin of the Free Negro Class ... 16

CHAPTER III. Manumission 42

CHAPTER IV. The Legal Status of the Free Negro ... 88

CHAPTER V. The Social Status of the Free Negro . . 123

BIBLIOGRAPHY 178

PREFACE

The history of the free negro in the slave States forms
one of the most interesting chapters in the history of slavery
in this country. A number of valuable monographs dealing
with the history of the negro or with the institution of
slavery in the various States have been published during
recent years, but no one of them, so far as the author is
aware, has been devoted exclusively to the status or history
of the antebellum free negro in a particular Commonwealth
of the Union. Such studies are needed, and it is hoped that
the present monograph will, as far as Virginia is concerned,
supply this need. Moreover, as a study of the free negro in
the State in which the African first made his appearance in
America, it should supply some of the facts upon which the
history of the negro race in the United States must be based.
Upon the constitutional side it is hoped that the study will
be an aid to a correct conception of the purposes sought to
be realized by the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The author takes this opportunity to acknowledge his
indebtedness to Professor W. W. Willoughby for the
scholarly guidance and stimulating criticism which were at
his service in all stages of the work. It is a pleasure also
to acknowledge his obligation to Professor J. C. Ballagh, at
whose suggestion the study was undertaken. In the im
portant work of discovery and valuation of the sources
Professor Ballagh's generous direction was of particular
value. The author is also indebted to Professors J. M. Vin
cent and G. E. Barnett for helpful suggestions.

Acknowledgment of special obligation is likewise due to
Professor Charles Henry Ambler, of Randolph-Macon Col
lege, who placed in the author's hands notes of great value
which he had made upon the subject of this monograph.
For courtesies extended by officials in charge of county and

vii

Vlll PREFACE

state archives, sincere thanks are here given. From the
discussion of various phases of the subject with Dr. H. J.
Eckenrode, archivist, and Mr. Earl G. Swem, assistant
librarian, of the Virginia State Library, suggestions of great
value were received. Mr. William G. Stanard, librarian of
the Virginia Historical Society, courteously placed at the
author's disposal valuable manuscripts.

J. H. R.

THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA 1619-1865

CHAPTER I

NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE FREE NEGROES IN
VIRGINIA

At the beginning of the Civil War there were in Virginia
nearly sixty thousand free negroes.1 This number was far
in excess of the number of free colored persons in any other
of the great slave States, being about double the number in
North Carolina, the State which, south of Virginia, had the
largest free colored population. It was in excess of the
free negro population in any State, slave or free, with the
exception of Maryland. In 1860 the entire number of
negroes in New York and New England combined was but
little greater than the number of free negroes in Virginia.
According to every Federal enumeration from 1790, the
aggregate negro population of the State of Pennsylvania
was smaller than the free colored population of Virginia,
and from 1830 to 1860 the same may be said of New York.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century the sum of the
free negro populations in New York, New Jersey, and Penn
sylvania was only about a thousand more than the number
of free negroes in Virginia.2 Of the free negro population
of the United States, Virginia had about one eighth.3

1 Except where specific reference is made in footnotes to the
sources, the statistical facts in this chapter are based on the United
States decennial censuses, 1790-1860.

3 St. G. Tucker, A Dissertation on Slavery, p. 70 n.

* It must be kept in mind that free mulattoes and all other free
persons having negro blood are included in the use of the word
" free negroes." The term includes the persons enumerated in the
census reports under the caption, " all other [than white] free per
sons except Indians not taxed." In 1771 the general court ruled
that negro or mulatto servants and apprentices were to be considered
free negroes. It is in this broadened sense that the word is used in
this work when used without qualifying words (Howell v. Nether-
land, Jefferson's Reports, 90).

9

IO THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

The condition which made the free negro question in Vir
ginia unique and peculiarly interesting was that in that State
only was there so large a free colored population living in
a society so vitally connected with and dependent upon
slavery. It requires but little imagination to see why a free
negro population, numbering from twenty to sixty thousand
between 1800 and 1860 and living among a slave population
almost as numerous as the dominant white element, created
social problems more perplexing than those of New Eng
land, where the negroes, few in number, were almost all
free, and race problems different from those of other great
slave States where the free negroes were too few to con
stitute a conspicuous factor in the social order. With
society in a large area of Virginia composed of about an
equal number of masters and slaves, an additional element
of free negroes in the proportion of one to about eight slaves
acted in no sense as an aid to facilitating the association of
the two races.

Prior to a law of 1782 which removed the restrictions
upon the right to manumit slaves by will, the number of
free negroes relative to the number of slaves or white per
sons was very much smaller than in any decade after the
passage of that act. From 1619 to the end of the century,
when custom and the law were fixing the status of the Vir
ginia negro, no satisfactory statistical estimate can be made
of the number of free negroes in the colony. In 1670 Gov
ernor Berkeley estimated the total number of " black slaves "
in the colony at two thousand.4 Although he made no ref
erence to any free negroes, there is ample evidence to show
that there were some in the colony at this time. In 1691
and 1723 laws were enacted which limited the increase of
the free negro class to natural means and to manumissions
by special legislative acts.5 These limitations upon manu
mission remained in force till 1782, when, according to the
reliable statement of a contemporary, the free negro class
numbered about twenty-eight hundred. Supposing the

4W. W. Hening, Statutes at Large of Virginia, vol. ii, p. 515.
"Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 87, 88; vol. iv, p. 132.

NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF FREE NEGROES I I

ninety-one years between 1691 and 1782 to be sufficient time
for the numbers of the free negroes to have doubled three
times by natural increase, we may judge, by counting back
ward on the basis of Tucker's estimate in 1782, that in 1691
the number of free negroes in the colony was about three
hundred and fifty.6

The frequency with which this class of persons is men
tioned in church and court records between 1690 and 1782
gives a further appearance of reliability to the above esti
mate. In 1724 the reports of certain Virginia clergymen
to the English bishop mention free negroes among the par
ishioners, while certain others show that there were none.
The report for St. Anne's parish asserted that in the parish
there "are many negro slaves," and that "there maybe 6 free
negroes."7 The rector of Lawn's Creek parish reported that
" there are some Indians, bond and free, and some negroes,
bond and free."8 The answer for Newport parish of Isle
of Wight County is, "Both bond and free,"9 and for
Hungar's parish on the Eastern Shore, " There are Infidels,
bond and free."10 The old parish registers, some of which

6 St. G. Tucker, A Dissertation on Slavery in Virginia, published
as Appendix to 1803 edition of Tucker's Blackstone, vol. i, note H,
p. 66. The edition of the Dissertation on Slavery published in 1796
has 1800 (p. 70) where the later edition has 2800 as representing
the author's estimate of the number of free colored persons in Vir
ginia. An indication that the figures of the later edition are the
author's true estimate is contained in a statement made by a member
of the House of Delegates in discussing manumission in which he
cited Tucker as authority for the statement that in 1782 there were
3000 free negroes in Virginia. Evidently the speaker adopted 3000
as a round number for 2800 as given in the edition of Tucker, then
only two years old.

7W. S. Perry, ed., Papers relating to the History of the Church
in Virginia, 1650-1776, p. 315.

8 Ibid., p. 289.

9 Ibid., p. 274.

10 Ibid., p. 273. The word " infidels " in these reports is used some
what in the sense of "heathen," so that when the answer is made
that there are "no infidels that are free," as was made for St.
Peter's parish (p. 269), it must be understood to mean that there
were no free negroes in the congregation of the minister making the
report. One negative answer made to the question as to the num
ber of bond or free infidels declared, " There are none of the latter,
especially of those who profess the Church of England worship"
(p. 271). Negroes, whether baptized or not, were uniformly re
ported as infidels.

12 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

date back to 1662, bear witness to the existence of a free
negro element in the congregations, although it is difficult
to ascertain from this source the numerical strength of the
free negro population.11 The register of the old Bruton
parish shows that thirty-seven out of eleven hundred and
twenty-two colored persons baptized between 1746 and 1797
were free;12 but the ratio of 37 to 1122, or I to 30, is no
doubt much too large to show the relative number of free
negroes to the slaves in any large section of the State.
From about 1762 to 1782 some seventy free colored persons
are mentioned in the records of baptisms, — a number larger
than could have been found in most areas of the same size
included in a single parish.13

After 1782 the relative numbers of the three classes of
Virginia population are pretty well known. A state census
made in I782,14 although not classifying free negroes sepa
rately, bears out the estimate made by Professor Tucker that
twenty-eight hundred15 would represent fairly accurately
the number of free negroes in Virginia at that date. The
unparalleled increase of this class, which followed the re
moval in 1782 of the restrictions on manumission, and also
the relative numbers of free colored persons, slaves, and
whites in Virginia from 1790 to 1860 will be seen from

"By the courtesy of the librarian of the Episcopal Theological
Seminary at Alexandria, Virginia, the writer was permitted to ex
amine the manuscript parish records, which contain valuable in
formation not only as to the number of free negroes, but also as to
their social position.

13 Manuscript copy, Williamsburg, Virginia, pp. 24-57. See also
W. A. R. Goodwin, Historical Sketch of Bruton Church, p. 153.

13 The record for a single year reads, with reference to free
negroes, as follows: "John, son of Thos. & Sally Pow, a free mu
latto was baptized April ye 4. 1762." " Elizabeth, Daughter of
Eliza Wallace (a free negro) baptiz'd June ye 6, 1762." "Joseph,
Son of Anne Freeman, a free Mulatto, bapt'z'd July ye 4, 1762."

In further illustration of the evidence contained in parish records
of the existence of free negroes in the colony is the following
entry: "Diego, free negro died Sept. 3, 1741 " (MS. Register
of Christ's Church, Middlesex County, p. 310).

14 " State Enumeration of Va., 1782-1785 — Heads of Families," pub
lished with the First Census of the United States, 1790.

15 St. G. Tucker, A Dissertation on Slavery, ed. 1803, p. 66.

NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF FREE NEGROES

the following table prepared from the Federal decennial
censuses : — •

1790

1820

1840

1860

12,866

36,875

49,841

58,042

Slave

202,627

4215,148

448,088

400.865

White

442,117

603,381

740,968

1,047,299

Total

747,610

1,065,404

1,239,797

1, 596, 206

From these figures one fails to get a correct conception
of the significance of the presence of the free colored popu
lation in Virginia unless the question of distribution is also
taken into consideration. Had the free blacks been equally
distributed throughout the white population of the State,
the effect would have been different. In the mountainous
half of the State, which after 1830 contained half of the
white population, free negroes were so scarce as to be an
almost negligible social factor. The 58,042 free negroes,
together with the slave population, were confined largely
to the eastern half of the State, where in 1860 the white
population numbered about 600,000.

The State of Virginia was divided north and south on
the basis of the elevation of land into four sections : Tide
water, Piedmont, the Valley, and Trans-Alleghany. Of the
12,866 free negroes in Virginia in 1790 only 75 resided in
Trans-Alleghany, or what is now West Virginia with sev
eral counties of the southwestern part of Virginia. In the
Valley district there were 815; in the Piedmont region,
3640, leaving 8330, or about two thirds of the entire number,
in Tidewater. In that section the first census recorded I
free negro to 18 slaves and to 18 white persons. In Trans-
Alleghany the figures showed I free negro to 30 slaves to
517 white persons.

From the census of 1860 it appeared that the free negroes
of Tidewater were between one sixth and one seventh of
the colored and about one fourteenth of the entire popula
tion of that section. Tidewater contained 32,841 free ne-

14 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

groes, over one half of the entire free colored population,
while the region beyond the Alleghanies now had 2513,
which was about one eleventh of the blacks of that section
and i to every 160 persons living there. It appears that
Tidewater always had from one half to two thirds of the
entire free negro class, although after 1830 that section
contained less than one fourth of the white people of the
State. In 1860 Trans-Alleghany had more than one third
of the white population of Virginia and about one twenty-
fifth of the free negroes. The two sections west of the
Blue Ridge, sometimes called the western half of the State,
had in 1860 over one half of the white and but one seventh
of the entire free colored class. A few of the lower coun
ties in the Valley contained a large part of the 8354 free
colored persons who lived in the western half. Thus it is
apparent that an important aspect of the free negro problem
in Virginia was the fact that the free negro population was
largely concentrated in the eastern half of the State and
came in contact with only about one half of the white
population.

With respect to the relative numbers of free negroes in
smaller localities some interesting observations may be made.
As between rural and urban communities the latter had the
larger share of free negroes. In 1790, when the average
ratio of free negroes to slaves and to whites in the Tide
water section was I to 18, in Petersburg the free negroes
constituted one fourth of the colored population of the town,
and were to the whites as I to 4^. In this town of 3000
people there were 310 free negroes. In Richmond, out of
a population of 3700 there were 265 free negroes. In
Portsmouth, where 1702 persons lived, there were 47 free
blacks.

The increase of free negroes in the town populations is
best seen by considering the figures of some of the later cen
suses. Petersburg in 1830 had 2032 free negroes, 2850
slaves, and 3440 white persons. In 1860 this town was the
home of 3164 free negroes, 5680 slaves, and a number of

NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF FREE NEGROES 15

white persons about equal to the total black population.
In 1860 Winchester, a town of 3000 white inhabitants, had
675 free negroes, only nineteen less than half of the blacks
of the town. In 1850, 10,450 free negroes out of a total of
54,333, that is, nearly one fifth, lived in towns, while only
about one tenth of the white population lived in cities and
towns. In 1860 between a fourth and a third of the whole
free colored population lived in towns and cities.16

In some counties a large proportion of the black inhabi
tants were free. In Accomac County 3392 of the 8000
black inhabitants were free. In James City County 926
out of 2764 blacks were free. In Nansemond County there
were 2470 free negroes and 581 slaves. Other counties in
Tidewater in which from one sixth to one half of the col
ored population was free were Charles City, Fairfax, Hen-
rico, Isle of Wight, James City, Norfolk, Northampton,
Prince William, Richmond, Southampton, Warwick, and
Westmoreland. The counties in Piedmont which had the
largest free colored population relative to the slave class
were Loudoun and Goochland. In the former, one sixth of
the negroes were free, in the latter, one ninth.

Occasion may arise for calling attention to other facts
relative to the numbers and the distribution of the free ne
groes in Virginia, but the facts given above will be sufficient
for a general conception of the numerical importance of
that class at different times and in different places.

"Census of 1860, Population, p. 516.

CHAPTER II
THE ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS

The popular misconception of the beginnings of the free
negro population in Virginia which this chapter should cor
rect may be stated as follows : The first negroes brought to
Virginia in 1619 were from the very outset regarded and
held as slaves for life. They and all Africans who came
after them experienced immediately upon entering Virginia
a perpetual loss of liberty. Unlike the white servant, whose
freedom was only temporarily withheld, the freedom of the
negro could only be restored by an act of emancipation.
This being so, the free negro class was nothing but a diver
gence from, or a by-product of, slavery, dependent in its
origin and existence upon the disintegration of slavery.
This erroneous view was expressed by a slavery apologist of
the decade immediately preceding the Civil War as follows :
" Every negro in this country, or his ancestors, came in as a
slave. Every negro, legally free, has reached that condition
by his ancestors or himself having been emancipated by a
former master."1

This popular error is maintained and supported by a large
number of writers who have discussed the introduction of
negroes into America. Besides Virginia historians such as
Burk, Campbell, and Cook, who through thoughtless infer
ence have written the word " slave " where they should, in
view of all the evidence before them, have written "ne
gro," there are two classes of writers who have given cre
dence to the theory as a means of supporting some cause
of which they were the champions. The first authorities
to make use of this historical error were the antebellum

1 " Calx," Two Great Evils of Virginia. Bound in " Political
Pamphlets/' vol. xii, p. 5, in Virginia State Library.

16

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS I/

proslavery advocates. Judge Tucker of the Virginia su
preme court, when delivering an opinion in 1806 in support
of the principle of presuming slavery from color, made the
following assertion : " From the first settlement of the colony
of Virginia to the year 1778, all negroes, Moors, and mu-
lattoes . . . brought into this country by sea, or land, were
slaves."2 The school of proslavery writers in Virginia be
tween 1832 and 1860 made this assumption the basis of
an argument for the reduction of all free negroes to slavery :
" Every negro in this country or his ancestors came in as a
slave." Hence they argued that " the free condition of all
negroes in this country is novel or superinduced, artificial
and abnormal. The great political problem which is re
quired to be solved, is the recovery of the free negroes from
their false position in this slave-holding community."3

The other writers whose conclusions have been influenced
by their wishes in regard to the early history of the negro in
America are historians of sectional bias who desire to assure
themselves and their readers that American slavery had its
origin in Virginia and not at the North. Thus, Henry Wil
son, in his Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,4
assures us that " in the month of August, 1620, a Dutch ship
entered James River with twenty African slaves. They
were purchased by the colonists, and they and their offspring
were held in perpetual servitude." He therefore concludes
that " four months before the feet of the Pilgrims had
touched the New World, began that system which over
spread the land."

Without attempting to say whether slavery had an earlier
beginning in Virginia than in the other colonies, and with
out entering into the merits of the contention of the pro-
slavery advocates that the free negroes should have been
universally reduced to slavery, it can be asserted that
any contention based solely upon the theory that the first
Afro- Virginians and their offspring were slaves from the

1 Hudgins v. Wrights, i Hening and Munford, 137.
'"Calx," p. 5.
Third edition, vol. i, p. 2.

2

1 8 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

time of their arrival in the colony is not well founded.5
Regardless of the bearing upon past or present controversies
of the conclusions reached, an examination of the records
will be made with the sole object of finding out what was
the early status of the negro in Virginia.

If the simple fact of the introduction of negroes into the
colony of Virginia is not to be taken as conclusive evidence
of the beginning of slavery, upon what facts should its origin
or earliest existence be posited? Throughout the seven
teenth century there were in the colony persons called ser
vants whose relations to their masters during the time of
their service resembled the relations of slavery. Such tem
porary servitude must be distinguished from slavery. The
difference between a servant and a slave is elementary and
fundamental. The loss of liberty to the servant \vas tem
porary; the bondage of the slave was perpetual. It is the
distinction made by Beverly in 1705 when he wrote, " They
are call'd Slaves in respect of the time of their Servitude,
because it is for Life."6 Wherever, according to the cus
toms and laws of a colony, negroes were regarded and held
as servants without a future right to freedom, there we
should find the beginning of slavery in that colony. Dr. J.
C. Ballagh, in his History of Slavery in Virginia, very prop
erly treats slavery as a legal status ; but by drawing a sharp
line between negro servitude and slavery at the date of stat
utory recognition of slavery he has overemphasized the im
portance of legislation in determining the origin of the insti
tution.7 Slavery in Virginia was instituted and developed
in customary law, and was legally sanctioned at first by

8J. C. Ballagh, in A History of Slavery in Virginia, was the first
to point out the error in the assumption that slavery was introduced
into Virginia. His thesis in the chapter entitled " Development of
Slavery " is that " servitude . . . was the historic base upon which
slavery, by the extension and addition of incidents, was constructed."
Although we are not primarily concerned in this study with the
origin of slavery in Virginia, the facts here presented in relation
to the origin of the free negro seem to bear out Dr. Ballagh's thesis
as above stated.

6 The History and Present State of Virginia, bk. iv, p. 35. Cf.
Ballagh, Slavery in Virginia, p. 28.

7 Pp. 34, 43-

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS 19

court decisions. Hence, not in statute law, but in court
records and documents which contain evidence of the con
dition of individual negroes prior to the date of statutory
recognition of slavery are to be found, if found at all, the
facts relative to the beginning of slavery.

The first act of the Virginia slave code, that is to say, the
first act dealing directly with the status of negroes, was
passed in 1662. 8 The wording of the act is abundant proof
that those who framed it viewed slavery as a practice well
established and well understood, the word " slave " being
used without an attempt to define its significance. The idea
that the act was to establish slavery or to provide the insti
tution with a legal basis seems to have been entirely absent ;
the sole object was to fix a rule by which the status of mu
latto children could be determined. Prior to this act the
word " slave " had occurred in the statutes at three different
times. In 1655 it was enacted that " if the Indians shall
bring in any children as gages of their good and quiet inten
tions to vs and amity with vs . . . the countrey by vs their
representatives do engage that wee will not vse them as
slaves."9 This pledge to the native Indians would seem to
justify the inference that some persons, if not some Indians,
in the colony had been reduced to slavery. Again, in 1659
in an act concerning commercial relations with the Dutch it
was declared "that if the said Dutch or other foreigners
shall import any negro-slaves, They . . . shall for the to
bacco really produced by the sale of the said negro pay only
the impost of two shilling per hogshead, the like being paid
by our owne nation."10 While here the subject of legisla
tion is not even related to status and the reference to slaves
is in a conditional clause in the act, it is hardly to be sup
posed that the persons who drew the act would have used

" Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by an
Englishman upon a negro woman should be slave or free, Be it
therefore enacted . . . that all children borne in this country shall
be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother "
(Hening, vol. ii, p. 170).

9 Hening, vol. i, p. 396.

10 Ibid., vol. i, p. 540.

20 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

the word " slave " where " servant " or " negro " was meant.
The act came very close to a recognition of the legal possi
bility of slavery in the colony.11

Two years later the wording of an act prescribing certain
punishments for runaway English servants shows beyond a
doubt that some negroes in the colony were slaves. The
act is entitled " English running away with negroes,"12 and
reads as follows : " In case any English servant shall run
away in company with any negroes who are incapable of
makeing satisfaction by addition of time, bee it enacted
that the English so running away in company with them
shall serve for the time of the said negroes absence as they
are to do for their own by a former act."13 The clause which
here refers incidentally to negroes certainly shows that some
of them were servants for life, slaves, incapable of compen
sating for lost time by any addition to their terms ; but
there is nothing in the act which asserts that all negroes
were or should henceforth be slaves.

This is the act which has been interpreted by Dr. Ballagh
in his History of Slavery in Virginia as not only a recogni
tion of slavery, but also as a statutory reduction to slavery
of all free or servant negroes.1* As thus interpreted, the
law is made to supply a legal basis hitherto lacking upon

u There is some indication in the records of the Dutch settlement
in New York that the supposition in the act was at times a reality.
Four years before this act the Council of the Colony of New
York granted to Edmund Scharbuch "permission to sail in his
vessel with some purchased negroes from here to Virginia" (Docu
ments Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York,
vol. xii, pp. 93, 94).

12 Hening, vol. ii, p. 26. Italics my own.

13 In the repetition of this act the following year the words " if
they [the negroes] had not been slaves" are added, showing that
a negro who was not a slave was required to make up his own time
lost by running away (Hening, vol. ii, p. 117).

14 At page 71 are used the words, "negro servants reduced to
slavery in 1661." The words from which this inference is drawn
are quoted thus : " Negroes are incapable of making satisfaction by
addition of time" (p. 34). These words as they stand are indeed
of universal application, but it will be noticed that two words have
been omitted from the text of the act which when supplied give to
the clause a restricted meaning and application. /The clause should
read : " Any negroes who are incapable of makeing satisfaction by
addition of time."

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS 21

which courts might rule against the liberation of negroes
suing for freedom. But, manifestly, the act was not in
tended for such a purpose, and there is abundant evidence
that it was not used to alter the status of free or servant
negroes then in the colony. The truth is that no attempt •
was ever made to supply legal grounds for holding negroes
in a status of slavery. Custom supplied all the authority
that appeared to be necessary, and legislation at first merely V
performed the part of resolving some uncertainties concern
ing a well-established institution. "When the progress of '
the times," wrote Savigny, " calls for new institutions . . .
there is necessarily a time of transition in which the law is
uncertain, and it is to put an end to this uncertainty that
Statute Law is required."15

This truth is well illustrated in the growth of slavery in
Virginia. The time of transition from slavery sanctioned
by customary law to slavery defined by statute law was the
decade between 1660 and 1670. A few quotations from
the preambles of the acts of this period will reveal the object
of the first legislation concerning the Africans in Virginia.
In 1662 we read that " whereas some doubts have arisen
whether children got by an Englishman upon a negro woman
should be slave or free, be it therefore enacted,"16 and so
forth. " Some doubts have [ing] arisen whether negroes
that are slaves by birth should by vertue of baptism be made
free," the answer was made in 1667 by the enactment of a
statute.17 An act of 1668 begins with the words, "/Whereas ,
doubts have arisen whether negro women set free should
be accompted tithable,"18 and another two years later was
explained by a preamble which asserted that "it has been
questioned whither Indians or negroes manumitted or other
wise free could be capable of purchasing Christian ser
vants."19 Doubts arose as to whether Indians captured in

15 Savigny, System, Sec. 13, quoted in J. M. Lightfoot's Nature of
Positive Law, pp. 283, 284.
^ 18 Hening, vol. ii, p. i/o.

" Ibid., vol. ii, p. 260.

18 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 267.

19 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 280.

22 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

war should be slaves, and in 1670 was passed an act enti
tled " An act declaring who shall be slaves."20

Even after this decade of legislation the question as to
who should or should not be slaves was not fully answered.
The act of 1670 merely applied to servants brought in by
ship after 1670 the test of Christianity to determine whether
they should be servants for a limited time or slaves for life.
The status of Africans who came or were brought to Vir
ginia before 1670 was not determined by statute law either
before or after that date. Hence, if by statute law slavery
was merely regulated and not established or instituted, the
only use that can be made of the statutes in determining the
origin of the institution is to fix an upper limit to the period
in which the beginning was made. Knowing that slavery
had its beginning some time before 1661, the date of the first
act recognizing it, a study of the period from 1619 to 1661
should throw much light on the question of the earliest
beginnings of the free negro class.

From the quaint narrative of Master John Rolfe, who
possibly wrote as an eyewitness of the introduction of ne
groes into Virginia, it is learned that " About the last of
August [1619] came in a Dutch man of Warre that sold
us twenty negars."21 In the very year of the arrival of this
group of African immigrants a system of labor known as
indented servitude received recognition in the laws of the
colony.22 It was not an uncommon practice in this early
period for ship masters to sell white servants to the plant
ers;23 hence, an inference that these twenty negroes were
slaves, drawn from the fact that they were sold to the colony
or to the planters, would not be justified. Prior to 1619
every inhabitant of the colony was practically "a servant
manipulated in the interest of the company, held in servi-

20 Herring, vol. ii, p. 283.

21 Works of Captain John Smith, ed. by Arber, p. 541.

22 The first assembly of the colony provided that all contracts of
servants should be recorded and enforced, and thus gave legislative
recognition to servitude (Colonial Records of Virginia, 1619-1680,
State Senate Document, Extra, 1874, pp. 21, 28; J. C. Ballagh, White
Servitude in the Colony of Virginia, p. 27 n.).

23 Ballagh, White Servitude, p. 45-

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS 23

tude beyond a stipulated term/'24 The word " freeman "
was just beginning to be used to distinguish persons set free
from service to the London Company from persons still in
a condition of servitude either to the company or to indi
vidual freemen.25 Beyond all question the first twenty ne
groes brought in were not introduced as freemen. The
only question is whether, upon entering the colony, they be
came servants or slaves. The possibility of their becoming
slaves must be recognized because it is conceivable that a
status different from that of any person in Virginia at that
time was given to persons so different from white settlers
as were the Africans.

Since it is the fact that the white population in the colony
in 1619 had not been familiar in England with a system
of slavery or with a model slave code, and since they had
developed in Virginia a system of servitude and were forti
fying it by law, it is plausible that the Africans became ser
vants in a condition similar to the status of white servants,
who, after a term of service varying from two to eight
years,26 were entitled to freedom. According to the " Lists
of living and dead in Virginia"27 in 1623 and the "Muster
Rolls of the Settlements in Virginia/'28 a census made in
1624-1625, there were in the colony twenty-three Africans.
They are all listed as " servants," thus receiving the same
class name as many white persons enumerated in the lists.29
Some had names, as, for instance, "Angelo, a negro wo
man," and " John Pedro, a neger aged 30." Others appar
ently had no names, and were designated simply by the word
" negro " under the caption " servants." In the opinion of

"Ballagh, White Servitude, p. 14.

25 Hening, vol. i, pp. 126, 128.

26 Ballagh, White Servitude, p. 49. Two hundred and fifty serv
ants were brought into Virginia in 1619 (ibid., pp. 18, 30).

27 Colonial Records of Virginia, p. 37 et seq.

28 J. C. Hotten, Lists of Emigrants to America, passim.

28 They were distributed as follows : Abraham Piersey, 7 ; George
Yeardley, Kt, 8; Capt William Piercey, i; Richard Kingsmall, i;
Edward Bennett, 2; Capt. William Tucker, 3; Capt. Francis West,
i. All these persons held other servants beside the negroes, and
some of these masters, being officers in the colony, may have had
merely the right of an officer over company servants (Hotten, pp.
218-258).

24 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

Thomas Jefferson, "the right to these negroes was com
mon, or, perhaps, they lived on a footing with the whites,
who, as well as themselves, were under the absolute direc
tion of the president."30

Were any or all of these negroes permitted to realize the
freedom to which servants were entitled under the laws and
customs of servitude? In the records of the county courts
dating from 1632 to 1661 negroes are designated as "ser
vants," " negro servants," or simply as " negroes," but never
in the records which we have examined were they termed
" slaves."31 By an order of the general court a negro
brought from the West Indies to Virginia in 1625 was de
clared to "belong to Sir Francis Wyatt (then governor)
as his servant."32 There is nothing in the record which in
dicates that " servant " meant the same as " slave." Among
the twenty-three African " servants " enumerated in 1624
was a negro man named Anthony33 and a negro woman
named Mary,34 serving under different masters. In the
county court records of Northampton, of date February 28,
1652, is the following order: —

Upon ye humble petition] of Anth. Johnson Negro; & Mary his
wife; & their Information to ye Court that they have been Inhab
itants in Virginia above thirty years consideration being taken of
their hard labor & honoured service performed by the petitioners
in this County, for ye obtayneing of their Livelyhood And ye great
Llosse they have sustained by an unfortunate fire wth their present
charge to provide for, Be it therefore fitt and ordered that from the
day of the date hearof (during their natural lives) the sd Mary
Johnson & two daughters of Anthony Johnson Negro be disingaged
and freed from payment of Taxes and leavyes in Northampton
County for public use.35

30 Jefferson's Reports, iign.

81 Examples or illustrations may be seen in MS. Court Records of
Accomac County, 1632-1640, pp. 55, 152 et seq. ; Lower Norfolk
County, 1637-1646, 1646-1651.

32 The case is one which Jefferson noted from the records of the
general court (Jefferson's Reports, ugn.)-

33 Hotten, p. 244. In the second edition the entry referring to
Anthony is as follows : " Anthony, negro, Isabell, a negro, and Wil
liam her child, baptised." In an earlier edition (1874) the entry
appeared as follows : " Antony Negro : Isabell Negro ; and Wil
liam theire Child Baptised."

34 " Mary, a negro Woman [came in] in the Margarett and John,
1622" (Hotten, p. 241).
35 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1651-1654, p. 161.

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS 25

Subtracting thirty or more years from 1652, the date of
this court order, we find that Anthony Johnson and possibly
the woman who became his wife were inhabitants of Vir
ginia before 1622. 36 If additional evidence is required to
establish the fact that Anthony Johnson and his family were
free in 1652, it is contained in a land patent of 1651 assign
ing to him in fee simple two hundred and fifty acres of
land,37 or in the records of a suit which he maintained in
the county court in i655.38

Just what part of the period of over thirty years of An
thony Johnson's residence in the colony was a term of servi
tude or how long before 1652 he had enjoyed his freedom
is not clear. The term of service for white servants was
not uniform, being dependent upon the conditions of the
contract. Before 1643, servants without contracts gener
ally became freemen after terms of service varying from
two to eight years. After 1643 tne terms of service for
servants "brought into the colony without indentures or
covenants to testify their agreements " were fixed by law
at four to seven years, the period varying somewhat with
the youthfulness of the servant.39 The variations in the
terms of service for negro servants appear to have been
greater than the variations for white servants. In 1651
" head rights " were allowed upon the importation of a
negro by the name of Richard Johnson.40 Only three years
later a patent calling for one hundred acres of land was
issued to this negro for importing two other persons.41
Hence, it appears that Richard Johnson came in as a free

36 It is evident from the census of 1624 that the negress Mary,
there enumerated, was not then the wife of Anthony; but granting
that Anthony and Mary Johnson were in Virginia thirty years be
fore 1652, it is not an unreasonable inference that the only negro
man named Anthony and the only negro woman named Mary in the
colony thirty years before 1652 were the negroes afterward called
Anthony and Mary Johnson.

ST MS. Land Patents of Virginia, 1643-1651, p. 326.

88 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1651-1654, P- 226;
1655-1658, p. 10 ; below, p. 32.

39 Hening, vol. i, pp. 257, 441.

40 MS. Land Patents of Virginia, 1643-1651, p. 326.

41 Ibid., 1652-1655, p. 294.

26 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

negro or remained in a condition of servitude for not more
than three years. A negro who came to Virginia about
1665 was bound to serve Mr. George Light for a period of
only five years.42 It appears from certain indentures to be
found on record that the term of service to which a negro
might be bound could be for almost any number of years.
In the following agreement, for example, the term was for
ten years : " Be it thought fitt & assented unto by Mr. Steph.
Charlton in Court that Jno. G. Hamander Negro, his ser
vant, shall from ye date hereof [1648] serve ye sd Mr.
Charlton (his heyers or assns.) until ye last days of No
vember wh shall be in ye year of our Lord . . . one thou
sand six hundred Fifty & eight and then ye sd Negro is to
bee a free man."43

As another example of the contracts of indented negro
servants the following extract from the Northampton County
court records of 1645 is quoted: —

This Indenture witnesseth yt I Capt. Francis Pott have taken to
service two Daughters of my negro Emanuell Dregis to serve & bee
to me my heyers Exors. Adms. or Assigns. The one whose name
is Elizabeth is to serve thirteene years whch will be compleat &
ended in ye first part of March in ye yeare of our Lord God one
thousand six hundred Fifty & eight. . . . And ye other child whose
name is Jane Dregis (being about one yeare old) is to serve ye
said Capt. Pott as aforesaid untill she arrive to ye age of thirty
years old wh will be compleate & ended . . . [May, 1674], And I ye
said Francis Pott doe promise to give them sufficient meate, drinke,
Apparel & Lodging and to use my best endeavor to bring them up
in ye feare of God and in ye knowledge of our Saviour Christ Jesus.
And I doe further testify yt the Eldest daughter was given to my
negro by one who brought her upp by ye space of eight years and
ye younger he bought and paid for to Capt. Robert Shephard (as
maye bee made appear). In witness whereof have hereunto sett
my hands & scale in ye 27th of May one thousand six hundred forty
& five.

MR. FRANCIS POTT.

Witness the names of Thorn. P. Powell & John Pott.*4

It appears from this record that one of the negro chil
dren was bound to serve for a period of thirteen years and
the other for a term of twenty-nine years. The latter

42 General Court Records, Robinson Transcripts, p. 161.

43 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1645-1651, P- 150.

44 Ibid., p. 82.

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS 2/

served, however, only seven years of her term ; for in 1652
her father purchased her release from the contract, and
upon payment was given the following receipt: "24, May
1652. This day Capt. Pott acknowledged yt hee hath reed
of Emanuell Driggs Negro satisfaction & full payment for
& in consideration of the present freedome of Jane Driggs
daughter of ye sd Emanuell Driggs, the sd girle beinge aged
about eight years."45

It is quite clear that the children of Emanuel Dregis or
Driggs became indented servants and not slaves for life,
but a question arises as to their status before this contract
was made. Emanuel Dregis may not have been regularly
married to the mother of these two daughters of his, and
the owner of their mother seems to have claimed some right
to dispose of them by gift and sale to their father. But
the status of Emanuel Dregis and his wife Frances is fairly
well explained in other records. In 1649 Dregis and his
wife Frances and one other negro called Bashasor were
assigned by Roger Booker to Stephen Charlton.46 Two
years later the following record was made concerning the
property rights of these negroes : —

Whereas Emanuel Driggs and Bashasar Farnando negroes now
servants unto Capt. Franc Pott have certain cattle, Hoggs & poultry
now in their possession ye wch they have honestly gotten and pur
chased in their service formerly under ye sd Capt. Pott & since
augmented and increased under the service of Capt. Steph. Charlton
now we, sd Pott & Charlton, doe hereby declare yt ye said cattle,
hoggs, & poultry (with their increase) are ye proper goods of the
above sd Negroes; and yt they may freely dispose of them either
in their life tyme or att their death. In witness our hands 3Oth
December 1652.

FRANCIS POTT."

The fact that these negroes had an absolute right to this
property, a right which was not destroyed by the death of
the property owner, is convincing that their status was higher
than the status of the slave, whose loss of liberty was abso
lute. Bills of sale recording the transfer of property to

45 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1651-1654, p. 82.

46 Ibid., p. 28.

47 Ibid., p. 114.

28 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

these negroes were recorded by the county court, which
shows that the negroes were regarded as capable of making
and enforcing a contract.48 It may be of some significance
in this connection to note that later in that century there
was a Dregis or Driggus family of free negroes living in
Northampton County.49

An instance very similar to the case of Emanuel Dregis
is found in the records of the general court of Virginia for
1640-1641. The example is of special importance because
there is very little specific information of earlier date con
cerning the condition of negroes. An order of the court
runs as follows : " It appeareth to the court that John Gea-
ween being a negro servant unto William Evans was per
mitted by his said master to keep hogs and make the best
benefit thereof to himself provided the said Evans might
have half the increase which was accordingly returned unto
him by the said negro and the other half reserved for his
own benefit."50 Geaween, like Dregis, accumulated prop
erty, and purchased from Lieutenant Robert Sheppard his
child's freedom ; by order of the court the child was de
clared to " be free from the said Evans," its father's master,
and "to be and remain at the disposing and education of the
said Geaween and the child's god-father," Robert Sheppard.

The status of negroes like John Geaween, Emanuel
Dregis, and Farnando fits precisely the description of servi
tude written in 1656 by John Hammond. :< There is no
master almost," says Hammond, "but will allow his Ser
vant a parcell of clear ground to plant some Tobacco in
for himself . . . which in time of shipping he may lay out
for commodities, and in Summer sell them again with ad
vantage, and get a Sow-Pig or two, which anybody almost

48 Bill of sale by Francis Pott to Emanuel Dregis of " a black
cow and a red calf" (MS. Court Records of Northampton County,
1645-1651, p. 83). In 1647 Tony Kongo, a negro, was compelled
in court to make good a debt, due Lewis White, amounting to three
hundred and eighty-two pounds of tobacco. By the order of the
court, he was allowed thirty days to guarantee payment out of "ye
next croppe " (ibid., p. 131).

49 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1689-1698, p. 463.

60 General Court Records, p. 30. Published in Virginia Magazine
of History, vol. xi, p. 281.

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS 2 9

will give him and his Master suffer him to keep them with
his own . . . and with one year's increase of them may
purchase a Cow-Calf or two and by that time he is for
himself."51

Upon the completion of a term of servitude negro ser
vants were sometimes granted a written discharge, as was
Francis Pryne in 1656. The court record of the discharge
of this man reads as follows : —

I Mrs. Jane Elkonhead . . . have hereunto sett my hand yt ye
aforesd Pryne [a negro] shall bee discharged from all hinder-
ances of servitude (his child) or any [thing] yt doth belong to ye
sd Pryne his estate.

JANE ELKONHEADE.62

The priority of the origin of the free negro class over the
origin of the slave class and the continuity of the free negro
class will appear as plainly when historical evidence of the
beginning of slavery is sought as when examples of negro
servitude are looked for. When the court records are ex
amined with a view to finding the earliest beginnings of
slavery, it appears that between 1640 and 1660 slavery was
fast becoming an established fact. In this twenty years the
colored population was divided, part being servants and part
being slaves, and some who were servants defended them
selves with increasing difficulty from the encroachments of
slavery.

In 1640 the general court53 rendered in a singular case a
judgment which is very instructive as to the earliest devel
opment of slavery. " Three servants " of Hugh Gwyn, to
wit, a Dutchman called Victor, a Scotchman named James
Gregory, and John Punch, a negro, having run away from
their master, were overtaken in Maryland and brought back
to Virginia to stand trial for their misbehavior. The ver
dict of the court was " that the said three servants shall

51 P. Force, Tracts and Other Papers, no. 14, p. 14. Cited as Force
Tracts.

52 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1654-1655, p. 100.

" The General Court so called because it trys the Causes of
the whole Country, is held twice a Year by the Governors and
Council as Judges at Jamestown; viz: in the Month of April and
October" (Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, The Present State of Vir
ginia, and the College, p. 44).

3O THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

receive the punishment of whipping and to have thirty
stripes apiece." Thus far there was no discrimination in
penalty, but the court went on to order that the Dutchman
and the Scotchman should " first serve out their times with
their master according to their Indentures and one whole
year apiece after the time of their service is expired ... in
recompence of his loss sustained by their absence," and that
then they should serve the colony for three years. But
"the third, being a negro . . . shall serve his said master
or his assigns for the time of his natural life."54 While
there is no mention of an indenture or contract in the case
of the negro, it must be remembered that not all white ser
vants had formal contracts. If John Punch was not merely
a servant with a future right to freedom, his punishment
was much less severe than that of his white accomplices.
If he was such a servant, his penalty was greater than the
penalties inflicted upon the white men. The most reason
able explanation seems to be that the Dutchman and the
Scotchman, being white, were given only four additional
years to their terms of indenture, while " the third, being
a negro," was reduced from his former condition of servi
tude for a limited time to a condition of slavery for life.55

54 General Court Records, pp. 9, 10. Printed in Virginia Magazine
of History, vol. v, p. 236.

55 A case which came up for trial before the general court at the
July session of 1640, three months later than the case above cited, in
dicates that some negroes were being held as slaves as early as 1640.
The record reads : " Six servants and a negro of Mr. Reginald's has
plotted to run away unto the Dutch plantation." In addition to
the fact that the negro is not here called a servant, the nature of the
penalties inflicted indicates that the negro was a slave. The " prime
agent " in the plot was a white man named Miller. His punishment
was to be thirty stripes, burning of the letter R on the cheek, the
wearing of shackles on his leg for one year, and seven years' service
to the colony when his term to his master should expire. The
punishments ordered for the other five white men were less severe,
but none of them escaped with less than two years' additional ser
vice. When the court came finally to the negro, he was given a
penalty exactly equal to that of the prime agent, except the addition
to his time of service. These facts indicate that the negro was a
slave " incapable of making satisfaction by addition of time," and
that such discriminations as were made because of his race or color
were made by inflicting upon him a severer corporal punishment than
his white fellow-conspirators received (General Court Records,
p. ii. Printed in Virginia Magazine of History, vol. v, p. 236).

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS 3!

Some time before 1644 Thomas Bushrod, assignee of Col
onel William Smith, sold a mulatto boy named Manuel " as
a slave for-Ever, but in September, 1644, the said servant
was by the Assembly adjudged no Slave and but to serve
as other Christian servants do and was freed in September,
i66"5."56 By " Christian servants " here is meant covenant
or indented servants. This case makes possible the state
ment that although some negroes were being treated as
slaves, others retained their right to freedom and were not
reduced to a state of slavery, not even by the statutes of
1661 and 1662 recognizing slavery. Another case in point
is that of a negro set free in 1665 by order of the general
court, " after serving seven years."57 A similar ruling of
this court in the same year was transcribed by Robinson
simply as "a judgment of a negro for his freedom."58

Even these cases decided in court favorably to individual
servants are no better evidence of the continuity of the free
negro class than they are of the encroachments which slavery
was making upon the freedom rights of negro servants. It
was estimated in 1649 tnat there were in Virginia at that
time three hundred Africans.59 A majority of this number
had been imported in the decade immediately preceding this
date, and it appears certain that the greater part of the
negroes brought in after 1640 were not permitted to realize
freedom. Most of them had no indentures or contracts,
and the difficulty with which such as had no contracts could
have defended any rights that they possessed under the laws
and customs may be inferred from the success with which
some who had indentures were reduced to perpetual servi
tude.

69 Journal of House of Burgesses, October, 1666, in Randolph MS.
in Virginia Historical Society, and printed in Virginia Magazine of
History, vol. xvii, p. 232.

67 General Court Records. Printed in Virginia Magazine of His
tory, vol. viii, p. 237.

58 General Court Records. Printed in Virginia Magazine of His
tory, vol. viii, p. 243.

59 " There are in Virginia about fifteen thousand English, and of
negroes brought thither, three hundred good servants " (A Perfect
Description of Virginia, printed for Richard Wodenoth, 1649. Re
printed in Virginia Historical Register, vol. ii, no. ii, p. 62).

32 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

A very instructive and interesting case in point is that of
John Casor,60 a negro of Northampton County, who came
to Virginia about 1640. Strange to relate, John Casor's
master was the negro Anthony Johnson, who, as we have
seen, came in before 1622, and who owned a large tract of
land on the Eastern Shore. According to the records made
of the case, John Casor set up the claim in 1653 "Yt hee
came unto Virginia for seaven or eight years of Indenture,
yt hee had demanded his freedom of Anth. Johnson his
Mayster; & further sd yt hee had kept him his serv[an]t
seaven years longer than hee should or ought." Casor ap
pealed to Captain Samuel Goldsmith to see that he was
accorded his rights. Goldsmith demanded of Johnson the
servant negro's indenture, and was told by Johnson that the
latter had never seen any indenture, and " yt hee had ye
Negro for his life." Casor stood firmly by his assertion
that when he came in he had an indenture, and Messrs.
Robert and George Parker confirmed his declaration, say
ing that "they knewe that ye sd Negro had an Indenture
in one Mr. [Sandys] hand, on ye other side of ye Baye &
... if the sd Anth. Johnson did not let ye negro go free
the said negro Jno. Casor would recover most of his Cows
from him ye sd Johnson " in compensation for service ren
dered which was not due. Whereupon Anthony Johnson
" was in a great f eare," and his " sonne in Law, his wife, &
his own two sonnes persuaded the old negro Anth. Johnson
to set the sd Jno. Casor free."

The case would be interesting enough and very instructive
if it had ended here, but the sequel is more interesting still.
Upon more mature deliberation Anthony Johnson deter
mined to make complaint in court61 "against Mr. Robert
Parker that hee detayneth one Jno. Casor a negro the plain
tiff's Serv[an]t under pretense yt the sd Jno. Casor is a free-

60 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1651-1654, p. 226;
1655-1658, p. 10. The spelling of the servant negro's name is not
quite clear. As it appears in some places in the records it looks
as if it might be Fasor.

61 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1651-1654, p. 226;
1655-1658, p. 10.

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS 33

man." His complaint was received, and the court, " se
riously considering & weighing ye premises," rendered the
following verdict, than which there are none stranger on
record: "The court . . . doe fynd that ye sd Mr. Robert
Parker most unrightly keepeth ye sd Negro John Casor
from his r[igh]t Mayster Anthony Johnson & ... Be it
therefore ye Judgment of ye court & ordered that ye sd Jno.
Casor negro shall forthwith return into ye service of his
sd Mayster Anthony Johnson and that the sd Mr. Robert
Parker make payment of all charges in the suite and ex
ecution."

This record is quoted at length because in itself it sup
ports a number of important propositions: (i) Before the
middle of the seventeenth century some negroes in the
colony were servants by indenture under the laws of servi
tude. (2) Some negro servants who had become freemen
owned indented negro servants. The act of 1670 forbidding
free negroes to own Christian servants but conceding them
the right to own servants of their own race62 is thus given
a concrete explanation. (3) By the middle of the century
it was with difficulty that an African immigrant escaped
being reduced to slavery. 'If by the aid of a county court
one negro could reduce to slavery another who unfortu
nately was unable to produce his indenture, this proceeding
taking place prior to any statute supporting slavery, it can
readily be seen how difficult it had become for negroes to
escape being made slaves for life by white masters into
whose hands they came.

It is noteworthy that all the records after the middle
of the century indicate that slavery was fast becoming the
rule. An entry upon the minutes of the general court in
1656 shows that a " Mulatto was held to be a slave and
appeal taken."63 Negro servants were sometimes compelled
by threats and browbeating to sign indentures for long terms
after they had served out their original terms. In 1675

M Hening, vol. ii, p. 280.

83 General Court Records. Printed in Virginia Magazine of His
tory, vol. viii, p. 163.

3

34 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

complaint was made by Philip Cowen, a negro, that Charles
Lucas, "not being willing that he should enjoy his freedom,
did with threats and a high hand and by confederacy with
some other persons " compel him to set his hand to a writ
ing which Lucas claimed was an indenture for twenty years,
and to acknowledge it in the county court of Warwick.6*

Fifteen years before the passage of the first act in the Vir
ginia slave code, white persons were making assignments of
negroes as slaves, and county courts were recording and
recognizing the validity of contracts involving the service
of negroes for life, and, in the case of female negroes, the
service of the female and her offspring. In 1646 Francis
Pott, preparing to return to England, sold to Stephen Charl-
ton a negro woman called Marchant and a negro boy called
Will, to be " to ye use of him ... his heyers etc. forever."65
A contract was made and recorded in Northampton County
in 1652 according to the terms of which William Whitting-
ton "bargained & sold unto Jno. Pott ... his heyers,
Exors. Adms. or Assigns one negro girle named Jowan,
aged about ten years, with her Issue and produce . . . and
their services forever."66

64 MS. in Virginia State Archives, at one time on exhibition in a
glass case; compare Calendar of Virginia State Papers, vol. i, p. 10.

The petitioner says that at the expiration of his term of service he
was entitled to " enjoy his freedom & be paid three barrels of corn
and a suit of clothes." This illustrates the statement of P. A.
Bruce that upon the close of the negro servant's term he was
entitled to the same quantity of clothing and corn as the white ser
vant (Economic History of Virginia, vol. ii, p. 53). The practice
is clearly stated in a petition made by a servant to the governor and
council in 1660 : " yor petins lately servid Henry Sprat of ye County
of Lower Norff. who icfuseth to pay him Corn and Cloths accord
ing to custome for wh ye petins obtained order of ye aforesaid
Court against ye sd Mr. Sprat & C" (Calendar of Virginia State
Papers, vol. i, p. 4. See also Hening, vol. iii, p. 451).

65 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1651-1654, p. 28.
Six years later the woman was living with Charlton, although dur
ing the six years since her sale by Francis Pott she had run away
from her new master to go and live with John Pott, and later left
his service to return to Charlton. She apparently exercised some
liberty in the choice of her master (MS. Court Records of North
ampton County, 1651-1654, p. 81).

66 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1651-1654, p. 124.
See also MS. Records of Lower Norfolk County, 1646-1651, p. 23,

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS 35

Some time before 1660 Jane Rookins and Henry Ran
dolph jointly purchased a negro woman called Maria, with
the understanding that she and her children should belong
to William Rookins and William Randolph and their heirs.
William Randolph died, and his father, Henry Randolph, by
deed gave to William Rookins all his right and title to the
negro woman and her children. A creditor of William
Randolph obtained an order against the estate of the de
ceased, and the Surry County court adjudged one half of
the negroes, the negroes being Maria and her children, to
belong to the estate of William Randolph.67

If further evidence is required to show that some negroes
were regarded and held as slaves between 1640 and the date
of the statutory sanction of slavery, it may be found in
inventories of estates of some persons who held negroes.
From the records of various counties it appears that negroes
for whose service no limit is mentioned are valued in in
ventories at £20 to £30 sterling, while white servants of the
longest terms of service receive a valuation of not more
than £15 sterling.68 In the journal of the House of Bur
gesses is recorded a petition of William Whittaker, an ex-
member of the House, that he might be reimbursed from
the public treasury for a loss incurred by an act of the
House which set free a negro for whom the petitioner had

for the deposition of Cornelius Loyd concerning " a little black
negro boy" and his mother. The boy was given as a present to
Thomas Silsey. See also Records of Northampton County, 1654-
1655, April, 1654, for record of sale " unto Henry Armsteadinger
one negro girle named patience to him . . . awid his heyers . . . for
ever with all her increase both male and female."

67 Petitions to the Governor and Council, in Virginia State Ar
chives ; also printed in Calendar of Virginia State Papers, vol. i,
PP- 2, 3.

68 MS. Court Records of York County, 1657-1662, p. 195, in Vir
ginia State Library. In 1668 two servants, one having four and a
half and the other three years to serve, were valued at £12 each, but
a negro woman whose term was not specified was valued at £27
(ibid., 1664-1672, p. 291, in Virginia State Library). In an inven
tory of the latter part of the century an Indian woman was valued
as follows: " I Indian Woman, if a slave for life £25" (MS. Court
Records of Elizabeth City County, 1684-1699, p. 223, in Virginia
State Library). Compare P. A. Bruce, Economic History, vol. ii,
PP- 51, 52.

36 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

paid £25 sterling, but from whom he had had only twenty-
one years of service. Hence it would seem that £25 was
regarded as a price too high for servants except those whose
terms were for life.

In the inventory of the estate of William Burdett, re
corded in 1643, Nehemia Freenton, aged twenty-two years,
having eight years to serve, was rated at a thousand pounds
of tobacco, while " Caine the negro boy, very Obedient/'
was rated at three thousand pounds of tobacco. Edward
Southers, "a. little Boy having seaven years to serve," was
valued at seven hundred pounds of tobacco, while " one
negro girle about 8 years old " was put down at two thou
sand pounds.69 The inventory of Major Peter Walker's es
tate, recorded in 1655, shows that two good men servants
having four years to serve were worth thirteen hundred
pounds of tobacco each, and that a woman servant having
two years to serve was worth eight hundred pounds of to
bacco. Two negro boys with no term limit specified were
rated at forty-one hundred pounds of tobacco each, and a
negro girl was rated at fifty-five hundred pounds.70 The
valuation put upon the servants of Thomas Ludlowe of
York County in 1660 reveals the fact that a white boy, a
"seasoned hand," with six years to serve, was worth less
than an old negro man and just half as much as Jugg, a
negro woman.71 The only reasonable explanation of the
wide difference in the valuation of white servants having
long terms of service and negroes whose terms of service
were not specified is that the negroes were servants to whose
service no limit was set, that is, slaves.

Thus it appears that before legislation affected in any way
the development of slavery the institution had grown up,
and without doubt included within its scope a large part of
the African immigrants who arrived after 1640. Be it re
membered, however, that the legislative recognition and

09 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1640-1645, p. 225.
70 Ibid., 1654-1655, p. no.

T1MS. Court Records of York County, 1657-1662, pp. 275, 278,
in Virginia State Library.

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS 37

sanction so abundantly given to slavery between 1660 and
1670 did not broaden the institution to include all Africans.
The first slave laws reduced to a status of slavery no free
negroes or negroes who were servants by covenant or con
tract. On the contrary, these first laws dealing with the
status of the Africans in Virginia recognized the free negro
as amply as they did the slave. The first one of these acts,
passed in 1662, provided that the status of offspring should
follow the status of the mother.72 Far from reducing free
negroes to slavery, this act provided for the perpetuation
of the free negro population in the provision which, as ap
plied to this class of persons, guaranteed to free colored
females the right to extend their free status to their off
spring. The act of 1668 dealing with the condition of the
colored population related solely to the tax obligations of a
free negro woman,73 and two years later an act guaranteed
to "negroes manumitted or otherwise free" the right to
own servants of their own race, and expressly denied to
them the right to purchase or to own white or " Christian "
servants.74 Here again we see in the first laws which rec
ognized and sanctioned slavery a guaranty of the continuity
of the free negro class.

Proof of the persistence of a free negro population, how
ever, is not confined to inference from statutes. The county
court and church records continue without a break the
record of the free and servant negro through the period
when slavery was given the legislative sanction. In Decem
ber, 1656, Benjamin Doyle, a negro, was granted a patent
for three hundred acres of land in Surry County, " due
... by and for the transportation of six persons into the
colony."75 In addition to the free negro landowners of
Accomac County already mentioned, the records specify a
few others. In 1651 John Johnson, a negro, received as
head rights for the importation of eleven persons a tract of

73 Hening, vol. ii, p. 170.
X " Ibid., vol. ii, p. 267.

74 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 280.

75 MS. Land Patents, 1655-1664, pp. 71, 72.

38 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

five hundred and fifty acres adjoining the tract granted to
Richard Johnson.78 There is also a record of a grant in
1651 of fifty acres to John Johnson, sr.77 A few years later
John Johnson, a negro, entered suit against John Johnson, sr.,
to recover four hundred and fifty acres of land.78 Certainly
this land owned by free negroes remained, for many years
at least, in their possession or in the possession of their de
scendants.79 In 1667 Emanuel Cambew, a negro, received
a grant of fifty acres in James City County.80 The next
year a deed calling for fifty acres was executed by Robert
Jones, a tailor of Queen's Creek, to " John Harris negro his
heyers, Executrs, Admtrs, & Assigns forever."81 Some
time after 1676 a lease of two hundred acres for a period
of ninety-nine years was issued by John Parker to Philip
Morgan, a negro.82 In one instance at least a negro ser
vant became the overseer of his master's servants. Beverly
defines an overseer as " a man who having served his time
has acquired Skill and Character of an experienced Planter
and is, therefore, intrusted with the Direction of the Ser
vants and Slaves."83 In 1669 Hannah Warwick, probably
a white servant, on trial before the general court, produced
in extenuation of her case convincing evidence that her
overseer was a negro.84 In 1673 a judgment was rendered
by the general court against Mr. George Light, who had
unlawfully detained in servitude beyond his contract term
of five years a negro indented servant. It was ordered that

78 MS. Land Patents, 1652-1655, p. 101.

7T MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1651-1654, pp.
17, 18.

78 Ibid., p. 200.

79 J. C. Wise, Ye Kingdome of Accawmacke, p. 285.

80 MS. Land Patents, no. 6, p. 39.

81 MS. Court Records of York County, 1664-1672, p. 327, in Vir
ginia State Library.

82 MS. Court Records of Accomac County, 1676-1690, p. 185,
quoted in P. A. Bruce, Economic History, vol. ii, p. 127 n. See MS.
Records of Northampton County, 1683-1689, p. 258, for a judgment
against the estate of a mulatto.

83 Book iv, p. 37; compare P. A. Bruce, Economic History, vol. ii,
p. 18.

84 General Court Records. Printed in Virginia Magazine of His
tory, vol. viii, p. 163.

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS 39

the negro should " be free from his said master and that the
said Mr. Light pay him Corne and Clothes according to the
Custome of the Country and four hundred pounds tobac &
Caske for his service Done him since he was free and pay
costs."85

The upper limit of the period in which it was possible for
negroes to come to Virginia as servants and to acquire free
dom after a limited term is the year 1682. A law of 1670
was intended to enslave all negroes brought in after its
enactment, but in practice it permitted a few to escape.
In 1678 two men of African blood were sold for terms of
seven years by inhabitants of Boston to residents of Vir
ginia.86 Under the provisions of the law of 1670 "all ser
vants not being Christians imported into this colony by ship
ping" were to be slaves for their lives, but such servants
as came by land were to "serve, if boys and girls until
thirty years of age, if men or women, twelve years and no
longer."87 After this act had been in force twelve years,
the preamble of a new act asserted that "many negroes,
Moors, mulattoes and others " born in a heathen country
and of heathen parents had, before coming to Virginia, been
converted to the Christian faith, and that such persons,
when sold in Virginia, had to be sold as servants for a lim
ited term. Hence an act was passed repealing the law of
1670 and making slaves of all persons of non-Christian
nationalities thereafter coming into the colony, whether
they came by sea or land and whether or not they had been
converted to Christianity after capture.88

After the enactment of this law the free negro population

S5 General Court Records, p. 161.

89 Bill of Sale: "I, John Indicott, cooper, Inhabitant of Boston
in New England, have sold unto Richard Medlicott A Spanish
Mulatto, by name Antonio. I having full power to sell him for his
life time. But at the request of William Taylor, I doe sell him
But for seven years from the day that he shall Disembark in Vir
ginia " (MS. Court Records of Middlesex County, Virginia, March
5, 1677-1678. See also ibid., May 18, 1678. Cited in William and
Mary College Quarterly, vol. vi, p. 117).

T Hening, vol. ii, p. 283.

88 Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 490, 491.

4O THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

in Virginia received from imported negroes no more re
cruits of which we have any record until after the non
importation act of I778.89 By 1662 other means of growth
had been opened up to this class. For the next two hun
dred years the free colored population was increased by five
classes of colored persons springing from the population
already existing. The classes may be enumerated as
follows : —

(1) Children born of free colored parents. The rule of
partus sequitur ventrem was applied consistently from 1662
to 1865, and natural increase or procreation was throughout
this period an important factor in the growth of the free
negro population.

(2) Mulatto children born of free colored mothers.

(3) Mulatto children born of white servant or free
women.

The most numerous class of the mulattoes was of slave-
women parentage, but such children were slaves. Both
classes of free mulattoes were the product of illegitimacy,
since the laws prohibited the intermarriage of whites and
negroes, bond or free.90 Under the provisions of the law
of 1691 free mulatto bastards were bound by the church
wardens as apprentices to responsible white persons for
a term ending upon their attaining the age of thirty years.91
In the revision of this act in 1705 one year was added to
the period of apprenticeship.92 By 1774 this long-term
apprenticeship had come to be regarded as bearing "an
unreasonable severity toward such children," and it was
shortened to twenty-one years for males and eighteen years
for females.93 After the disestablishment of the Anglican

89 The last clause of the act of this date for preventing the further
importation of slaves into Virginia declared: "That every slave
imported into this commonwealth, contrary to the true intent and
meaning of this act, shall upon importation become free" (Hening,
vol. ix, p. 471; vol. xii, p. 182). Under the operation of this pro
vision a few negroes occasionally recovered their freedom (5 Call,
425; MS. Petitions, A 2880, A 2882).

80 Hening, vol. iii, p. 87.

91 Ibid.

92 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 453-

93 Ibid., vol. viii, pp. 134, 135-

ORIGIN OF THE FREE NEGRO CLASS 4!

church in 1785 this class of persons were bound out by the
overseers of the poor as they had been previously by the
church wardens.94

(4) Children of free negro and Indian mixed parentage.
If such children had no visible means of support, they were
bound out as apprentices, just as were free mulatto children.
The offspring of all colored apprentices born during the
apprenticeship became, by the mere force of the law, ap
prentices to the masters of their mothers on terms similar
to those under which the mothers were bound.95 All col
ored apprentices were counted with the free colored popu
lation even during their apprenticeship.

(5) Manumitted slaves. Manumission was the most im
portant of all the methods by which the free colored popula
tion was increased in numbers. In an act of 1670 occurred
the words " negroes manumitted and otherwise free." Hav
ing considered in this chapter the "otherwise free," the
following chapter will be devoted to those who were
manumitted.

M Hening, vol. xii, pp. 27, 28.

95Gwinn v. Bugg, Jefferson's Reports, 87 (1769); Howell v.
Netherland, Jefferson's Reports, 90 (1770).

CHAPTER III
MANUMISSION

Manumission is the term which may be applied to all the
various processes by which negroes in Virginia were taken
from a condition of slavery and legally raised to a status
of freedom, saving only that act of the nation by which
slavery was abolished in all the States and to which is prop
erly applied the term emancipation.1 There are three gen
eral methods by which slaves in Virginia were manumitted
or legally set free during the life of the institution of slav
ery: (i) by an act of the legislature, (2) by last will and
testament, and (3) by deed. A still more general classifica
tion recognizes only two kinds of manumission — public and
private, the first of the three methods above being classed
as public manumission and the last two of the three bearing
the name of private manumission.

According to strict legal theory and the conception of
slavery maintained by the courts in Virginia in the nine
teenth century, there were no private manumissions. A so-
called private manumission, that is, a manumission by will
or deed, was not in fact the act of the slave-owner, but was
" the conjoint act of the law and the master."2 " The ques
tion of emancipation," said the Virginia supreme court of
appeals in 1830, " is a question of statutory law and can only
be resolved by referring to the terms of the statute."3 In
theory, a master who freed a slave exercised a power dele-

1 Emancipation in Virginia came as a result of the Civil War,
and was an accomplished fact at its close in the spring of 1865.
Emancipation was formally accepted by the General Assembly in
a joint resolution of February 6, 1866 (Acts of the General Assem
bly of Virginia, 1865-1866, p. 449, cited as Acts; Richmond Whig,
August n, 1865; J. P. McConnell, Negroes and their Treatment in
Virginia from 1865 to 1867, P- I]0-

2 Wood v. Humphreys, 12 Grattan, 333 (1855).

3 Thrift v. Hannah, 2 Leigh, 319.

42

MANUMISSION 43

gated to him by statute. To regulate or determine the status
of individuals was a sovereign power. By manumission,
individuals who were " in truth civiliter mortuus"* and who
had the character of property rather than of persons were
raised to life and personality within the State and accorded
civil rights and civil liberty. The power to do this was of
such a high and sovereign character that not even the legis
lature could exercise it except by delegation from the con
stituent legislative authority. Indeed, a practical applica
tion was made of the theory in 1849, when the constitutional
convention expressly denied to the General Assembly the
power to manumit a slave.5

Viewing slavery as a legal status imposed upon persons
by the laws, it is not surprising that the colonial legislature,
which enacted the first slave laws and freely imposed the
slave status upon certain persons, should assume that it had
the power to set slaves free. The first use in Virginia of
the legislative power to break the bonds of a slave was made
in 1710. A negro slave named Will had been " signally
serviceable in discovering a conspiracy of divers Negroes
for levying war in this colony," and in recognition and re
ward of this public service an act was passed conferring
freedom upon him.6 However, it was never the policy of
the colonial legislature to exercise its power to manumit
slaves except for some such special service or merit as that
for which the slave Will received his freedom. In 1723 it
delegated to the governor and the council the power to pass
upon the merit of any claims to freedom based upon meri
torious service performed by a slave.7 But upon an occa
sion which arose out of circumstances connected with the
Revolutionary War the legislature deemed it expedient to
resume the exercise of its right to pass a private act of

* Peter v. Hargrave, 5 Grattan, 12.

5 Constitution of Virginia, 1851, sections 19, 20, 21; Journal, Acts,
and Proceedings of a General Convention, 1850, appendix, p. 8.

" The said Negro Will is and shall be forever hereafter free from
his slavery . . . and shall enjoy and have all the liberties, privileges,
and immunities of or to a free negro belonging" (Hening, vol. iii,
P- 536).

7 Hening, vol. iv, p. 132.

44 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

manumission. The circumstances were that while Lord
Dunmore, the royal governor, who had deserted his office
and fled the province, was absent from the seat of govern
ment, application was made for permission to manumit the
slaves of John Barr, of Northumberland County, who had
in his will expressed the desire that they should be free. In
the absence of His Excellency the consent of the governor
and the council obviously could not be obtained. Fortu
nately for the petitioners, the Assembly considered that the
peculiar circumstances justified a special legislative dispen
sation. An act was passed confirming Barr's will, but spec
ifying that the act should establish no precedent except in
cases exactly similar.8

The act did, however, become a precedent in one respect,
namely, as to the location of the power to pass upon appli
cations for permission to manumit slaves. The Assembly
continued to perform the function, previously exercised by
the council, of receiving and passing upon the merit of ap
plications. " Application having been made" in 1779, a
special act of the legislature was passed manumitting three
slaves, — John Hope, a mulatto named William Beck, and
Pegg.9 Upon similar application made in 1780 the legisla
ture set free Ned, the property of Henry Delony, and Kate,
who belonged to Benjamin Bilberry.10

As indicative of the policy of the legislature with refer
ence to the use of this power of freeing persons from slav
ery, as well as in illustration of the form of such acts, we
quote from the laws the following specimen of acts of
manumission : —

An act for the manumission of a certain Slave.

WHEREAS a negro man slave named Kitt the property of Hinchia
Mabry, of the County of Brunswick, hath lately rendered meritori
ous service in this commonwealth, in making the first information
and discovery against several persons concerned in counterfeiting
money, whereby so dangerous a confederacy has been in some meas
ure broken, and some of the offenders have been discovered and

8 Hening, vol. ix, p. 320.

9 Ibid., vol. x, p. 211.

10 Ibid., vol. x, p. 372.

MANUMISSION 45

brought to trial; and it is judged expedient to manumit him for
such service; Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That
the said Kitt be, and is hereby declared to be emancipated and set
free ; any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding."

From the Revolutionary War onward a more extensive
and general use was made of this form of manumission than
merely to reward acts of public service. The legislature be
came a sort of court of equity for granting relief to masters
who were confronted with legal or other difficulties in free
ing their slaves as well as for extending mercy to slaves of
a deserving or piteous character.12 In more than one in
stance special legislative acts were obtained to give legal
validity to wills of manumission recorded before the act of
1782 authorizing this procedure.13 Hundreds of colored
petitioners sought special acts that they might not be de
prived of freedom because of mistake or oversight or fraud
in the execution of a will or of an expressed intention of a
master to set them free.1* Among the acts of a private
nature passed in the period of the Commonwealth down to
about 1825 are to be found a large number of acts setting
slaves free or granting such as were already liberated a
legal right to reside in the State.15

The method of manumission by an act of the legislature
is not the method the genesis of which requires the more
detailed explanation. The colonial House of Burgesses, the
sovereign legislative body in Virginia, inferred from its
right to make, its right to unmake, a slave. But what was

"Hening, vol. x, p. 115 (1779). It was further enacted that the
treasurer of the Commonwealth " pay to Hinchia Mabry . . . the
sum of one thousand pounds [of tobacco] out of the publick treas
ury, as a full compensation for the said slave." In all cases where
the special act of manumission was in reward of a public service,
provision was made for compensating the owner of the slave for his
loss. Cf. Hening, vol. iii, p. 619; vol. xi, p. 309.

13 See, for example, an act of 1792 manumitting Rosetta Hailstock
and her three children, who had been barred from freedom by a
legal technicality (Hening, vol. viii, p. 618). See also ibid., vol. xi,
P- 363.

* Hening, vol. xii, pp. 611-613; vol. xiii, p. 619.

" For example, see MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1818, A 9290.

"Acts of a private character, 1811-1812, p. 131; 1813-1814, p. 153;
1814-1815, p. 151. The private acts of almost any year within the
above-named period will afford examples.

46 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

the origin of the right of an individual slave-owner to be
stow civil rights and civil liberties upon a slave, which in
the eyes of the law was a thing? Manumission by a will
or a deed cannot be regarded as merely a transfer of the
property rights in the slave from the master to the slave,
because in the eyes of the law there existed " no right in the
slave to acquire property."16 " Manumission," said Judge
Tucker, " is not strictly speaking a gift of property. It is
the exoneration of a human being from the bonds which
our institutions have fastened upon him."17

Now, the first law which could be construed as delegating
to or conferring upon slave-owners any right to make free
men of their slaves was enacted in 1691, 18 but it appears
from the records of the county courts that manumissions
had been taking place several decades before this act was
passed. In fact, the act itself, which was a rigid restriction
upon the right of private manumission, shows that the act
did not originate the right. The first wills of manumission
in the colony were made and recorded not only prior to the
statute of 1691, but also in advance of any statute in regard
to slavery. To reconcile these facts with the nineteenth
century theory of manumission, Judge Brooks, speaking
for the court in Thrift v. Hannah, said, "Although it had
been the practice of owners of slaves to emancipate their
slaves before the act of 1691, that practice gave no perfect
right to owners, of their own will to emancipate their
slaves."19

The origin of that practice has its explanation in the close
relations of indented servitude and slavery in the seven
teenth century. Before slavery as an institution had fully
diverged from indented servitude it borrowed from that
system the practice of manumission by individual masters.
Under the system of indented servitude the time or term
of service for which a servant was bound was, though the

19 Ruddle's Executors v. Ben, 10 Leigh, 480 (1839).
"Parks v. Hewlett, 9 Leigh, 511 (1838).

18 Hening, vol. iii, p. 87.

19 2 Leigh, 319. See also argument of council in Phoebe et al. v.
Boggess, i Grattan, 129 (1844).

MANUMISSION 47

servant himself was not, regarded as property. The unex-
pired time of a servant could be alienated, like other prop
erty, by gift, sale, or bequest.20 The servant, unlike the
slave of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, was capa
ble of contracting and of holding property. If the master
of a servant chose to sell or make a gift of the servant's
unexpired time to the servant himself, the servant was
capable of receiving the same and would thereafter owe
service to no man. For example, the will of Samuel
Thacker, of Essex County, contained this item : " I give
unto my servant, John Glary, one year of his time."21 It
has been noted in the chapter on negro servitude that evi
dence of the discharge of a negro servant was sometimes
recorded in a written instrument. Now, in the seventeenth
century the processes by which masters set negroes free,
whether they were servants for a time or for life, were more
like discharges from servitude than manumissions from
slavery.

In 1655 Richard Vaughan, of Northampton County, had
recorded by the county court the following declaration re
specting one of his negroes : " These testify that Mr. Rich
Vaughan doe hereby acquitt & discharge one negro Boye
known by the name of James from all Claymes or Demands
of service for myself, heyers, Exors., Adms. provided the
negro do not covenant with any person but shall keepe him-
selfe free."22

Two years later Anne Barnhouse, of York County, exe
cuted an instrument of writing which in form was quite
similar to the deeds of manumission of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. It reads as follows : " Mihill Gowen

20 As an example of the transfer of the time of servants by be
quest, note the following will, of date 1657 : " I Francis Jones Wid-
dow of ye county of York Doe freely give unto my Loving Sonne
Francis Townshend these servants and cattle . . . Five Servants &
one child their names John Reeves, John Keech, Richard Poutry,
John Swillinante & one negro woman named sarah and his child
Francis two years old" (MS. Court Records of York County,
1657-1662, p. 88. Compare Ballagh, White Servitude, pp. 43, 44).

a Essex County Records, 1713, abstracts printed in Virginia Mag
azine of History, vol. xviii, p. 329.

22 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1655-1658, p. 3.

48 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

negro late servant of my brother Xopher Stafford Deced^
. . . had his Freedome given him by his last will & Testa
ment — 1654 — after expiration of four years service unto
my Uncle Robert Stafford therefore know that I absolutely
quitt & discharge the said Mihill Gowen from any service
and forever set him free."23

In a similar writing of the same date Anne Barnhouse
assigned as a gift to Mihill Gowen a child of his, born of a
negro woman belonging to Anne Barnhouse during Gowen's
four-year term of service. The writing binds Anne Barn-
house "never to trouble or molest the said Mihill Gowen
or his said son William or demand any service of Mihill or
his son."24 Even if the negroes discharged by these legal
instruments were slaves prior to their discharge, it is per
fectly clear that the conception which their owners had of
slavery was not such as prevailed at a later time. A slave,
in the seventeenth century conception, was merely a person
serving for life. If such slave, who was then regarded as
a person and not as a thing (as he later came to be), were
discharged and given a pledge by his master that no further
service would be demanded, he went as a free man, just as
did a servant freed at the expiration of a period of contract
servitude. In the nineteenth century the gift or assignment
of a slave child to its free father, as in the case of the gift
by Anne Barnhouse of the child William to its father, would
have rendered the child a slave to its father ; but in the sev
enteenth century the result of such a process was the com
plete freedom of the child.

Not only in such of these early writings as took the form
of deeds of manumission, but also in the earliest recorded
wills bequeathing freedom we see the analogy between man
umission as first practiced and the discharge from servitude
of indented servants. As was shown in a former chapter,
it was the custom and later the law of indented servitude
that the servant, white or colored, receive from his master

23 MS. Court Records of York County, 1657-1662, p. 45, in Vir
ginia State Library.

24 Ibid.

MANUMISSION 49

at the time of his discharge from servitude a certain amount
of property called " freedom dues."25 Nearly all of the
seventeenth century wills of manumission contained grants
of property to the liberated negroes. The earliest of which
we have any record is that of Richard Vaughan, written in
1645 and recorded in 1656, making bequests of a consider
able amount of property to each negro set free.26 In 1657
Nicholas Martin, of York County, left a will setting free
two negroes, and providing that "each of them have . . .
one Cow and Three Barrells of Corne Clothes & Nayles to
build them a house."27 Thomas Whitehead of the same
county died about 1660, leaving a will which shows that the
testator believed that he was merely releasing his negro
from further obligations of service or simply shortening a
servant's term. The item of the will giving to the negro the
right which the testator had had to his service reads : " I
sett my negro free ... he shall be his own man from any
person or persons whatsoever."

This negro was considered by his master as having the

26 See above, p. 34 n.

" The last will and testament of Mr. Richard Vaughan planter
in Ocohamocke, in Accomacke. . . .

"And for my old Negro woman (after my decease) to remayne
with her Dame, till her Dames decease; and then bee free; and to
receive twoe Cowes wth calfe (or calves by their side) two suits
of clothes, a bedd & a Rugge, a chest & a pott with foure Barrells
of Corne & a younge breedinge Sowe; Likewise my Negro girle
Temperance (after my decease) to bee possessed of two Cowes and
to have their increase male and female ; and she to remayne with
her Dame ... to be brought up in the Fear of God & to be taught
to read & make her owne clothes, and after her Dames decease
[and when] she come to twenty yeares of age ... to receive two
cows with calves (or calves by their side) Two good suits of clothes,
a good Bedd & Bowlster & a Rugg & two Blanketts & a pott and
one great Brass Kettle with Four Barrells of corne & a younge
breeding sowe."

The rest of the negroes, three in number, were provided for in
a similar way, and then there was appended the clause " that ye
three Negro girls be possessed of the plantacon of Jno Walthome
beinge to this plantacon some hundred & forty & four acres of land;
and he to build them a Home twenty-five feete in length and
twenty feete broad, with one chimney" (MS. Court Records of
Northampton County, 1654-1655, pp. 102, 103).

27 MS. Court Records of York County, 1633-1694, p. 108, in Vir
ginia State Library.

5O THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1661-1865

capacity to receive the property rights in the negro's time
and also certain of the master's personal effects ; for other
items of the will provided as follows : " I give my negro
man named John all my wearing clothes, my shirts & hatts
& shoes and stockings and all that I used to weare. I give
unto my negro named John Two Cows One called gentle
and the other a black heifer & I give him house & ground
to plant upon as much as he shall tend himselfe & peaceably
to enjoy it his life time without trouble." A short time
after this will was recorded the county court of York de
cided that the instrument had the effect of making the negro
a free man, and that he was legally entitled to come into
possession of the property bequeathed to him by his master.28
All the instances of manumissions by individual masters
above cited occurred before the institution of slavery had
reached the legislative phase of its development. The first
slavery legislation, in 1662, in no way interrupted the prac
tice of manumission. Whether the frequency of private
manumissions in the seventeenth century was a result more
of a strong body of sentiment favorable to freedom than
of an imperfect, immature development of the system of
slavery is a question that may not be answered with cer
tainty. Probably the freedom of some negroes was due to
the one and the freedom of others due to the other of these
conditions, but the evidence points clearly to the fact that
up to 1691 the class of " negroes manumitted " was becom
ing noticeably larger. The tax obligations of this class
formed a subject of legislation in i67O.29 In 1684 John
Farrar, of Henrico County, wrote in his will the following
item : " I give unto my negroe Jack his freedom after Christ
mas day next & in ye meantime he continue on my plantation
& use his endeavors with the rest of my hands to make a
Cropp."30 Daniell Parke, of York County, in 1687, " con
sidering the time and ffaithful Service" of one of his ne-

28 MS. Court Records of York County, 1657-1662, p. 217, in Vir
ginia State Library.

29 Hening, vol. ii, p. 280.

30 MS. Court Records of Henrico County, 1677-1692, p. 299, in
Virginia State Library.

MANUMISSION 5 1

groes, willed that he should be free at the time of the tes
tator's death, and should have an annual allowance of
provisions.31 The will of Nathaniel Bacon, sr., in 1691,
bequeathed to " Molatto Kate her freedome, Itt being
formerly promised by my deceased wife."32 The will of
John Carter, proved in Lancaster, June n, 1690, gave free
dom to " several negroes."33

By the year 1690 the free negro class had become an object
of suspicion and fear. The increasing frequency of manu
missions created apprehensions as to the consequences of
allowing the practice to continue, and restrictive legislation
was deemed expedient. The preamble of the restrictive act,
which was passed in 1691, declared a law to be necessary
to prevent manumissions, because " great inconvenience may
happen to this country by setting of negroes and mulattoes
free by their either entertaining negro slaves or receiving
stolen goods or being grown old bringing a charge upon the
country.''34 Under the provisions of this act no negro or
mulatto was to be set free unless the person so doing should
pay the charges for transporting the manumitted negro be
yond the limits of the colony. Thus was devised a scheme
which would offer three obstacles to the increase of the free
negro class: A charge of transportation would restrain the
master; the prospect of banishment would restrain the de
sire of the slave to be free. Should both of these restraints
fail in any case, removal would prevent addition to the free
colored class.35

31 The will bound the executors to " allow unto the said negro
fifteene Bushells of Clean shilled Corne and fifty pounds of dryed
beif to be delivered him annually as long as hee shall live. Also
one Kersey Coat and Britches, two pair of yarne stockings two
white or blew shirts one pair of blew drawers an Axe a Hoe and to
pay his leavies " (MS. Court Records of York County, 1687-1691,
p. 278, in Virginia State Library).

32 MS. Court Records of York County, 1690-1694, p. 154, in Vir
ginia State Library.

33 Virginia Magazine of History, vol. xi, p. 237.
M Hening, vol. iii, p. 87.

85 Under the provisions of this law Richard Trother, of York
County, near the close of the century made his will which reads :
" I will that old negro Peter and negro Tom have their true and

52 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

The conduct of the legislature in 1710 in manumitting by
special act a negro slave might appear to be inconsistent
with the restrictive policy begun in 1691, unless the legis
lative purpose in both instances be kept in view. The
policy of the colonial legislature, begun in 1710, of reward
ing with freedom any acts of special merit in slaves was no
indication of the growth of freedom sentiment. Its real
intent was a more perfect disciplining of negroes in slavery.
Freedom in the case of the negro Will was awarded as an
example to discourage in slaves that which most free ne
groes were suspected of encouraging, namely, insubordina
tion and any disposition to plot mischief. Danger from con
spiring and plotting negroes was the common object at
which both laws were designed to strike.

Notwithstanding the effort made to prevent servile insur
rection, new conspiracies were discovered within the next
dozen years, and the fears of the people were again much
aroused. " Tumultuous and unlawful meetings," " secret
plots and conspiracies carried on among" all classes of ne
groes, " dangerous combinations," the exchange of advice
" to rebel and make insurrection," brought the colonial leg
islature to declare existing laws " insufficient."36 The free
negroes, suspected and accused upon every occasion of an
outbreak, became in this instance the objects of restrictive
legislation. By an act passed in 1723 they were forbidden
to visit or meet with slaves and to carry or own a firelock.37
They were deprived of the right to vote at elections and dis
criminated against in the levying of taxes ;38 but still, de
spairing of success in restraining the free negro by drastic
police measures, the legislature determined to prohibit en
tirely manumission by individual slave-owners. In 1723
an act was passed which declared that under no pretense

perfect liberty and freedome six days after my wife's decease and
15 pounds sterling money to be paid apiece for their transporta
tion" (MS. Court Records of York County, 1694-1/02, p. 194, in
Virginia State Library).
39 Hening, vol. iv, p. 126.

37 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 131.

38 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 133.

MANUMISSION 53

whatsoever could a master, without the license of the gov
ernor and the council, manumit a slave.30 Moreover, " meri
torious service " was made the sole ground upon which per
mission might be obtained for setting free a slave.40 If
this law prohibiting manumission were violated, it became
the duty of the churchwardens of the parish in which the
violation occurred to apprehend and sell the negro "by
public outcry," and to apply the receipts to the use of the
vestry.

From this time till near the end of the colonial period, or,
in other words, for nearly half a century, the policy of pro
hibiting voluntary manumission met with little opposition.41
The provisions of 1723 were reenacted in 1748 with no
alterations that indicate a desire to allow to the free negro
class wider liberty or possibility of increase.42 Under the
enforced prohibitions of these laws, manumissions were few
and widely separated.43 The " meritorious service " for
which a slave could expect to be rewarded with freedom
was something more than faithfulness of service. In 1729
the discovery by a slave of an herb medicine by which won
derful cures could be effected merited favorable action by
the governor and the council.44 Rev. Charles Greene de-

^Hening, vol. iv, p. 132.

40 Cf. J. B. Minor, Institutes of Common and Statute Law, vol.
i, p. 167.

41 That " the manumission of slaves was never popular in the
colony" was the opinion of a writer so careful of statement as
H. B. Grigsby (Collections of the Virginia Historical Society, vol.
x, p. 133- Cited as Virginia Historical Collections).

42 Hen ing, vol. vi, p. 112.

" The number of manumissions under such restrictions must
necessarily have been very few" (St. G. Tucker, A Dissertation on
Slavery, ed. 1796, p. 71).

44 Governor Gooch asserted in a letter to the Board of Trade that
he had " met with a negro, a very old man who has performed many
wonderful cures of diseases. For the sake of his freedom he has
revealed the medicine, a concoction of roots and barks. . . .
There is no room to doubt of its being a certain remedy here & of
singular use among the negroes — it is well worth the price (£60) of
the negro's freedom since it is now known how to cure slaves with
out mercury" (Sainsbury Transcripts from the British Public
Record Office, vol. ix, p. 462).

54 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

sired to manumit his slave woman, Sarah, in 1767, but under
the laws in force he could not carry out his desire.45

Up to 1763, the date of the close of the struggle between
the English and the French colonies in America, wars and
troubles with the Indians had occupied so much of the at
tention of the people that there was little opportunity for the
growth of an enlightened sentiment favorable to freedom
for the negroes, whose labor was proving so valuable in the
development of the resources of the colony. Jefferson once
wrote that at the time when our controversy with England
was still " on paper only, few minds had yet doubted but
they [the negroes] were as legitimate subjects of property
as their horses or cattle."46 Andrew Burnaby, travelling in
Virginia from 1759 to 1760, asserted that "their [the peo
ple's] ignorance of mankind and of learning exposes them
to many errors and prejudices, especially in regard to In
dians and Negroes, whom they scarcely consider of the
human species."47

This statement was written at about as late a date as it
could have been truthfully made, for the principles of the
rights of man and freedom by nature could not effect a revo
lution against foreign oppression and not ameliorate the
hard situation of Virginia's black population. An article
in the Virginia Gazette in 1767 began with the following sig
nificant words, " Long and serious reflections upon the na
ture and consequences of slavery," and went on to say that
"now, as freedom is unquestionably the birth-right of all
mankind, Africans as well as Europeans, to keep the former
in a state of slavery is a constant violation of the right and

45 MS. Petitions, Fairfax County, 1785, A 5460.

48 To Edward Coles, August 25, 1814, in H. S. Randall, Life of
Thomas Jefferson, vol. iii, p. 643. W. Goodell erroneously used this
sentence from Jefferson's letter to describe the condition or state
of sentiment in Virginia at the time the letter was written (The
American Slave Code in Theory and Practice, p. 48). The time of
which Jefferson was writing was when he " came into public life "
before the war with England. The statement would not have been
true had it been made with reference to conditions in 1814.

*T Travels through the Middle Settlements of North America, p. 54,

MANUMISSION 55

therefore justice."48 Two years later Thomas Jefferson be
came a member of the legislature, and upon his initiative
and with his aid Colonel Bland, one of the oldest, ablest,
and most respected members of that body, pressed forward
a proposition to remove the restrictions which for forty-six
years the laws had imposed upon voluntary manumission.
"I seconded his motion," wrote Jefferson, "and as a younger
member was more spared in the debate, but he was de
nounced as an enemy to his country and was treated with
the greatest indecorum."49 Opposition to the measure was
as yet overpowering, but the kind of support it received
augured well for a later victory. Even a legislature as con
servative as this one declared that the discriminatory tax
levied upon free negroes and mulattoes since 1668 was
" derogatory to the rights of free born subjects," and, there
fore, that it stood repealed.50 A new antislavery spirit
which was nation-wide in its operation was powerfully
affecting sentiment in Virginia. While that spirit was ris
ing at the North which was to culminate from 1777 to 1785
in acts of emancipation in Vermont, Pennsylvania, Massa
chusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island,
and in a manumission act in Maryland, it was destined to
grow and spread in Virginia till it effected the repeal of the
old restraints upon manumission, and strongly threatened
the existence of the institution of slavery in that State.

The movement in Virginia kept a remarkably even pace
with the American Revolution. Since both were applica
tions of the principles of natural equality and individual lib
erty, they must indeed be viewed as two parts of the same
current of progress. " The glorious and ever memorable
Revolution," argued many petitioners of the legislature,
"can be justified on no other principles, but what do plead
with still greater force for the emancipation of our slaves

48 Virginia Gazette, March 19, 1767, quoted in Views of American
Slavery, Taken a Century Ago, p. 109.

"Jefferson to Edward Coles, August 25, 1814, in Randall, Life of
Jefferson, vol. iii, p. 643 ; G. Tucker, Life of Thomas Jefferson, vol.
i, p. 46.

60 Hening, vol. ii, p. 267 ; vol. viii, p. 393.

56 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

in proportion as the oppression exercised over them ex
ceeds the oppression formerly exercised over the United
States by Great Britain."51

This logical application of the Revolutionary philosophy,
though not quite convincing to the legislature, was freely
and conscientiously accepted by many individuals.52 From
the beginning of the war it became quite common among
slave-owners to apply the doctrine; for example, John
Payne, of Hanover County, in the year of the Declaration
of Independence freed his slave because he was "persuaded
that liberty is the natural condition of all mankind. "53 Some
slave-owners ignored the laws, as did Charles Moorman, a
Quaker, of Louisa County, who in 1778 executed a deed of
manumission relinquishing his right to thirty-three slaves
as if there were no laws forbidding such action.54 Joseph
Mayo, of Henrico County, owner of nearly a hundred slaves,
was more desirous that his act be in conformity with the
laws, and expressed in his will a " most earnest request that
the executors petition the General Assembly for leave to

51 MS. Petitions, Hanover County, 1785 ; Frederick County, 1786,
A 6340.

62 In 1814 Thomas Jefferson expressed his disappointment that the
generation who had received "their early impressions after the
flame of liberty had been kindled in every breast, and had become,
as it were, the vital spirit of every American" had not gone even
to the extent of making possible a general emancipation of slaves
(Jefferson to Edward Coles, in Randall, Life of Jefferson, vol. iii,
p. 644).

53 See quotation of the original will in R. A. Brock's prefatory note
to " The Fourth Charter of the Royal African Company," in Vir
ginia Historical Collections, vol. vi, p. 18. In 1771 Jonathan
Pleasants, a large slave-owner, attempted to provide that his slaves
be set free by a will beginning thus : " and first believing that all
mankind have an undoubted right to freedom and commiserating the
situation of my negroes" (2 Call, 270). William Binford, of Hen
rico County, set free twelve youthful slaves in 1782 because he was
" fully persuaded that freedom is the nat'l right of all mankind "
(MS. Deeds of Henrico County, no. I, p. 421). In 1790 Colonel
William Grason manumitted all of his slaves "born after the Dec
laration of Independence" ("History of the Virginia Federal Con
vention, of 1788," in Virginia Historical Collections, vol. ix, p. 211).
For similar expressions see MS. Deeds of Henrico County, no. 3, p.
378; no. 7, P- 131-

M Hening, vol. xii, p. 613.

MANUMISSION 57

set free all" his slaves.55 Some masters made their wills
in anticipation of an act permitting manumission. A notable
instance was the devise made in 1777 by John Pleasants, a
Quaker, whose will, when later held valid by the supreme
court of appeals, set free several hundred slaves.50 The
contingency upon which this devise of freedom in futuro
was based was that "the laws of the land . . . admit them
to be set free without their being transported out of the
country."

A still more novel instance of anticipating action by the
legislature was the devise by Cloister Hunnicutt, of Sussex
County, of six slaves to the Monthly Meeting of the Society
of Friends, to be manumitted by such members as the meet
ing should appoint. In passing upon the validity of this
will, recorded two years prior to the act of 1782 permitting
manumission, the supreme court said : " He knew the exist
ing laws forbade it and that his society had been anxiously
endeavoring to procure an enabling statute for that purpose
from the legislature; which was generally believed would
shortly be obtained." Counsel, in defending the legality of
the will, observed that the testator must have known " that
a sentiment existed in the country very favorable to the pas
sage of such a law."57

In the forefront of the movement which culminated in
the repeal of restrictions upon the right of private manu
mission were two religious sects — the Quakers and the
Methodists. Many Quakers in Virginia had been owners
of slaves up to the period of the Revolutionary War, but
they were among the first to recognize and admit fully the
humanity of the negro and the injustice of depriving him
of his right to freedom. Committees of their meetings were
appointed "to labor with such Friends as still hold their
negroes in bondage, to convince them, if possible, of the

55 Hening, vol. xii, p. 612; MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1886,
A 8990. By special acts of legislation in 1787 both the above-men
tioned wills were made effective (Journal of the House of Dele
gates, 1786, p. 23. Cited as House Journal).

"2 Call, 270; Brock, p. 17.

"Charles et al. v. Hunnicutt, 5 Call, 311, 312.

58 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

evil of that practice and inconsistency with our Christian
profession."58 The few members who clung to their slaves
did so at the price of being disowned by their society.59
The growing body of Methodists likewise showed them
selves the friends of the negro, and many of them, like the
Quakers, refused to own or sell slaves. In the Methodist
annual conference held at Baltimore in 1780 this question
was put to the conference : " Does this Conference acknowl
edge that slavery is contrary to the laws of God, man, and
nature, and hurtful to society; contrary to the dictates of
conscience and pure religion, and doing that which we would
not others should do to us and ours? Do we pass our dis
approbation on all our friends who keep slaves, and advise
their freedom?" The answer was, " Yes."60 Philip Gatch,
a slave-owning Methodist of Powhatan County, was one
among many of these people who acted according to the
advice of their society in a very short time after it was
given.61 The Methodists as well as the Friends exerted an
influence upon legislation by memorials to the legislature
reiterating their opposition to slavery.62

Probably these two societies, the Friends and the Metho
dists, deserve to rank first in the work of advancing the
cause of manumission from genuine altruistic motives.
They sought to make manumission lawful because they were
willing to take the negro within the scope of the doctrine
of equal rights and natural freedom. But the Baptists
and Presbyterians were then striving to gain for the whites
freedom of religion and freedom of conscience; hence
they too were consistent advocates of the measure by

68 MS. Minutes of Fairfax Monthly Meeting, 1776-1802; MS.
Minutes of Warrenton and Fairfax Quarterly Meeting, 1776-1787,
passim; S. B. Weeks, Southern Quakers and Slavery, p. 211 et seq.

09 MS. Minutes of Hopewell Monthly Meeting, 1777-1791, p. 184;
MS. Minutes of Fairfax Monthly Meeting, 1777-1791, pp. 42, 65.

60 W. W. Bennett, Memorials of Methodism in Virginia, p. 131.

* Ibid.

62 Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, vol. iii, p. 124 ;
cited as Madison's Writings. See Weeks on the prominence of
Quakers and Methodists among the eighty members of the Vir
ginia Abolition Society in 1791 (Southern Quakers and Slavery,
P- 213).

MANUMISSION 59

which restraints were to be removed from the will and con
science of a slave-owner who felt moved to set free his
slave for conscience' sake. Furthermore, without regard to
church affiliations, there was a class of young men who, ac
cording to a distinguished French traveller, "were almost
all educated in principles of sound philosophy and regarded
nothing but justice and humanity."63 To this younger set
of men, who represented the liberal ideas of the English and
French thought of that time, and prominent among whom
was Thomas Jefferson, is due much of the credit for the
support in the legislature of the proposition which was en
acted into law in May, 1782, bearing the title, "An act to
authorize the manumission of slaves."64

To a certain class of those persons who demanded a re
vision of the laws respecting the negroes the law of 1782
was only a partial victory. The object sought by persons
of that class was the freedom of the negro and not the
greater freedom of the white master ; hence they were now*
as ready to support a plan of general emancipation as they
had been to promote the progress of manumission. In 1785
a petition was presented to the legislature asserting it to
be the firm conviction of the petitioners that slavery is con
trary to the principles of the Christian religion and an ex
press violation of the principles upon which our government
was founded.65 Several months later seventeen citizens of
Frederick County petitioned for the gradual emancipation

63 F. J. Chastellux, Travels in North America in the years 1780-82,
vol. ii, pp. 196, 197.

M " Be it enacted That it shall hereafter be lawful for any person
by his or her last will and testament, or by any other instrument in
writing, under his or her hand and seal attested and proved in the
county court by two witnesses, or acknowledged by the party in
the court of the county where he or she resides, to emancipate and
set free his or her slaves, or any of them, who shall thereupon . . .
enjoy as full freedom as if they had been particularly named and
freed by this act" (Hening, vol. xi, pp. 39, 40).

65 House Journal, November 8, 1785, p. 27. This petition urged
not only emancipation, but also " the strengthening of our govern
ment by attaching to its support by ties of interest and gratitude "
the freedmen. Apparently, enfranchisement of the freedmen was v<
within its scope.

6O THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

of slaves, reasoning that " liberty is the birthright of man
kind, the right of every rational creature."66

These propositions met with very strong protest from
those who had opposed the passage of the manumission act
and who were already preparing to make a fight for its re
peal. Counter petitions and remonstrances were received
by the Assembly as soon as were the petitions.67 In addi
tion to remonstrating against proposed plans of emancipa
tion, the petitioners urged the repeal of the law authorizing
manumission.68

In the issue thus joined the balance of power was held
by the class of persons who had supported the passage of
the law of 1782 with the view to removing restraints upon
the will of the master for the sake of the master's freedom.
Neither the proposition for emancipation nor the project
for the repeal of the law authorizing manumission could
command their support. Persons of this class were as
much opposed to hampering the property rights of the mas
ter by denying to him the right to dispose of slaves at will
as they were to compelling him to relinquish his title to
slaves. The emancipation schemes and the projects to pro
hibit again the manumission of slaves failed of enactment.
Hence, on compromise ground between two extreme views,
the act authorizing manumission remained on the statute
book, and represented the policy to which the State re
mained for many years firmly committed.69

66 MS. Petitions, Frederick County, 1786, A 6340. Madison, in
a letter to Jefferson of January 22, 1786, says that " several petitions
(from Methodists, chiefly) appeared in favor of a gradual abolition
of slavery" (Madison's Writings, vol. i, p. 217).

67 MS. Petitions, Brunswick County, 1785, A 2901 ; House Journal,
1785, p. 30; Madison to Washington, November n, 1785, in Madi
son's Writings, vol. i, p. 200.

68 Petitions of this kind were received by the legislature from the
counties of Brunswick, Amelia, Mecklenburg, Halifax, and Pittsyl-
vania (House Journal, 1785, p. 91; MS. Petitions, A 2901). A
petition from Hanover County, signed by one hundred and forty-
four citizens, and one from Henrico, signed by one hundred and
twenty citizens, praying for the repeal of the act of 1/82, were sent
to the legislature in 1784 (MS. Petitions, Hanover County, A 8124;
Henrico County, A 8971).

60 House Journal, 1785, p. 91. The vote against repeal was 53 to
35-

MANUMISSION 6 1

The removal in 1782 of restraints upon manumission was
like the sudden destruction of a dam before the increasing
impetus of a swollen stream. The free negro population in
the State at that time — probably less than 3000, but the
product of a century and a quarter's growth — was more than
doubled in the space of two years. Instances of manumis
sion, often of large numbers of slaves, became frequent.70
In eight years after the act became effective the number of
free colored persons rose from less than 3000 to I2,866.71
By 1800 the number had increased to 20,000; and according
to the census of 1810 it was over 30,000.

The principles of natural rights and the consent of the
governed had only a year before the passage of the enabling
act received a triumph in the victory of the American and
French armies at Yorktown, and many a slave-master now
seized the opportunity to follow those principles to their
logical conclusion by manumitting every slave in his pos
session, whether one or one hundred. In 1782 William
Binford and Robert Pleasants, of Henrico County, manu
mitted respectively twelve and ninety slaves. Most of them
were of an age to be very valuable, but young and old were
set free because of a "conviction and persuasion that free
dom is a natural right."72 Joseph Hill, of Isle of Wight
County, gave expression to his views in his will of March
6, 1783, as follows: "I ... after full and deliberate con
sideration, and agreeable to our Bill of Rights, am fully per
suaded that freedom is the natural life of all mankind . . .

70 Cf . Brock, p. 19.

71 In 1835 William Jay wrote as follows : " In 1782, Virginia re
pealed her restraining law and in nine years 10,000 slaves were man
umitted " (Slavery in America, p. 101). In 1796 St. George Tucker
called attention to the fact that " there are more free negroes and
mulattoes in Virginia alone than are to be found in the four New
England states and Vermont in addition to them. The prog
ress of emancipation in this state is, therefore, much greater than
our Eastern brethren may at first suppose. There are only 1087 free
negroes and mulattoes in the states of New York, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania more than in Virginia" (A Dissertation on Slavery,
p. 72 n.).

72 MS. Deeds of Henrico County, no. I, p. 42.

62 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

do hereby emancipate and set free all and every of the
above-named slaves."73

Every negro who fought or served as a free man in the
late war was given in 1783 a legislative pledge of the utmost
protection of the State in the enjoyment of the freedom he
had helped to gain ;74 and a slave who could prove any hon
orable service rendered by him to the American cause was
freed by special act and at the expense of the State.75 Aber
deen, a slave who had helped forward the cause of liberty
"by his long and meritorious service in the lead mines,"76
and " Caesar, who entered very early into the service of his
country and continued to pilot the armed vessels of the state
during the late War,"77 were set free at public expense.
Slave-owning Quakers who were reluctant to manumit their
slaves were urged by their society to extinguish their titles
in human chattels.78 The labor supply being abundant from
1782 to the end of the century, mercenary masters were

73 MS. Deeds of Isle of Wight County, no. 15, p. 122. Quoted
from B. B. Munford, Virginia's Attitude toward Slavery and Se
cession, p. 105. $ In 1797 Richard Randolph, jr., of Prince Edward
County, manumitted his slaves "in whom my countrymen by their
iniquitous laws in contradiction of their own Declaration of Rights
have vested me with absolute property" (MS. Wills of Prince Ed
ward County, 1797; H. A. Garland, The Life of John Randolph, of
Roanoke, vol. i, p. 67).

7* Hening, vol. xi, p. 308 ; St. G. Tucker, A Dissertation on Slavery,
p. 20. Compare below, pp. no, in, in n.

75 William Boush and Jack Knight, and Saul, " who avoided the
rocks upon which so many negroes wrecked when the trumpet call
pronounced his freedom if he would turn upon his master," were
all set at liberty by the State because of their services in the
cause of liberty (Hening, vol. xiii, pp. 103, 619). The slave James,
a spy or secret agent of Marquis Lafayette in his Virginia cam
paign, received favorable consideration by the Assembly (MS. Peti
tions, New Kent County, 1786, 64051).

76 Hening, vol. xi, p. 309 (1783).
"Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 102 (1789).

78 In 1788 it was inserted in the Friends' Discipline " that none
amongst us be concerned in importing, buying, selling, holding, or
overseeing slaves, and that all bear a faithful testimony against the
practice." In 1785 the following query was put before the dele
gates to the Upper Quarterly Meeting : " Do any Friends hold slaves
and do all bear a faithful testimony against the practice?" In 1796
it was reported at a meeting that there was no longer complaint of
Friends' holding slaves when they could be lawfully liberated
(Weeks, Southern Quakers and Slavery, pp. 212, 214).

MANUMISSION 63

often easily induced by the slaves themselves, or by a phil
anthropic person in behalf of the slaves, to grant deeds of
manumission in consideration of a money payment. This
period from 1782 to 1806 was the time when manumission
was most popular in Virginia, and is unique in the history
of slavery in the State as being the only period when manu
mission went on at a rapid rate without legal restraint.

Public opinion, however, was by no means unanimous as
to the wisdom of manumission or as to the expediency of
permitting the practice to go on without some legal restric
tion. Very soon after the act of 1782 took effect, lessons
learned from experience with a free negro element began
to cast a tremendous weight in the balances on the side of
the reactionaries, who lost no opportunity to point out the
evil results of manumission.79 Almost a hundred years pre
viously, manumission was for the first time restricted by
law, because free negroes were unproductive and because
they incited slaves to steal and to rebel.80 Throughout the
long period which intervened between that experience and
the close of the Revolutionary War the free negro was
almost a negligible social factor, and afforded little reminder
of the real character of a large and growing free negro ele-
ment in a population constituted as was that of Virginia.
With the old restraints upon manumission removed, two
years trial of the freedmen was sufficient to convince many
persons that " free negroes are agents, factors and carriers
to the neighboring towns for slaves, of property by them
stolen from their masters and others."81 Three years later
the opponents of manumission declared it to be " a very

"MS. Petitions, 1784, A 8124; A 8971; A 2901. A petition from
Accomac County, in June, 1782, signed by forty-five persons, assigned
four reasons why the slaves of persons who had made their wills
before 1782 should not be set free: (i) Manumitted slaves had
helped unmanumitted slaves to join the British; (2) It would
depreciate the value of slave property and thus lessen revenue; (3)
Manumission should be preserved solely as a means of rewarding
slaves for good conduct; (4) Free negroes easily become charges
upon the public (MS. Petitions, Accomac County, 1785, A 11).

80 See above, p. 51.

81 MS. Petitions, Hanover County, 1784, A 8124; Henrico County,
1784, A 8971.

64 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

great and growing evil," and, failing to get a prohibitive
measure passed, they proposed the plan of compelling every
negro to leave the State within twelve months after the date
of his manumission.82 The plan was not adopted, but free
negroes were forbidden by an act of 1793 to come into the
State.83

Much difficulty was soon experienced in discriminating
between slaves fraudulently passing as free negroes and
negroes actually free. The right of free negroes to go and
come and to pass to and fro in a community without hin
drance or question proved to be a cloak behind which run
away slaves escaped detection.84 An attempt to regulate
the evil by strict registration requirements only augmented
it ;85 free negroes treated their registers or " free papers "
as if they were transferable, and escaping slaves used them
to conceal their identity.86 Enterprising slaves even forged
such papers, or secured them from white persons who made
a practice of forging freedom certificates and supplying
slaves with the means of escape.87

All these things had been operating to effect a change in
sentiment adverse to manumission when an attempted insur
rection of slaves in Richmond, led by a slave named

82 K. M. Rowland, The Life of George Mason, vol. ii, p. 201. For
failure to leave they were to be sold at public auction. The propo
sition followed closely the law passed in 1691. Unlike that law,
however, it contained no provision for requiring the master to pay
the expenses of transporting the manumitted slave.

83 Hening, vol. xiv, p. 239. Any citizen might arrest a violator
of this law and take him before a justice, who was empowered "to
remove every such free negro or mulatto . . . into that state or island
from whence it shall appear he or she last came."

84 Virginia Gazette and the American Advertizer, July 5, I7&3-
" Reward : Ran away from the subscriber a mulatto man slave
named Jack a crafty fellow ... he has a forged pass to pass for a
free man" (ibid., October 16, 1784).

85 Hening, vol. xiv, p. 238.

86 Ibid., vol. xv, p. 78.

87 Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 365. Any person " aiding or abetting in forgery
of writings whereby a slave or servant of another may go free"
was liable to a penalty of two hundred dollars and one year's im
prisonment. Ishmael Lawrence was indicted, found guilty, and
fined only ten dollars by a Henrico County court in 1795 for " forg
ing uttering and distributing freedom papers or Deeds of emancipa
tion to runaway slaves" (MS. Orders, no. 6, p. 514)-

MANUMISSION 65

Gabriel, set the white people of the State to thinking on the
dangers from a partial subjection of a servile race.88 While
the evidence showed but little direct or criminal connection
of free negroes with the plot,89 it revealed the fact that bar-
bacues, fish- feasts, and "preachings," at which the free
negro was known to be a prominent figure, had furnished
the occasion for arranging the plot. This fact and testi
mony that Methodists, Quakers, and Frenchmen, all of
whom had been favorable to manumission, were to be
spared by the insurgents90 were convincing that the mere
presence in a community of a manumitted negro was a
source of danger.

On December 31, 1800, the year of the Gabriel insurrec
tion, the legislature, behind closed doors, passed the follow
ing resolution: "That the Governor be requested to corre
spond with the president of the United States on the subject
of purchasing lands without the limits of the United States
whither persons obnoxious to the laws or dangerous to the
peace of society may be removed."91

The obnoxious and dangerous persons described here
were not criminals or seditious aliens, as might be supposed,
but " free negroes and mulattoes including those who may
hereafter be emancipated/'92 At the time this resolution
was passed there were upwards of twenty thousand persons
in Virginia included within its scope; hence persons who
viewed the growth of the free negro population with alarm

88 This attempt to massacre the white inhabitants of Richmond
was called the Gabriel Insurrection. See The Richmond Recorder,
April 6, 9, 1803; R. R. Howison, A History of Virginia, vol. ii, pp.
390, 391-

'"A man named Samuel Bird, a free mulatto of Hanover town
was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the conspiracy of
the negroes; he ... was finally discharged for want of evidence,
it being decided that people of his own color, in slavery, could not
give testimony against him. His son, a slave, was condemned and
executed yesterday" (Writings of James Monroe, ed. by Hamilton,
vol. iii, p. 215).

90 Richmond Recorder, April 9, 1803.

91 Documents of the House of Delegates, no. 10, 1847-1848, cited
as House Documents; A. Alexander, A History of Colonization on
the Western Coast of Africa, p. 63.

93 Writings of Monroe, vol. iii, p. 20.

5

66 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

began to realize that restrictions upon the manumission of
slaves could not now afford complete relief from the menace
of the free negro. The resolution of the legislature was the
starting-point of the colonization movement in Virginia and,
in fact, in the United States. Governor Monroe, acting
upon the request made of him by the resolution, promptly
communicated with President Jefferson, and in a lengthy
correspondence which followed, opinions were given and
received of the comparative value of the southwestern fron
tier, the West Indies, and Africa as a place for a colony of
these persons who were obnoxious to the laws and the
peace.93

While colonization ideas were being born, new and un
usually stringent measures for keeping watch over and con
trolling the actions of free negroes were enacted. They
were forbidden to move from one county or town to an
other on penalty of being arrested and imprisoned as va
grants.9* The laws concerning the migration of free negroes
into the Commonwealth were declared defective and in need
of revision, and more exacting registration requirements
were enacted.95 The laws of evidence were changed so that
a slave was a good witness in pleas of the Commonwealth
against a free negro.96 A strong public guard to be sta
tioned at Richmond was considered by the Assembly to be
expedient for the public safety "in the present crisis of
affairs/'97

The prospect of removing the free negroes was, however,
not yet deemed so promising as to cause persons to lose
sight of the necessity of reducing the enormous rate of in
crease in the free negro population by closing the avenue
of escape from slavery to freedom. In the legislative ses
sion of 1804-1805 the state of public opinion upon the sub-

w Writings of Monroe, vol. iii, pp. 201-217, 292; The Writings of
Thomas Jefferson, ed. by Ford, vol. iv, pp. 410-422; House Docu
ments, no. 10, 1847-1848.

MHening, vol. xv, p. 301 (1801).

86 Ibid., vol. xv, p. 301.

86 Ibid., vol. xv, p. 300.

" Ibid., vol. xv, pp. 295, 296 ; Howison, vol. ii, pp. 388-393 ; House
Journal, 1800-1809, pp. 47, 48.

MANUMISSION 6/

y

ject of manumission was reflected in a vigorous debate on
the floor of the House on the merits of a proposition to
abolish the right of private manumission altogether.98 The
speakers who favored a restriction of the privilege seemed
to recognize the difficult task before them of overcoming a
strong presumption against legislative interference with anj)
individual right enjoyed since the close of the Revolution.
" It is not the natural rights of individuals," they asserted,
" to dispose of his own property in every case. ... It is a
moral maxim that no man can appropriate his property to
any purposes which may injure the interest of others. . . .
Whoever emancipates a slave may be inflicting the deadliest
injury upon his neighbor. He may be furnishing some ac
tive chieftain of a formidable conspiracy." Vivid illustra
tion of and support for the argument were freely taken from
the recent insurrections in Santo Domingo as well as from
those in the State." An additional " power of combining,"
it was said, was placed in the hands of slaves by giving to
them the " right of locomotion." " What should we say of
a man who having his mortal foe bound at his feet sets him
at liberty and plants a stiletto in his hand ? "

A second ground of attack was occupied by matching
against the property-rights defense of manumission an argu
ment for economizing revenue by checking a reckless de
struction of property in slaves. The members of the House
were asked to consider the loss to the State in revenue in
curred by the manumission of twenty thousand slaves since
1782. A third argument was in refutation of the strongly
entrenched opinion that the proposed measure would violate
"the rights of conscience." "What respect is due," asked
Smyth, of Wythe County, "to the conscience of that man
who, after having made all the use he could of his slaves
does not hesitate to deprive his wife and children of their
labor?"

98 Richmond Enquirer, January 15, 1805.

"A speaker in debate before the House read portions of the his
tory of the insurrection of Santo Domingo (Richmond Enquirer,
January 15, 1805).

68 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

With equal skill the defenders of the privilege of manu
mission matched arguments with the opposition. They
affirmed that the loss in revenue incurred by manumission
was smaller than would be the loss of a single day occupied
by the legislature in considering the mass of petitions which
would pour in upon that body, as they poured in upon the
legislatures before the act of 1782, should the restrictive
measure carry. They emphasized also the fact that there
was " a vast number of people who labor under scruples of
conscience and think it wrong to keep their fellow creatures
in slavery. . . . These men consider their religion as the
law of God; and if we pass this bill we shall place them
between two contrary and conflicting laws."

Moreover, the proposed measure, they said, would not
only be unwise policy, but would also be in violation of the
constitution. "The first clause says that all men are by
nature equal and independent. Already we have violated
this declaration, but the present measure will do so still
more ; for . . . the last clause declares that conscience ought
to be free."

Finally, what better safeguard against insurrection could
there be than the power in the hands of every slave-master
to reward with freedom his faithful and loyal slaves ? " What
reward is more seductive than the acquisition of freedom?
. . . Suppose a servant knows that some harm is to happen
to his master, can he have a stronger incitement to inform
him of it and put him upon his guard than the prospect of
emancipation?"100

When the vote which determined the fate of the bill was
taken, it stood 77 against and 70 in favor of its becoming
law. The editor of the Enquirer avowed his disappoint
ment that the measure, " in spite of the imperious policy
which dictated its adoption was rejected," and expressed a
hope " that some future Legislature will have the prudence
to administer the suitable remedy."101

90 Richmond Enquirer, January 15, 1805.

MANUMISSION 69

In the next annual session of the legislature there were
not lacking those who shared the views of the editor on the
matter of reopening the question in another effort to admin
ister a remedy. Fears were expressed by some members
that free and open discussion was dangerous, but in spite
of these warnings a bill for taking from masters the right
to free slaves was introduced and debated with much zest.102
The events connected with the Gabriel attempt at insurrec
tion were again recalled and associated with the idle and
vicious habits of free negroes. A friend of the bill declared
that " these blacks who are free obtain a knowledge of facts
by passing from place to place in society; they can thus
organize insurrection. ... It may be proven that it is the
free blacks who instil into the slaves ideas hostile to our
peace."103 Principles of policy and considerations of safety
were no longer to be brushed aside by arguments based
upon the rights of man.104

When the division came, the bill was lost by a vote of 75
to 73. 105 But the full strength of the party in favor of re
stricting manumission was not shown in this vote, which
was a test only upon the question of abolishing the right
altogether. There was apparent agreement that drastic
police measures were necessary, and but very little objection
to placing free negroes under any surveillance and restric
tion that seemed to be necessary for the safety of society;
but a majority was held intact against abolishing the right
of manumission only because it believed that the measure
infringed the rights of private property and " that the con
science of a dying man ought not to be deprived of the
momentary comfort emancipation of his slaves would pro
duce."106 The objectionable features could, however, be
avoided by approaching the question from its other side,

03 Virginia Argus, January 17, 1806.

103 Ibid.

104 A speaker affirmed that he was not less friendly to " the rights
of man" than others who opposed the bill, but that he advocated it
from policy (Virginia Argus, January 17, 1806).

5 House Journal, 1805-1806, pp. 68, 77.
06 Virginia Argus, January 17, 1806.

7O THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

that is, by leaving unrestrained the will of the master and
restraining the will of the slave with an imposition of such
conditions upon freedmen as would make liberty undesir
able. Such a plan had been adopted in 1691, and had been
proposed in 1787. The device met with the approval of
this Assembly, and an act was passed by which all slaves
manumitted after May I, 1806, were required to leave the
State within twelve months from the time their freedom
accrued, or, if under age, from the time they reached their
majority.107

In 1784 a vote taken in the House of Delegates showed
that only one third of the members of that House were then
in favor of the absolute prohibition of the manumission of
slaves. By 1806 this minority had made such gains that an
accession of only two votes would have transformed it into
a majority. It is a significant fact that when the opponents
of the policy of permitting private manumissions seemed so
near to victory, almost all concerted efforts to repeal the law
of 1782 came to an end. The law of 1806 was the last im
portant change in the policy of the State respecting the
slave-owner's right to free a slave. The absence after 1806
of a strong demand to curb the power of a master to convert
his slave into a free negro was due chiefly to two causes.

In the first place, the act of 1806 prescribing banishment
for any slave thereafter set free was regarded as an indirect
restriction upon the will of the master ; hence it afforded to
those who had been urging the repeal of the act of 1782 a
measure of satisfaction. It promised to bring about the
results which the opponents of manumission desired without

07 The act, being a restriction in disguise upon manumission, was
included as section 10 in an act concerning slaves. It declared that
" if any slave hereafter emancipated shall remain within this Com
monwealth more than twelve months after his or her right to free
dom shall have accrued he or she shall forfeit all such right and
may be apprehended and sold by the overseers of the poor for any
county or corporation in which he or she shall be found for the
benefit of the poor of such county or corporation" (Hening, vol.
xvi, p. 252). Section 10 was a Senate amendment to the act con
cerning slaves, and was agreed to by the House by a vote of 94 to 65
(House Journal, 1805-1806, p. 77).

MANUMISSION /I

a direct interference with jealously guarded property rights
and without hindrance to freedom of conscience.108

In the second place, the act of 1806 represented a new
idea — that of removing free negroes from the State. As
the free negro population increased, a prohibition upon
manumission was seen to be of diminishing importance as
a means of coping with the problem. From 1782 to 1806
strenuous efforts were made to limit the power of masters
to recruit the free negro population from the slave class.
After 1806 the strength of the opposition to the growth of
the free colored class was directed mainly to removing or
colonizing that class of the population. The question of
colonization, as we have seen, assumed an aspect of im
portance as a consequence of a resolution of the state leg
islature in 1800. The act of 1806 was the first actual law
of a long succession of laws enacted with a view to realizing
the ideas set forth in the House resolutions of the first
years of the century.

A fundamental defect in the law of 1806 was its failure
to provide any definite place to which the freed slaves might
go. As an immediate consequence of spasmodic attempts
to enforce the law and of fears on the part of manumitted
slaves that the law would be enforced against them, a notice
able egress of negroes took place from Virginia to the
Northern States and to the States bordering on Virginia on
all sides. Citizens of Maryland soon began to make loud
complaint to their legislature. " Virginia," they said, " has
passed a law [expelling certain free negroes] and many of
her beggarly blacks have been vomited upon us."109 Within

108 " That Government would be justly chargeable with the ex
treme of despotism that should attempt, without necessity, to in
terfere with the kind and generous feelings of the human heart,"
asserted a committee of the House of Delegates in its report in
1829 favorable to the expediency of continuing the policy of remov
ing free negroes and of permitting masters to manumit slaves
(African Repository and Colonial Journal, vol. iii, p. 54- Cited as
African Repository).

109 MS. Petitions to House of Delegates, in Maryland Historical
Society, portfolio 7, no. 28; J. R. Brackett, The Negro in Maryland,
pp. 176, 177.

72 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

a year after the Virginia act was passed the legislatures of
three different States— Maryland,110 Kentucky,111 and Dela
ware112 — had passed countervailing acts forbidding free ne
groes to come in from other States to take up permanent
residence. Other States followed the lead of the three
already named, and passed laws excluding free negroes or
imposing upon their admission such rigid requirements as
to render their coming impracticable. Ohio,113 Indiana,114
Illinois,115 Missouri,116 North Carolina,117 and Tennessee118
had passed some such law within twenty-five years after the
Virginia act of 1806. The people of Mercer County, Ohio,
refused to allow John Randolph's three hundred and eighty-
five negroes, who left Virginia in compliance with the laws,
to remain even for three days upon land purchased for them
in that county, although these negroes could comply with
Ohio's law requiring of emigrant free negroes bond for
good behavior.119 In no State was a cordial welcome held
out to Virginia's expatriated negroes. A refugee slave was
far more likely to meet with hospitality in the Northern
States than was a free negro.120

When that portion of the population of Virginia which
viewed the residence of the free blacks among them as " an
intolerable burden "121 saw that the removal laws were being

110 Laws of Maryland, 1806, ch. 56; 1823, ch. 161 ; Brackett, p. 176.

111 Acts of Kentucky Legislature, 1807-1808, sec. 3; J. C. Hurd,
The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States, vol. ii,
pp. 15, 18; MS. Petitions, Cumberland County, 1815, A 4728.

112 4 Delaware Laws, 108 ; Hurd, vol. ii, p. 77.

113 Ohio Sessions Laws, ch. 8; Hurd, vol. ii, p. 117.

114 Hurd, vol. ii, p. 130.

115 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 135.
118 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 170.

117 Revised Code of North Carolina, 107, sec. 54-58, 75-77 ; J. S.
Bassett, Slavery in the State of North Carolina, in J. H. U. Studies,
ser. xvii, nos. 7-8.

118 Hurd, vol. ii, p. 92. See also The Richmond Enquirer, Febru
ary 19, 1832, speech of Mr. Goode.

^ The Liberator, August 7, 21, 1846.

120 "If there is one fact established by steadily accumulating evi
dence it is that the free negro cannot find a congenial home in the
United States. He is an exotic among us" (quoted in De Bow's
Commercial Review, vol. xxvii, p. 731, from Philadelphia North
American).

121 MS. Petitions, Prince William County, 1838.

MANUMISSION 73

" frustrated by the action of sister states "122 as well as by
the inactivity of local officials in enforcing the banishment
provisions, efforts were made to seek a place beyond the
United States where free negroes could be colonized. On
December 14, 1816, a resolution was adopted in the House
of Delegates which strongly urged the importance of colo
nization, and requested the governor to " correspond with
the President of the United States for the purpose of ob
taining a territory upon the shores of the North Pacific, or
some other place not within any of the States or territorial
governments of the United States to serve as an asylum for
such persons of color as are now free and may desire the
same and for those who may be hereafter emancipated
within this Commonwealth."123 Within a short while after
the adoption of this resolution there was organized in Wash
ington the American Colonization Society, and throughout
the counties and cities of Eastern Virginia auxiliary organi
zations sprang up.124 A state colonization society had head
quarters at Richmond in 1831, and had various branches
throughout the State.125 The two most important duties of
these societies and their agents were to procure, first, funds
for the transportation of free negroes126 to Africa, and, sec
ondly, free negroes who were willing to be transported
there.127

From 1820 to 1860 these societies were very active in
propagating the colonization ideas. In 1833 tnev procured
from the legislature an annual appropriation of eighteen

22 MS. Petitions, Dinwiddie County, 1838, A 5090.

123 House Journal, 1816-1817, p. 90.

124 Address of the Rockbridge Colonization Society, in African
Repository, vol. iii, p. 274; Report of Managers of the Lynchburg
Auxiliary Colonization Society, in ibid., vol. iii, p. 202; Memorial of
the Richmond and Manchester Auxiliary Colonization Society, in
MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1825, A 9358.

m Petition of the Colonization Society of Virginia, in MS. Peti
tions, Henrico County, 1831, A 9431.

128 African Repository, vol. iii, pp. 280, 281.

" Difficulty has been apprehended in obtaining a sufficient num
ber of emigrants. . . . Many of the free people are either ignorant
of the scheme or prejudiced against it. They are suspicious of
white men " (Address of Rockbridge Colonization Society, in Afri
can Repository, vol. iii, p. 279).

74 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

I thousand dollars for five years to be used in colonizing free
negroes in Africa. From this time on for a quarter of a
century the state legislature was committed to the plan of
colonization as a solution of the free negro problem; and
although that plan resulted in repeated failure, it was suffi
ciently promising to absorb the greater part of the interest
of nearly all who wished to check the growth of the free
colored class.128 Between 1836 and 1856, propositions for
limiting the power of masters to manumit their slaves were
pressed forward with some energy, but were uniformly de
feated. 12& The constitutional convention of 1850 evaded
the question of limiting manumission by granting to the
legislature the power to " impose such restrictions and con
ditions it shall deem proper upon the power of slave-owners
to emancipate their slaves," a power which the legislature
had always been understood to have.130 The law of 1806
was reenacted at various times after its first enactment, with
such changes as were deemed necessary to improve its
effectiveness, and in 1850 it was embodied in the new con
stitution and remained a part of the constitutional law of
the State till the overthrow of the slavery regime.

The adoption in 1806 of a new policy respecting manu-

128 Acts, 1832-1833, p. 14. Large appropriations ($30,000) were
made by the legislature in 1850 and 1853 for the purpose of coloniz
ing the free colored population (ibid., 1840-1850, p. 7; 1852-1853, p.
58). But so few were the numbers of Virginia negroes actually
colonized in comparison with the entire free negro population of the
State that Virginia colonization may be said to have been an abso
lute failure. During the three years in which the law of 1850 was in
operation only 419 free blacks and slaves were sent from Virginia to
Africa, and of the $90,000 available for colonization purposes only
$5410 was used. Prior to 1854 only 2800 colored persons in all had
been sent from Virginia to Africa. After 1853 the annual appro
priation of $30,000 was never consumed upon the transportation of
emigrants. For the fiscal year ending October I, 1858, only $2100
was expended by the colonization board and only 42 negroes were
sent out (Message of Governor Johnson, in House Journal, 1853-
1854, p. 15; House Documents, 1859-1860, no. 5, p. 407).

129 House Journal, 1839, p. 247 ; 1842-1843, p. 28 ; 1852-1853, p. 83 ;
1855-1856, pp. 112, 436; 1857-1858, p. 262; Journals of the Senate
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1857-1858, p. 668, cited as Senate
Journal.

130 Journal, Acts and Proceedings of the Convention of 1850, p.
327; Constitution of 1850, sec. 3 on Slaves and Free Negroes.

MANUMISSION 75

mitted slaves should be considered as the point of division
between two stages in the progress of manumission in Vir
ginia. The actual operation of the law was, however, only
one of several causes of the decline which occurred about
that time in the frequency of manumissions. First among
the causes which resulted in a decreased disintegration of
slavery early in the century was the growth of an anti- free-
negro sentiment which acted as powerfully to determine the
action of individual slave-owners as it did to determine leg
islation. Not a few of these persons were becoming con
verted to the opinion expressed in the editorial columns of
the Richmond Recorder that "there never was a madder
method of sinking property, a method more hostile to the
safety of society than the freak of emancipating negroes."131
Even from the point of view of the slave's welfare, honest
reflection upon the hard conditions — economic, social, and
legal — of free negroes, whether they remained in the State
or attempted to emigrate, caused masters of benevolent in
tentions to hesitate long before surrendering a slave to his
own care. The feeling of this class of slave-owners was
well expressed by Thomas Jefferson in 1814: "Men of this
color are by their habits, rendered as incapable as children
of taking care of themselves and are promptly extinguished
whenever industry is necessary for raising the young. In
the meantime they are pests in society by their idleness and
the depredations to which this leads them."132

In the second place, among the causes of the decline in
the frequency of manumissions must be reckoned the re
straining effect of the law annexing banishment as an
attendant condition. "This law," wrote the Powhatan
Colonization Society, "has restrained many masters from
giving freedom to their slaves and has thereby contributed

131 Richmond Recorder, November 10, 1802. This issue contains
a lengthy and animated discussion of the vicious character of the
free negro and the dangers of manumission.

tsa Randall, Life of Jefferson, vol. iii, p. 644. Compare also John
Burk's statement in 1804 that "the first loss to be sustained by an
emancipation is not the greater bar to this desirable end" (The
History of Virginia, vol. i, p. 212 n.).

76 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

to check the growth of an evil already too great and formid
able."133 Richard Hildreth, writing in 1856, asserts that
under the act of 1782 manumissions were very numerous,
"and but for the subsequent re-enactment [in 1806] of re
strictions upon it, the free colored population of Virginia
might now exceed the slaves."134 A petition to the legisla
ture from the Richmond Colonization Society attributed
entirely to this law the decline of four thousand in the de
cennial increase in the free negro population from the first
to the second decade of the century.135

The Virginia slaves felt keenly their dependence upon
those by whom they were reared and for whom they labored.
Many of them preferred to continue as slaves in their mas
ter's household rather than incur the risk of being sent
homeless into a strange land. Lucinda, a negro woman
manumitted about 1812 by the last will of Mary Mathews,
refused to be moved to Tennessee with other negroes set
free by the same will, deliberately remaining in the State
long enough to forfeit her freedom and petitioning the leg
islature to vest the title to her in William H. Hose.136 Sam,
a negro petitioner, declared to the legislature in 1808 that
he preferred slavery to being forced to leave his wife and
family, all of whom were slaves.137 There were many slave
owners who considered the question of manumission solely
from the standpoint of the welfare of their slaves, and who
were therefore temporarily or permanently prevented from
conferring upon them a freedom which would deprive them
of their only hope of a lawful support. John Randolph of
Roanoke, writing in his will in 1819 concerning his slaves,
said, " It has a long time been a matter of deepest regret to
me that . . . the obstacles thrown in the way by the laws

133 Memorial to Virginia Legislature, in MS. Petitions, Powhatan
County, 182(5?), uncatalogued.

34 The History of the United States, vol. iii, p. 392.
135 MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1825, A 9358.
138 MS. Petitions, King George County, 1813, 61109.
137 MS. Petitions, Essex County, 1808, A 5385.

MANUMISSION 77

of the land have prevented my emancipating them in my
life-time."138

Furthermore, many free negroes who owned as slaves in
a legal sense their wives and children or their brothers, sis
ters, and other relatives were after 1806 deterred from set
ting them free when they contemplated the prospect of see
ing their dearest friends banished from the State by an
enforcement against them of the limited residence law. For
example, a colored man named Frank, who resided in Amelia
County, had purchased his wife and three children, and,
according to the statement of his white neighbors, had " al
ways intended that they should be virtually free, although
the law prohibited him from making them actually so with
out subjecting them to removal from the state."139 Bowling
Clark, a free negro of Campbell County, purchased his wife
a few years after the act of 1806 went into operation; but
both were declining in years, and both preferred the existing
arrangement to one which would have given the wife free
dom at the cost of parting husband and wife or of sending
both from their home together.140 Numerous instances could
be cited to show that the law annexing banishment as a con
dition of manumission exerted a powerful effect in restrain
ing the will of black slave-owners.141

The third of the causes which deserve notice here in con
nection with the general decline in the frequency of manu
missions in the nineteenth century is a noteworthy change
in the economic aspects of slaveholding. The invention of

38 The last will and testament of John Randolph of Roanoke set
free about three hundred and eighty-five slaves. The document is
printed in Garland, vol. ii, p. 150.

139 In 1809 Frank died, and the only means that remained of sav
ing " Patience, the wife, and Philemon, Elizabeth and Henry, the
children of the free black man" from sale into slavery was leg
islative intervention by private act. The legislature intervened in
this case because the purchase by Frank of his family took place
before the enactment of the law of 1806. Legislative action was re
fused in many similar cases of later date (MS. Petitions, Amelia
County, 1809, A 768; Acts, 1809-1810, p. 54).

140 MS. Petitions, Campbell County, 1815, A 3412.

141 See MS. Petitions, Fauquier County, 1837, A 5859; and below,
pp. 92, 93. The imperfect enforcement of the act of 1806, a subject
treated elsewhere in this monograph, did not relieve negroes of the
fear of the consequences following violation of it.

/8 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

the cotton gin in 1793 made possible the expansion of the
cotton industry in the South. The result of this industrial
expansion created a demand for slaves to work in the cotton
fields. The abolition of the foreign slave trade in 1808 pro
duced the final condition for the rapid growth of a domestic
slave trade which eventually resulted in a rise in prices of
Virginia slaves. About 1790, "when slave prices reached
the bottom of a twenty years' decline,"142 the maximum fre
quency of manumissions was attained, with the exception
of the first few months after the manumission act took
effect. Conditions in 1794 were such as to lead Washing
ton to say that he believed that slaves would be " found to
be a very troublesome species of property ere many years
pass over our heads."143 Any slave-owner having a limited
number of acres for tillage might readily become overstocked
with slaves and be forced to the alternative of manumitting
or selling some of them.144 In various ways household
slaves made demands upon or appeals to their owners for
freedom. In competition with these demands was the de
mand of the slave market. When the competition of the
market was weak, as it was in the last quarter of the eight
eenth century, the slave had a better opportunity to pur
chase, or to induce a friend to purchase, his freedom, or to
appeal with success to the charity of his owner, than when
attractive prices were being offered to owners for their sur
plus property.145

141 U. B. Phillips, " The Economic Cost of Slaveholding in the
Cotton Belt," in Political Science Quarterly, vol. xx, p. 257.

143 Washington to Alexander Spottswood, November 23, 1794, in
New York Public Library Bulletin, vol. ii, pp. 14, 15.

144 Delegates representing slave-owning interests in the constitu
tional convention of 1829-1830 feared that delegates from western
Virginia desired to see slavery .taxed out of existence. If slaves
were to be taxed more heavily, thought Richard Morris, " Either the
master must run away from the slaves or the slave from the
master." Here we see a recognition of the relation between the
freeing of slaves and the paying character of slave property (Pro
ceedings and Debates of the Convention, p. 116).

148 In 1792 a negro man living in King William County died, leav
ing a will which directed that so much of his estate as was necessary
be used to purchase the freedom of his son, the property of Ben
jamin Temple. This illustrates a phase of manumission directly
affected by the market price of slaves (Hening, vol. xiii, p. 619).

MANUMISSION 79

It is important, however, to keep in mind that the change
in economic conditions was not a sudden one, and that it was
not the sole cause of the decline in the frequency of manu
missions. John Fiske overrated the economic phase when he
wrote, "After the abolition of the slave-trade in 1808 had
increased the demand for Virginia-bred slaves in the states
further south the very idea of emancipation faded out of
memory."146 This statement is erroneous both as to the
facts and as to the inference that the cause of the change
was wholly economic. The personal and human element in
the relations of the master and his slaves so often overshad
owed the property relation that the disposition which a
master would make of his slaves could not be foretold by
reference to economic laws.

The change in the economic value of slaveholding ascribed
by Fiske to the early part of the century was in fact more
potent in producing the second stage in the decline of manu
mission, which began about 1830, than it was in ushering in
the first period of decline in the first decade of the century.
No great rise in slave prices came about in Virginia before
1830 as a result of the growth of the cotton industry.147 As
a result of the decided improvement in slavery as an eco
nomic system and of the increasing vehemence of attacks
made upon slavery by abolitionists, there arose soon after
the great slavery debate in the Virginia legislature in 1832
a new school of slavery apologists whose outspoken de
fenses of slavery as a beneficial economic and political insti
tution represented a new stage in the development of senti
ment adverse to manumitting. The man who may be called
the founder of this school of proslavery writers was Thomas
R. Dew, professor of history and metaphysics in William
and Mary College, who reviewed the slavery debate of 1832
and wrote an elaborate defense of slavery entitled " Essay
on Slavery." Other writers who followed Dew in defend-

149 Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, vol. ii, p. 191.

147 W. H. Collins, The Domestic Slave Trade of the Southern
States, p. 26 et seq. ; W. Jay, Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery,
pp. 266, 267.

8O THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

ing slavery upon its merits were George Fitzhugh,148 Alfred
T. Bledsoe, professor of mathematics in the University of
Virginia/49 Rev. Dr. Thornton Stringfellow,150 and Edmund
Ruffin.151

The theory advanced by these writers was that the negro
occupied his true and proper economic and political sphere
in slavery, and that the correct solution of the race problem
was not a plan of gradual emancipation, as was urged by a
large minority in the legislature of 1832, but a reduction and
continued subjection of the members of the black race to
slavery. This view differentiates the part of the nineteenth
century before 1832 from the part which came between 1832
and 1860, and serves to show by contrast how considerable
was the freedom sentiment in Virginia up to 1832. The
increase of the free negro population during the decade of
1820-1830 was 10,474. From 1830 to 1840 the increase in
that class of the population was only 2500. Prior to the
Southampton insurrection and the consequent discussion of
the slavery question, prevailing opinion regarded slavery as
an evil system to be removed as soon as a feasible method
could be devised. It was hoped that by manumission the
problem of drawing off a certain part of the colored class
for colonization would be solved, and that this plan would
finally remove the negroes to Africa. A stronger and more
general antislavery sentiment existed in Virginia prior to
1832 than some writers are disposed to admit. The earnest
ness of the debate and the closeness of the vote on an
emancipation project in the legislature in 1832 is wrongly
regarded by Edward Ingle152 as a sort of wild expression of
fear created by the Southampton insurrection, and not as
an expression of normal sentiment. It is true that the in
surrection furnished the occasion for the debate of 1832,
but the antislavery sentiments expressed fairly represented

148 " Sociology for the South," and " What Shall be done with
the Free Negroes?"
149 " Liberty and Slavery."
130 " The Bible Argument."

151 "African Colonization Unveiled."

152 Southern Sidelights, pp. 265, 266.

MANUMISSION 8 1

honest views which had persisted up to that time. Anti-
slavery sentiments had been uttered in the constitutional
convention of 1829-1830 by such men as James Monroe.163
In 1821 Madison declared that the free negroes were " in
creasing rapidly from manumissions and from offsprings."154
Again in 1826 he wrote to La Fayette that "manumissions
more than keep pace with the outlets provided and that the
increase of them is only checked by their [the freedmen]
remaining in the country.155 This obstacle removed and all
others would yield to the emancipating disposition." In
Madison's opinion, "the tendency was favorable to the cause
of universal emancipation."

In contrast with this view expressed by Madison, which
is representative of an attitude toward the slavery question
quite extensively held before 1832, we may consider the
opinion of a pamphlet writer of the decade of the fifties as
indicative of the change in sentiment since 1832. Speak
ing of the mistaken philanthropy of the slave-owners of the
period of the Commonwealth prior to 1832, he declared that
the soil was then especially favorable to the growth of
manumission sentiment. " For slavery had come to be gen
erally considered as an economical and political evil by a
large portion of the intelligent slaveholders in Virginia. It
was not until after abolition fanaticism of the Northern
people had become both active and malignant, and that Pro
fessor Dew's excellent ' Essay on Slavery ' (the first impor
tant defense of the system off ered in modern days) had been
published that the revulsion began. At the present time,
there are few intelligent and well informed persons in all
Virginia who do not deem negro slavery to be in every
respect a beneficial institution."156

158 Debates of the Convention, p. 172; Richmond Enquirer, Novem
ber 5, 1829.

54 Madison's Writings, vol. iii, p. 240.

IM Madison's Writings, vol. iii, pp. 275, 540. For petitions signed
by ^ large numbers of citizens pleading, in 1827, in the interest
of "citizens who may feel disposed to emancipate their slaves," see
MS. Petitions, Frederick, Jefferson, and Berkeley Counties, 1827,
A 6495.

158 "Calx," pp. 4, 5.
6

82 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

From what has already been said it should appear clear
that the periods in the history of manumission from 1782 to
1865 were marked rather by changes in sentiment than by
changes in laws. The act of 1782 authorizing manumission
by the will or other instrument of writing remained in full
force to the close of the Civil War.157 By way of compar
ing the three stages in manumission sentiment under the act
of 1782 it may with tolerable accuracy be stated that the
chances of manumission of a slave living in Virginia through
the generation preceding 1800 were about ten in a hundred;
of one living through the period from 1800 to 1832, about
four or five in a hundred; and of one living after 1832,
about two in a hundred.

On a basis of sentiment or of the frequency with which
manumissions occurred there may be said to be three stages
in the progress of manumissions during the period of the
Commonwealth, but from the standpoint of legal processes
and regulations of manumission the period from 1782 to
1865 is but one period.

The act of 1782 imposed upon slave-owners who manu
mitted slaves over forty-five years of age the duty of pro
viding for their maintenance, in order that they might not
become charges upon the public.158 In 1792 a revision of
the act of 1782 was deemed necessary to the proper protec
tion of creditors. A qualifying clause was appended to the
provisions of the original act which made any manumitted
slave liable to be taken by execution to satisfy the debts
contracted by his former master previous to the date of
manumission.159 In several important cases the supreme

UT It seems an inexcusable error on the part of Henry Wilson that
he should have asserted in his History of the Rise and Fall of the
Slave Power that the act of 1782 remained in force for only ten
years, and that after its provisions were repealed, "that source of
just and humane individual action being forcibly stopped, gradually
dried up and ceased to flow" (vol. i, p. 20). See Code (1849), 459
n., for a statement by the compiler that " the right to emancipate
has continued ever since [1782] ; and the validity and effect of in
struments of emancipation have been passed upon in many cases."

168 See deed executed by Samuel Tinsley, 1792, in MS. Deeds of
Henrico County, no. 4, p. 212.

159Hening, vol. xiv, p. 128.

MANUMISSION 83

court of appeals held that "the right to emancipate slaves
is subordinate to the obligation to pay debts previously con
tracted by express will of the statute."100 In 1805 certain
negroes set free by a deed of gift from their owner were, in
pursuance of a decision of the supreme court of appeals,
taken in execution for the satisfaction of the debts of the
slave-owner's wife, notwithstanding the fact that the ne
groes belonged to their owner before he married the wife
for whose debts the negroes were held.161 All other forms
of property, personal or real, had to be applied to the pay
ment of debts before execution could be made upon liber
ated slaves; and if the amount of indebtedness remaining
could be paid by hiring out the liberated negroes of the debtor,
they were deprived of freedom only as long as was nec
essary to raise the required amount. No statute of limita
tions could be appealed to by negroes who had been in peace
ful possession of their freedom for five, ten, or apparently
any number of years to stop an execution upon them for
the debts of their owner contracted before the liberation.162
Under the provisions of the act of 1782 and of every later
revision of that act, manumissions could be made by last
will and testament or by other instrument of writing prop
erly attested and proved. Written instruments of manu
mission other than wills were generally called " deeds of
manumission " or " deeds of emancipation." Strictly speak
ing, such instruments were not deeds, because they imported
no transfer of property from one to another, but they bore
a close analogy to deeds. Referring to this analogy, a judge
of the supreme court of appeals in Thrift v. Hannah said:
"A deed is a writing sealed and delivered. Proof or ac
knowledgment in court is to an instrument of emancipation
what delivery is to a deed at common law."163 In imitation

160 Dunn v. Amey, I Leigh, 465 (1829); Jincey et al. v. Winfield
Administrators, 9 Grattan, 708 (1853).

161 Woodley v. Abby, 5 Call, 336. See also Patty v. Colin, i Hen-
ing and Munford, 519 (1807).

162 Woodley v. Abby, 5 Call, 336; Patty v. Colin, i Hening and
Munford, 519 (1807).

163 Thrift v. Hannah, 2 Leigh, 330.

84 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

of deeds or indentures conveying property from one to
another, such instruments of manumission usually stipulated
a pecuniary consideration. Even when the act of the master
was purely an act of benevolence, it was the practice to
stipulate some such nominal consideration as five shillings,16*
one dollar,165 or five dollars.166 Deeds of manumission were
in frequent use between 1782 and 1800 by persons of very
decided antislavery views,167 as, for example, the Quakers.
Though of less frequent occurrence in the deed-books of
the nineteenth century, deeds of emancipation were used by
free negroes who purchased and set free their relatives and
friends, or by masters who agreed with their slaves to set
them free upon payment of a certain sum of money.

The most common type of deeds of emancipation is ex
emplified by the following instrument, taken from the court
records of Henrico County: —

To all whom these presents may come know ye, that I Peter
Hawkins a free black man of the City of Richmond having pur
chased my wife Rose, a slave about twenty-two years of age and
by her have had a child called Mary now about 18 mo. old, for the
love I bear toward my wife and child have thought proper to eman
cipate them and for the further consideration of five shillings to me
in hand paid ... I emancipate and set free the said Rose and Mary
. . . and relinquish all my right title and interest and claim whatso
ever as slaves to the said Rose and Mary.

PETER HAWKINS (Seal)168

From the standpoint of proslavery men of the nineteenth
century, manumission by last will and testament was the
method most likely to be abused. It was certainly the
method which remained in most common use throughout
the entire period of the Commonwealth. When a slave
owner recognized that he was approaching the end of life,

64 MS. Deeds of Henrico County, no. 2, pp. 569, 574; no. 6, p. 274.

165 Ibid., no. 7, p. 205.

166 Ibid., no. 7, p. 454.

167 Betsey Barlow, who from benevolent motives freed her slaves
by deed in 1789, gave them not only freedom but new names : " I
set free Jacob and Sarah to whom I give the names Jacob Holland
and Sarah Marnick" (MS. Deeds of Northampton County, 1785-
1794, P- 291). Manumitted slaves often assumed the surnames of
their former owner.

168 MS. Deeds of Henrico County, 1800, no. 6, p. 78.

MANUMISSION 85

he was likely to give serious consideration to his duty to
his own slaves, regardless of his views respecting slavery in
general. There remained to him only one appropriate way
of acknowledging his debt of gratitude for the long, patient,
and faithful service of the slaves of his household. Con
fronted with the alternative of dying ingrate or bequeathing
to their servants freedom from bondage, many masters
chose the latter course, and down to the Civil War the wills
of slave-owners frequently contained such a clause as, " I
give unto my negro her freedom on account of her faithful
ness of service."169 Giles Fitzhugh, a descendant of a long
line of slave-owners, freed all his slaves by his last will in
J^SS-170 A will of manumission sometimes represented a
tardy effort or last resort to ease a goaded conscience. John
Randolph of Roanoke wrote in his last will, " I give to my
slaves their freedom to which my conscience tells me they
are justly entitled."171 Edmund Ruffin, lamenting in 1859
the abuse of testamentary manumissions by slave-owners of
" sensitive or feeble minds, or morbidly tender consciences
. . . especially of wealthy old men and old women," saw in
the motives of such slave-owners a resemblance to the mo
tives appealed to by priests in the dark ages " when inducing
rich sinners to smooth and pay their future pass to Heaven.

168 MS. Wills of Norfolk County, 1836-1868, p. 66. The will of
J. A. Schwartz, of Nottoway County, affords a striking illustration
of the way in which the reflections of slave-masters in their last ill
ness often impelled them to acknowledge their debt of gratitude to
their slaves while theie was opportunity. With his slaves standing
around him as he lay upon his death-bed, Schwartz questioned them
separately before dictating orally what was intended for his will in
respect to them.

" Bob, do you wish to be freed? "

" I am willing to serve you, but I had rather be freed than have
another master," said Bob.

" He should be free," answered the master.

When a similar conversation had taken place between Frank and
the dying man with a like result, Polly enquired : " What are you
going to do for poor me?" "Polly and her children," said he,
"should be free" (3 Leigh, 142).

170 A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, vol. vii, p. no.

171 Garland, vol. ii, p. 150. This last act of Randolph, liberating
about three hundred and eighty-five slaves, was referred to by oppo
nents of testamentary manumission as " the shocking example of
John Randolph" (Ingle, p. 266).

86 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

Such emancipations have been made in great amount and in
many cases, and not only by the unquestionably benevolent
and pious . . . but also by persons whose lives and actions,
both as men and as masters, had indicated anything but piety,
benevolence, or even a just and good treatment of their
slaves/'172

The last will and testament was naturally the legal instru
ment selected by a slave-owner of moderate antislavery
views who wished to retain the services of his negroes during
his life, but desired at the same time to guarantee them, by
providing for their freedom at his death, against being sold
with his estate or separated from their homes and each
other. The testamentary method served equally well the
master who wished to " lend " his slaves to his heirs for a
fixed period during the lifetime of the heirs or until the
slaves should arrive at a certain age.173 " Manumission in
future " was the term applied to the act of a master whose
will provided for the freedom of his slaves at a specified
time after his death.

Slave-owners making wills of manumission in future
often attempted to affix conditions to the possession of free
dom by their slaves. A condition precedent to the manu
mission was held by the courts to be valid, that is to say, a
master by his will could make the freedom of a slave depend
upon some act or condition of the slave or upon some event,
if such act, condition, or event was to be determined before
the slave's freedom began. A condition subsequent was
invalid. If a master manumitted his slave upon condition
that the slave serve him for hire or otherwise after acquir
ing freedom or that the negro's children be slaves, the manu-

172 E. Ruffin, African Colonization Unveiled, p. 9.

173 James Johnson, of Louisa County, made his will in 1785, be
queathing to his wife all his negroes during her lifetime. After her
death the negroes were to be set free upon attaining the age of
twenty-one years (10 Leigh, 277). John E. Taylor in his last will
said : " I lend my slaves Margaret, Bridget, Ben, George, John and
Sandy to my wife Keziah and my daughter Margaret during their
natural lives, but in the event of the death of my said wife and
daughter, I do hereby emancipate them and their issue forever"
(MS. Wills of Norfolk County, 1836-1868, p. 25).

MANUMISSION 8/

mission was valid, but the conditions stipulated were of no
effect or force.174 Any effort to control or direct the con
duct of a negro after manumission or to put him in a status
intermediate between slavery and freedom was futile.175
Some wills conditioned the freedom of slaves upon the
choice or election of the slaves when they arrived at certain
ages or when certain conditions were fulfilled. Until 1858
such wills were treated by the courts as valid.176 In the
case of Baily et al. v. Poindexter the supreme court of ap
peals, contrary to the sentiment of the legal profession, ruled
that slaves had no legal capacity even to choose to be free,
and that allowing them such choice did not manumit them
or provide for their manumission.177

m Minor, vol. i, p. 167. John Fitzgerald of Petersburg bequeathed
freedom to a female slave with the reservation that her children
should be slaves. When the instrument came for construction by
appeal to the supreme court in 1827, it was held that the children
of the woman set free were free and in no way under the control
of their mother's former owner (Fulton v. Shaw, 4 Randall, 597).
It was different in the case of children born of a slave-woman at
any time before she had a right, according to the provisions of
the will, to her freedom. Such children were slaves (Maria et al.
v. Surbough, 2 Randall, 228).

175 A will recorded in 1847, reading " I bequeath my negro girl
Eliza to daughter Jimmey after the decease of my wife, not as a
bond slave, but to be under her care and tuition" was held to be
void of effect even to manumit the slave girl (2 Grattan, 227).

176Pleasants v. Pleasants, 2 Call, 319; Elder v Elder's Executor,
4 Leigh, 252 ; Dawson v. Dawson's Executor, 10 Leigh, 602.

177 14 Grattan, 132. See also Williamson v. Coalter's Executors,
14 Grattan, 394. Minor, vol. i, p. 160.

CHAPTER IV
THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO

The legal status of free individuals is involved in the
usual two-fold relation of persons to the state, — that of
receiver of protection and security from the government,
and that of active participant in its affairs. Considering
the status of the free negro in this double relation, the ques
tion which first demands an answer is, What protection was
afforded him in rights of property and in the enjoyment of
life and liberty?

The common-law right to own and to alienate property
was at an early date recognized as belonging to free negroes,
and it suffered fewer limitations in their possession than any
other of the rights generally regarded as fundamental to a
free status. In the " order-book " of the county court of
Accomac for 1632-1640 is an order "that Francis the negare
shall have his chist wch he clameth now being in the house
of John Foster in case there be noe lawful reason shown to
the contrary betwine this and the next courte alledged."1
Contracts involving the recognition of full rights of free
negroes to personal property were recorded in the county
courts as early as 1645. 2 Among the early Virginia land
patents are a number representing grants to negroes of from
fifty to five hundred acres to be held in fee simple. The
first of such grants made to a negro of which we have any
record was one of two hundred and fifty acres to Anthony
Johnson of Northampton County in 1651 as "head-rights"
on the importation of five persons into the colony.3 Other
examples in this and other counties could be cited.4 Among

1 Transcribed copy in the Virginia State Library, p. 152.
8 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1645-1651, pp. 83,
131; above, pp. 27, 28 n.

3 MS. Land Patents of Virginia, 1643-1651, p. 326.
4 See above, p. 38.

88

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 89

the deeds of York County for the year 1664 is one convey
ing a tract of land5 from a white man to a negro. The
county court of the same county held in 1660 that a free
negro was capable of receiving property by bequest.6

The right of free negroes to property, personal and real,
thus amply recognized in the seventeenth century, was pre
served by the courts throughout the entire period under re
view. In the case of Parks v. Hewlett,7 decided in 1838,
the supreme court of appeals says: "He [the free negro] is
at once entitled to acquire and enjoy property. His person
is under the protection of the laws, and he has a right to
sue for injuries done to person or to property. He may
even acquire lands and hold slaves and will transmit them
by inheritance to his children." In 1858, when the laws no
longer allowed free negroes to acquire slaves except by de
scent, the courts still upheld the property rights of free
negroes by holding that when a bequest of slaves was made
to persons in trust for free negroes, the slaves must be sold
or exchanged for a kind of property which free negroes
could lawfully possess, and that the proceeds of the sale
must be distributed among the free negroes according to the
provisions of the will.8

Free negroes owning property transferred it by deed or
transmitted it by will just as did white persons.9 Courts of
record and probate were open to them for recording legal
evidences of sale or transfer of property,10 and upon the

5 MS. Court Records of York County, 1664-1672, p. 327, in Vir
ginia State Library.

" Itt is ordered yt John Negro servant to Thomas Whitehead
Dec'd be and is hereby declared Free and that he have his cattle
& other things belonging to him delivered (to him) according to ye
Dec'd Will & Costs" (MS. Court Records of York County, 1657-
1662, pp. 211, 217, in Virginia State Library).

7 9 Leigh, 511.

8 14 Grattan, 251.

9 Hening, vol. xiii, p. 619.

10 In 1829 William Yates, a free negro, died leaving a will by
which he gave his " estate real and personal," after payment of his
debts, to Henry Edloe and Robert McCandlish in trust for his wife
Maria, who was his slave, to be paid over to her as soon as she
could be freed and be allowed to remain in the State. The will was
admitted to probate, and an administrator was appointed to carry
out its provisions (3 Grattan, 330).

90 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

courts devolved the duty of seeing that estates of intestates
were lawfully administered for the benefit of the rightful
heirs. In the case of Hepburn v. Dundas,11 by the authority
of the highest court of the State the rights of collateral heirs
to the estate of a free negro who died intestate and without
children were fully asserted. The agency of the courts,
either of common law or equity, was resorted to with no
unusual difficulties by free negroes in the enforcement of
bequests of property to them.12

The inviolability of the property rights of free negroes
was an effective argument against the frequent proposals
to remove the entire free negro population from the State.
In the legislature of 1832 General Brodnax affirmed that the
free negroes, in the event of deportation, could easily dis
pose of their small holdings. But Marshall, who opposed
forcible deportation, declared that there are those "who have
property which they must dispose of before leaving the
country. Will you force them to bring their property into
market all at once to be sacrificed by one precipitate sale ? "1S
The argument prevailed against those who favored the
measure, and the bill was lost.

In order that certain individuals might have time to dis
pose of property left them by their deceased masters, nu
merous private acts were passed by the legislature granting
them permission to remain in the State contrary to the law
of i8o6.14 In 1842 a House of Delegates bill to prohibit
free negroes from acquiring real estate met with but slight
consideration.15

The most remarkable property right possessed by free ne
groes was the right to acquire, own, and alienate slaves.
Indeed, for more than twenty years from the time when
free negroes first appear in the courts there was no legal

11 13 Grattan, 219.

12 Dunlap v. Harrison, 14 Grattan, 251.

"Richmond Enquirer, February 14, 1832.

"Acts, 1821-1822, p. 85; 1828-1829, p. 157; 1829-1830, p. 134;
1830-1831, p. 306; 1832-1833, pp. 198, 199. The law of 1806 here
referred to required slaves manumitted after May I, 1806, to leave
the State within twelve months. See above, p. 45, 45 n.

15 House Journals, 1841-1842, pp. 66, 114, 162.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 9!

restriction upon their right to own indentured white ser
vants. Such a reversal of the usual order may have been
in a few cases actually attempted, for in 1670 a law was
enacted which declared that " noe negro or Indian though
baptized and enjoyned their own ffreedome shall be capable
of any purchase of Christians, but yet not debarred from
buying any of their owne nation."18 There is on record in
the Northampton County court-house a clear case of the
ownership by a free negro of a negro servant as early as

i655-17

Not before 1832 were free negroes forbidden to own ne
gro slaves. That this right was quite commonly exercised,
notably in the nineteenth century, is a fact well supported
by evidence. It was not unusual among the free colored
people for one member of the family to hold one or more
of the other members in legal bondage. The following in
denture of 1795 illustrates this form of slavery: —

Know all men of these presents that I, James Radford of the
county of Henrico for and in consideration of the sum of thirty-
three pounds current money of Virginia to me in hand paid by
George Radford (a black freeman) of the city of Richmond . . .
hath bargained and sold unto George Radford one negro woman
aggy, To have and to hold the said negro slave aggy unto the said
George Radford his heirs and assigns forever.

JAMES RADFORD (Seal)18

Equally instructive is the following " Deed of sale of
slaves to a freeman " of the same date : —

Know all men of these presence that I David A. Jones of Amelia
County of the one part have for and in consideration of the sum
of five hundred dollars granted unto Frank Gromes a black man
of the other part a negro woman named Patience and two children
by name Phil & Betsy to have and to hold & to hold the above

19 Hening, vol. ii, p. 280. The act of 1748 concerning servants and
slaves declared "that no negroe, mulatto, or Indian although a
Christian or any Jew, Moor, Mohametan or other infidel shall at any
time purchase any Christian servants nor any other except their
own complexion, or such as by this act are declared slaves: and
if any of the persons aforesaid shall nevertheless presume to pur
chase a Christian white servant, such servant shall immediately be
come free, and be held deemed and taken" (ibid., vol. v, p. 550).

1TMS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1651-1654, p. 226;
above, pp. 32, 33.

18 MS. Deeds of Henrico County, no. 5, p. 585.

92 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

named negroes to the only proper use, behalf and benefit of him
and his heirs forever.

DAVID JONES (Seal)19

Free negro men often thus purchased their slave wives,
and, fearful of residence prohibitions upon manumitted ne
groes, held their wives and children as their bond slaves.20
Free negro women sometimes purchased their slave hus
bands to subject them to a more agreeable bondage, them
selves becoming in an unusual sense their mistresses and
owners.21 Daughters were sometimes the property of their
mothers, as in the case of Janette Wood, of Richmond, who
in the year 1795 was emancipated by her mother " for and
in consideration of natural love."22 John Sabb of Rich
mond in the year 1801 purchased his aged father-in-law,
Julius, and manumitted him for the nominal sum of five
shillings.23

Prior to 1806 the purchase of one member of a family
by another was usually soon followed by a deed of manu
mission, but after an act24 of that year had made illegal the
continued residence of negroes manumitted after May I,
1806, the relation of master and slave within free negro

19 MS. Petitions, Amelia County, A 768.

20 A free negro of Prince William County, Daniel Webster by
name, being sixty years of age and expecting soon to die, petitioned
the legislature to permit his wife and children to remain in Virginia
contrary to the law of 1806, which required slaves manumitted there
after to leave the State within twelve months. During his life he
had avoided the evil consequences of this law to the members of his
family by continuing to own them as his slaves; but at his death
the danger of their being sold by an administrator was more threat
ening than the danger of removal from the State, and he wished
to manumit them (MS. Petitions, Prince William County, 1812).

21 In 1828 Phil Cooper and his wife, free people of color, petitioned
the legislature for a law permitting the husband to reside in Vir
ginia. His wife owned him as her slave, but wished to manumit
him provided that he might live in the State (MS. Petitions, Glou
cester County, A 6987). See also Lower Norfolk County Virginia
Antiquary, vol. iv, p. 177, for statement concerning Betsy Fuller, a
free negro huckstress of Norfolk, who owned her husband. Upon
the approach and outbreak of the Civil War the slave husband was
loud in the expression of southern views, and evidently was indiffer
ent as to his emancipation.

22 MS. Deeds of Henrico County, no. 4, p. 692.
29 Ibid., no. 6, p. 274.

^Hening, vol. xvi, p. 252.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 93

families became quite common. A petition of a slave wo
man, Ermana, to the legislature of 1839 stated that her
husband had been a free man of color, that he had died
intestate, and that she, her children, and her property had
escheated to the literary fund. She prayed that the right of
the fund to her and to her property be relinquished.25 Sally
Dabney, a slave of her husband, was bequeathed property
by his will as if she had been free. The testator died
without heirs. The wife, being a slave, was not competent
to receive the bequest; hence the property escheated to the
literary fund. The question arose as to whether the wife
also should not be sold for the benefit of the fund, and an
act of the legislature was passed to release the claims of the
State to her.26 ,^J*.V

In the exercise of their legal right to own slaves black
masters did not always confine themselves to the purchase
of their kindred for beneficent purposes. Some negroes
purchased and held slaves with the same considerations of
profit in view as governed the actions of white owners of
slaves. An example in the seventeenth century is that of
John Casor, a negro, who was by order of a county court re
manded to the service of Anthony Johnson, a negro free
holder.27 Judith Angus, a well-to-do free negress of Peters
burg, owned two slave girls as her personal servants. At
her death she left a will, dated 1832, by which she disposed
in regard to these two girls as follows : " My servants Jimmy
and Docy shall work until they obtain money enough to
enable them to leave the state and thereby secure their free
dom according to the laws of Virginia. In the event of
their remaining here, they shall belong to my son Moses."28
Against a free negro who held another negro in slavery
could be used only such legal remedies as could be used

23 It is probable that all the relatives of the deceased man were
slaves; hence his property escheated to the State (House Journal,
1839, p. 21).

28 Acts, 1834-1835, p. 242.

27 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1651-1654, p. 226;
above, pp. 32, 33.

28 MS. Petitions, Dinwiddie County, 1833, A 5123.

94 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

against a white master. Mary Quickley, a free black wo
man of Richmond, held as her slave a woman named Sarah.
Suit was granted in the hustings court to Sarah against her
black mistress only after appointed counsel had inquired
into the claims of Sarah based upon her own free status.
Suit was granted at the same time to Sarah's children, who
were held by white persons.29

Complete as were the free negro's rights in property law
fully possessed, he was nevertheless limited in a few re
spects as to the kinds of property he could acquire. The
limitations imposed were police regulations, and were ap
parently not discriminations against the free negro as such.
In the ownership of slaves, dogs, firelocks, poisonous drugs,
and intoxicants, free negroes were subject to limitations
which did not apply to white persons.

As early as 1670 free negroes were forbidden to own
white servants.30 By an act of 1832 they were declared in
capable of purchasing or otherwise acquiring permanent
ownership, except by descent, of any slaves other than hus
band, wife, and children; contracts for any such purchase
were declared void.31 By the Code of 1849 the limitation
was the same, except that parents were included among the
persons whom free negroes could acquire.32 An amend
ment of this section, made March 31, 1858, changed the law
to read : " No free negro shall be capable of acquiring, ex
cept by descent, any slave."33 There is evidence, however,

29 " On a petition of Sarah alledging herself illegally detained in
slavery by Mary Quickley a free black woman of this city . . . [and
on a similar petition of Sarah's children] for leave to sue their
owners for freedom in forma pauperis, Ordered that James Rind
Gent, be requested to certify his opinion to this court respecting the
probable claims of the petitioners . . . which he having done, It is
further ordered that they be allowed to sue for their freedom"
(Orders of Hustings Court of Richmond, vol. 5> P- 41)-

30 Hening, vol ii, p. 280.

31 Acts, 1831-1832, p. 20. The vote by which this bill was passed in
the Senate was 15 to 14 (Senate Journal, 1832, p. 176).

32 Code (1849), P. 458.

33 Acts, 1857-1858; Code (1860), p. 510. "The object of this law
is probably to keep slaves as far as possible under the control of
white men only, and prevent free negroes from holding persons of
their own race and color in personal subjection to themselves.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 95

that these laws prohibiting the purchase and sale of slaves
by free negroes were not enforced, and that free negroes
continued after 1832 to go into the market to purchase
slaves for profit. Had it not been so, there would have been
no occasion for the repeated propositions made and the laws
passed after 1832 to prevent the practice. Moreover, there
are persons living who affirm from observation that down
to the Civil War some free negroes owned slaves merely
in order to profit by them.34

Another limitation upon the right of free negroes to own
property was that in respect to firearms or other weapons,
with which they might themselves do injury, or, by placing
them in the hands of slaves, menace the safety of society.
An act of 1680 declared that "no negro or other slave"
could own or carry a " club, staffe, gunn or any other weapon
of defense or offense."35 In the revision of the laws in
1705 the word "negro" was omitted, so that slaves only
were forbidden to keep arms.36 In 1723 free negroes, mu-
lattoes, and Indians were forbidden to "keep or carry any
gun, powder or shot or any club or other weapon what
soever offensive or defensive." Free negro housekeepers
and those enrolled in the militia were, however, excepted.

Perhaps also it is intended to evince the distinctive superiority of
the white race" (Opinion of Judge Lee in Dunlop v. Harrison's
Executors, 14 Grattan, 260).

** Reuben West, a free negro barber who lived in Richmond during
the last three decades before the Civil War and paid taxes on real
property valued at $4420 (City Tax Books, 1856, 1859), is said
by William Mundin, a mulatto barber now living in Richmond,
who was born free in 1837, to have purchased a slave house servant.
According to the statement of Mundin, who was at that time serv
ing an apprenticeship to Reuben West, this woman slave showed
toward her black master a spirit of insubordination, and was there
fore soon sold by him. James H. Hill, another colored contem
porary of Reuben West, asserts that West owned two slaves, and
that one of them was a mulatto barber. As far as the statements
made by these men in lengthy interviews with the author could be
verified in authentic records, they were found to be trustworthy.
See also Lower Norfolk County Virginia Antiquary, vol. iv, pp.
174-182, for negro slave-owners enumerated in a list, prepared by
the commissioners of the revenue, of all slave-owners of Princess
Anne County in 1840.
5 Hening, vol. ii, p. 481.

38 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 459.

96 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

Such as lived on frontier plantations could upon application
be granted licenses to keep and use one gun.37

The acts regulating the enlistment of free negroes in
the militia in the eighteenth century show the distrust which
was felt of negroes in possession of firearms. The militia
act of 1748 declared that "all such free mulattoes, negroes
or Indians, as are or shall be listed, as aforesaid, shall ap
pear without arms."38 The substance of this provision was
repeated in I75539 and in I757-40 The provision was
dropped during the Revolution, manifestly for the purpose
of permitting free colored men to become soldiers.41 With
the increase of the free negro class and following the dis
covery of a negro plot in 1800, the feeling of danger from
free negroes in possession of firearms became more intense ;
and a law of 1806 forbade any free negro or mulatto, house
keeper or otherwise, to " keep or carry any fire-lock of any
kind, any military weapon or any powder or lead " without
first obtaining a license from the county or corporation
court.42 A free negro caught with a gun or other weapon
in violation of this act forfeited the weapon to the informer,
and received thirty-nine lashes at the whipping-post.43

More rigid still was the law dealing with this subject
which was passed in the first session of the legislature after
the Southampton insurrection.44 So much of former acts
as permitted justices to grant licenses to free negroes or

37 Hening, vol. iv, p. 131.
88 Ibid., vol. v, p. 17.

39 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 33.

40 Ibid., vol. vii, p. 95.

41 Ibid., vol. ix, p. 27 (1775); vol. ix, p. 268 (1777) ; see below,
p. no.

42 A Norfolk County court in 1820 made the following order:
" Upon the application of James Cuffie, a free man of colour, re
siding in this county, a license is granted him to keep a gun with
ammunition for the protection of his property" (MS. Orders,
1819-1820, circa p. 280). Note also the following: "Ordered that
the order of this court made the 9th day of August last granting
permission to James Harris a free man of colour to carry and use a
gun be rescinded" (MS. Minutes of Henrico County, no. 27, p. 516).

43 Hening, vol. xvi, p. 274.
"Acts, 1831-1832, p. 20.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 9/

mulattoes to keep or carry a firelock or any powder or lead
were by this law repealed. This absolute denial to free
negroes of the use of firearms imposed a serious disability
upon the farming element of this class. In 1839 Thomas
Beasley, a free negro of Giles County, remonstrated to the
legislature against this prohibition, saying that the moun
tainous frontier country where he lived was infested with
wild beasts, and that the law prohibiting free negroes to use
firelocks subjected him and his class to a great hardship in
that they had no means of protecting their domestic animals
and crops.45 A similar petition, endorsed with the signa
tures of eighty white citizens, was presented in 1840 by James
and Joseph Viney, free negroes of Giles County.46 In
spite of remonstrances against this law, it remained in force
until the Civil War.47 In 1839 patrols in search of arms
unlawfully held were granted authority to force open the
doors of such free negroes as were suspected of violating
these laws.48

The ownership by free negroes of dogs, as of firearms,
was objectionable, and for similar reasons. Prowling free
negroes accompanied by dogs became a menace, particularly
to the sheep-raising industry,49 and efforts were made in
several counties to prevent free negroes from keeping dogs.
In 1848 an act forbade free negroes in Mathews County to
own dogs.50 In 1858 a similar law was passed for the coun
ties of Essex, King and Queen, James City, and New Kent.61
For passing through or going about in any of these last
named counties with a dog a free negro was liable to pun
ishment by stripes, not exceeding thirty-nine, and a fine of
five dollars. A bill to make general the prohibition through-

45 MS. Petitions, Giles County, 1839, A 6812.

" Ibid., 1840, A 6821.

47 Code (1849), P- 754; Code (1860), p. 816.

* Acts, 1839, P- 24.

See a petition to the legislature which represents that both free
negroes and dogs kill sheep as they prowl through the neighbor
hood (MS. Petitions, Chesterfield County, 1854, A 4321).

60 Acts, 1847-1848; House Journal, 1847-1848, p. 436.

51 Acts, 1857-1858, p. 152.

98 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

out the State passed the House of Delegates in 1848, but
failed to receive the approval of the Senate.52

The laws of Virginia extended their protection not only,
as we have already seen, to the property of the free negro,
but, as we shall now see, to his life and liberty. In any
case in which the freedom of a negro was disputed the bur
den of proof was upon the negro to show that he was free.
Unlike the recognized principle of English law which de
mands that every man be regarded as innocent till his guilt
is established by evidence, a free negro taken up and de
prived of his liberty as being a slave had, in order to procure
his release, to produce evidence that he was not a slave. In
1806 George Wythe, chancellor of the State of Virginia,
gave as grounds for decreeing the freedom of three persons
claimed as slaves that freedom is the birthright of every
human being. He laid it down as a general proposition that
whenever one person claims to hold another in slavery, the
onus probandi lies on the claimant. This application of the
Declaration of Independence was completely repudiated by
the supreme court of appeals when the case came up for
final review.53 Judge Tucker, who spoke for a unanimous
court, asserted that the burden of proof is not upon the
claimant, but upon the negro to show that he is free ; whereas
with a white man or an Indian held in slavery the burden is
with the claimant.5* Again, in Fulton's Executors v. Gracey

"House Journal, 1847-1848, p. 436. In the act incorporating the
town of Manchester authority was given to the trustees to prohibit
slaves, free negroes, and mulattoes from raising hogs and dogs
(Acts, 1843-1844, p. 96).

Although free negroes were not forbidden to possess poisonous
drugs and intoxicating liquors, the sale of these articles to them
was a matter of rigid regulation or absolute prohibition (Acts,
1855-1856, p. 45; 1857-1858, p. 51). Complaint came to the legisla
ture in 1836 that free^negroes were acting as agents for slaves in
purchasing ardent spirits from the venders (MS. Petitions, North
umberland County, 1836, B 4969).

"Hudgins v. Wright, I Hening and Munford, 133.

M In the argument Judge Tucker supposes that " three persons, a
black or mulatto man or woman with a flat nose and woolly head;
a copper-colored person with long jetty black or straight hair;
and one with fair complexion, brown hair, not woolly, nor inclined
thereto, with a prominent Roman nose, were brought together before

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 99

the court declared that " in the case of a person visibly ap
pearing to be a white man or Indian the presumption is that
he is free, but in the case of a person visibly appearing to
be a negro, the presumption is that he is a slave. . . . The
plaintiff in a suit for freedom must make out his title
against all the world."55

The presumption being thus against the freedom of ne
groes, there was always a temptation to " divers ill-disposed
persons" to force free negroes into slavery by theft, cap
ture, or collusion, especially those free negroes whose occu
pations were already servile.56 A law of 1765, designed to
prevent this practice, fixed at £70 the penalty for selling as
a slave a colored person who was only a servant.57 In 1788,
when the precious character and value of liberty was re
ceiving unusual emphasis, a law was enacted which fixed
upon persons guilty of stealing or selling as a slave any free
negro or mulatto the extreme penalty of death without ben
efit of clergy.58 By the enactments of 1792 the penalty re
mained the same, but in the codification of 1819 it was
changed from death59 to imprisonment in the penitentiary
for at least two years.60 An act of 1848 raised the mini
mum term to three years, and after that no further change
was made in the penalty for this offense.61

Far from becoming empty verbiage in our criminal code,
these laws received general and often rigorous enforce
ment.62 In the opinion of the general court in Common-

a judge upon a suit of habeas corpus. . . . How must the Judge act
in this ^ase? . . . If the whole case be left with the judge, he must
deliver the [white man and the Indian] out of custody, and permit
the negro to remain in slavery, until he could produce proof of his
freedom." Cf. case of Aron Jackson, in MS. Minutes of Henrico
County, no. 27, p. 142.

55 15 Grattan, 323.

68 For examples, see Calendar of Virginia State Papers, vol. i,
p. 10; ii Leigh, 633; MS. Minutes of Henrico County, no. 27, p. 129.

67 Hening, vol. viii, p. 133.
1 Ibid., vol. xii, p. 531.

68 Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 127.
80 1 Revised Code, 427.

"Acts, 1847-1848, p. 97; Code (1860), p. 785.
62 MS. Minutes of Henrico County, no. 27, p. 129; Commonwealth
v. Nix, ii Leigh, 636.

IOO THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

wealth v. Mercer they were not to be construed as a pro
tection for a white man who might become the victim of
fraud if a free negro should be sold to him as a slave, but
their purpose and use was the protection of free negroes in
their freedom.63 In Davenport v. Commonwealth64 the
supreme court of appeals held that kidnapping a free negro
without the actual sale constituted the crime against which
the law was directed, and, further, that stealing a free negro
with felonious intent to appropriate him was criminal,
whether the person knew him to be free or not. The ac
tivity and interest manifested in the prosecution of viola
tors of this law is shown by the proclamation of Governor
Lee issued July 8, 1794: —

Whereas I have received information that some wicked and evil-
disposed persons . . . did on the night of the 20th of June last
feloniously steal and take away two children of Peggy Howell, a
free Mulatto living in the county of Charlotte, with a design as is
supposed to sell them in some of the neighboring states as slaves,
the name and description of which children are contained in the Hue
and Cry subjoined, and whereas the rights of humanity are deeply
interested in the restoration of the children to their parents, and
the good order of society is involved in the punishment of the
offenders, I do by and with the advice of the Council of State issue
this Proclamation offering a reward of Fifty Dollars for the re
covery of each of the said children and the further sum of one
hundred dollars for apprehending and securing in the public jail of
Charlotte County the offender or offenders.

HENRY LEE.W

Against the easy abuse of the principle of presuming
slavery from color the liberty of the free negro was further
safeguarded by remedial laws of procedure and by a general
liberality in the courts in consideration of all claims to free
dom. A legally certified register, called by the free negroes

^Abram Hirer, a free negro, entered into an agreement with a
white man named Mercer to allow himself to be sold as a slave.
Hiter, it was planned, would later assert his freedom and share
with Mercer the proceeds of the sale. Mercer's act of defrauding
the purchaser was not punishable under the law, inasmuch as it in
volved no fraud upon the negro (2 Va. Cases, 144).

64 1 Leigh, 588.

65 MS. Proclamation Book, p. 53; Calendar of Virginia State
Papers, vol. viii, p. 231. See MS. Court Records of Charlotte
County, 1794, for proceedings of a court held for the purpose of
taking depositions in this case.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO IOI

" free papers," was sufficient to repel the presumption and
to shift the burden of proof to the person denying freedom
to its possessor. " To suppose," said the court in Delacy
v. Antoine, "that a free negro in possession of regular free
papers may be falsely imprisoned without redress is indeed
to attribute a gross and lamentable omission to the law. To
confine that redress to a suit in forma pauperis to establish
his freedom when he already has the conclusive proof of it
in his hands would be a mockery. A free negro as well as a
free white man must be entitled to the habeas corpus act."66
After 1793 every free negro was required to register in
the county or corporation court, and for twenty-five cents
was entitled to a copy of the register with the seal of the
court annexed, which copy was prima facie evidence of
freedom.67 In the absence of immediate evidence of free
dom, a free negro detained as a slave could bring suit in
forma pauperis, in which he had the benefit of assigned
counsel and which was conducted without cost to the plain
tiff.68 He was protected by the laws against intimidation
in his suit from the person claiming to be his master.69
Courts of equity were open to him.70 Liberal rules of evi
dence in suits either in law or equity where freedom was
involved were applied. If he had lost his free papers, he
could offer evidence that he had once had them.71 Hear
say and reputation were received as evidence of the status
of one's ancestors in an effort to establish free birth.72 An

66 7 Leigh, 438; cf. 15 Grattan, 256, 323. •

67 Hening, vol. xiv, p. 238; I Revised Code, 440.

68 Hening, vol. xiv, p. 363; I Revised Code, 481. "On petition of
Sarah [and her children] ... It is ordered that they be allowed to
sue for their freedom in this court in forma pauperis and James
Rind Gent is assigned their counsel to prosecute the said suits and
that their owners do not presume to remove, beat or misuse them
upon this account, but suffer them to come to the Clerk's office of
this court for subpoenas for their witnesses and to attend their ex
aminations " (Orders of Hustings Court of Richmond, no. 5, p. 41).

^Orders of Hustings Court of Richmond, no. 5, p. 41.

70 Sam v. Blakemore, 4 Randall, 466; I Hening and Munford, 133.

71 MS. Minutes of Henrico County, no. 27, p. 503.

72 In Pegram v. Isabell, a suit for freedom, a witness for the negro
testified that he had heard a very old man say that he believed a
certain ancestor of Isabell was free. The supreme court of appeals

IO2 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

oft repeated doctrine of the supreme court of appeals was
that the laws should be construed as far as possible in favor
of freedom. "I will remark," said Judge Campbell, "that
this court has often declared that the same strictness as to
form will not be required in actions for freedom as in other
cases."73 Judge Roane, speaking for the court in Patty v.
Colin in 1807, said : " The spirit of the decisions of this court
in relation to suits for freedom, while it neither abandons
the rules of evidence nor the rules of law, applying to prop
erty, with a becoming liberality, respects the merit of the
claim. . . . On this ground it is that parties suing for free
dom are not confined to the rigid rules of proceeding and
that their claims are not repudiated by the Court as long as
a possible chance exists that they can meet with a successful
issue."74

These special rules of procedure were needed, however,
only in cases in which the question of freedom was being
tried. " Where there is no contest about that right, but the
litigation arises out of other matters it would be absurd to
send the petitioner [a free negro] to sue in forma pauperis,"
said Judge Tucker, in a case before the court in 1836; "the
remedy of habeas corpus must of course prevail."75 A trial
upon a writ of habeas corpus could not be denied a free
negro if detained or deprived of his liberty by any person
not claiming to be his master,76 as, for example, by a creditor

held that such evidence was admissible (2 Hening and Munford, 210;
cf. Gregory v. Baugh, 2 Leigh, 665, and Hudgins v. Wrights, I Hen-
ing and Munford, 134). In 15 Grattan, 314, the supreme court says:
" Evidence of her having acted and been generally reputed as a
free person is certainly admissible evidence of her freedom." In
Fulton's Executors v. Gracey the court held that "any legal evi
dence tending to show that the plaintiffs are free tends to repel
the presumption arising from color that they are slaves, and is,
therefore, admissible" (15 Grattan, 323).

73 McMichens v. Amos, 4 Randall, 134.

74 1 Hening and Munford, 519.

75 7 Leigh, 538.

"Delacy v. Antoine et al., 7 Leigh, 443 (1836); Rudler's Execu
tors v. Ben, 10 Leigh, 467; Shue v. Turk, 15 Grattan, 256; Minor,
vol. i, p. 169. In the case of Peter et al. v. Hargrave (5 Grattan,
14), tried in 1848, Judge Baldwin said concerning the rights of a
free negro, " Against continued force he may invoke the high and
summary remedy by writ of habeas corpus."

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 1 03

of himself or of his former owner ; nor was he handicapped
in such cases with the burden of proof or a presumption of
guilt against him. Against persons doing him injury or for
the enforcement of contracts he could bring suit in any court
that was open to any other freeman.77 In case the decisions
of the lower courts were adverse, he could appeal even to
the highest court of the State.78 He could, and often did,
petition the legislature when his grievances were such as
could not be redressed by the courts.79

Prior to 1832, trial by jury was the method of determin
ing the guilt or innocence of free negroes charged with
crimes. They were regularly indicted or presented by a
grand jury, and were entitled to a hearing upon the indict
ment before a petit jury.80 Being indicted, they were al
lowed to go at liberty when they could furnish a satisfactory
bond to secure their appearance in answer to the indict
ment.81 They were entitled to counsel, could make excep
tions in arrest of judgment, and the unanimous consent of

77 " William Palmer appeared to answer the complaint of Peter
Robinson (a free black man) against him for breach of the peace."
Palmer was bound under penalty of forfeiture of one hundred
dollars " to keep the peace and be of good behavior . . . and par
ticularly toward Peter Robinson" (Orders of Hustings Court of
Richmond, no. 5, p. 132). The Norfolk County court records (1718-
J/JQ) P- *) contain the following entry: "Robert Richards and the
rest of the free negroes agst. Lewis Corner Meritt in an action for
debt not being prosecuted is dismissed." See also, MS. Orders of
Henrico County, no. 6, p. 4, for the case of " David Cowper, a free
negro, Pit. against Beltaes Dorish Deft. Suit abated by death of
Deft." Also MS. Court Orders of Norfolk County, 1768-1771,
p. 257: "Frank (a free negro) against Jane Miller;" and Jeffer
son's Reports, go.

78 Ex parte Morris, n Grattan, 292 (1854), was a case in which a
free negro appealed from a corporation court to a circuit court and
finally to the supreme court of appeals. Winn's Administrators v.
Jones was a case taken on appeal in 1835 by a negro to the supreme
court of appeals ; this court sustained his challenge of free negro
witnesses used against him in the lower court (6 Leigh, 74).

"See Calendar of Virginia State Papers, vol. i, p. 10 (1665);
Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1760-1769, p. 198: "a petition
of the people called mulattoes and free negroes ;" MS. Petitions,
Henrico County, 1838, and below, pp. 142-144, for examples of peti
tions of free negroes to the state legislature.

80 John Aldridge v. the Commonwealth, 2 Va. Cases, 447; St. G.
Tucker, A Dissertation on Slavery, pp. 56-58.

81 Orders of Hustings Court of Richmond, no. n, p. 153-

IO4 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

the jurymen was necessary for conviction. Prior to 1832,
in the method of trial for crimes free negroes were on the
same footing as white men.82

In the first session of the legislature following the South
ampton insurrection in 1831, free negroes were denied by
statute the right of trial by jury, except for offenses punish
able with death. Thereafter they were tried by courts of
oyer and terminer,83 which had been in use since 1692 for
the " speedy prosecution of slaves . . . without the sollem-
nitie of jury."84 No fewer than five justices of the county
or corporation could sit as a court, and a unanimous decision
was necessary for conviction. The decisions of the court,
comprehending both the law and the fact, were final.85 The
trial took place within ten days after commitment of the
prisoners to jail, and conviction was followed by a speedy
execution of the sentence.88 The substitution of this sum
mary method of trial for the former method of trial by jury
is indicative of the disfavor into which the free negro had
fallen, and represents no small change in his legal status.

For minor offenses and misdemeanors free negroes suf
fered penalties similar to those inflicted upon slaves for
similar violations. Throughout the entire period whipping,
"not exceeding thirty-nine lashes on the bare back, well
laid on," was not an unusual penalty for free negroes as

83 St. G. Tucker, A Dissertation on Slavery, pp. 56, 57 ; Peter v.
Hargrave, 5 Grattan, 12. See Hening, vol. xv, p. 77, on " due course
of law" to be pursued in convicting free negroes of conspiracy
with slaves.

88 Acts, 1831-1832, ch. 22, sec. 9; Code (1860), ch. ccxii. An
amendment to strike out of the law the clause denying to free
negroes jury trial was lost in the Senate by a vote of 9 to 20 (Senate
Journal, 1832, p. 177). The act provided that free negroes should
be tried by the slave courts " in all cases where the punishment
shall be death." Disputes at once arose as to whether this meant
offenses for which slaves had suffered death or offenses capital
when committed by free negroes. The courts prevented the severity
of the law relating to the punishment of slaves from passing to the
free negroes by determining that the act changed the method of trial
but not the method of punishment (4 Leigh, 652, 658, 661).

84 Hening, vol. iii, p. 102; vol. iv, p. 127.

85 1 Revised Code, 428-430 ; Supplement to Revised Code, 248 ;
Anderson (Free negro) v. Commonwealth, 5 Leigh, 740.
86 1 Revised Code, 428.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO IO5

well as for slaves. Corporal chastisement was prescribed
as a punishment for free negroes in many cases which, had
the offender been a white man, would have merited the
penalty of a fine. For instance, for importing a free negro
a white man was to be imprisoned from six to twelve
months and fined not less than five hundred dollars, whereas
a free negro for the same offense was to receive not less
than twenty nor more than thirty-nine lashes at the public
whipping-post.87 For unlawful destruction of oysters in
the tidewater section a white man would under the law be
fined fifty dollars, while a free negro would be fined twenty
dollars and given thirty-nine lashes on the bare back.88 For
unlawfully harboring a slave a white man and a free negro
alike forfeited ten dollars, but if the negro was unable to
pay the fine, he was given thirty-nine lashes instead.89 In
many such instances the law openly discriminated against the
free negro, making his punishments more severe than those
inflicted upon white freemen, while the shield given to slaves
in their misdemeanors by the disciplinary authority of the
master rendered the liability to public punishments of the
slave less than that of the free negro. The free negro
was the individual for whom the laws seem to have been
intended, and to him they were applied with peculiar rigor.
For the more serious offenses, that is, for grand larceny
and other felonies, the punishments to be administered to
free negroes and whites were for the most part the same.
A notable discrimination was introduced in 1823 when
crime among the free negroes was believed to be rapidly
increasing, and the penitentiary system was receiving blame
for a lack of restraint on and moral improvement of this
class of the population.90 The legislature enacted that free
negroes previously punishable with imprisonment in the

87 Acts, 1833-1834, p. 78.

" Ibid., 1836-1837, P. 56.

89Hening, vol. xv, p. 77. "They are subjected to restraints and
surveillance in points beyond number" (Howison, vol. ii, p. 460).

90 Report of the Superintendent of Penitentiary, in Documents of
the House of Delegates, 1848-1849, no. 15, cited as House Docu
ments.

IO6 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

penitentiary for terms of more than two years were there
after to be whipped, transported, and sold into slavery be
yond the limits of the United States.91 This act was con
strued to mean that any free negro found guilty of a crime
for which the maximum penalty prescribed was more than
two years, even though the minimum might be only six
months, should be whipped and sold as a slave. Thus con
strued, the act included within its scope almost every crime,
except petty larceny, committed by free negroes. Public
sentiment disapproved of this inhuman law, and forced its
repeal, although thirty-five negroes were transported and
sold into slavery during the four years that it remained in
force.92 In 1828 imprisonment in the penitentiary was
again resorted to as a punishment for free negroes, but five
years was made the shortest term for which a free negro
could be sentenced, whereas two years was the minimum
for white persons.93 In 1833 proposals to make more severe
the penalties upon free negroes were voted down in the
House of Delegates as inexpedient.94 The penal code of
1848 made uniform for all free persons the penalties for
most criminal offences.95 A final discrimination was intro
duced in 1860 by an act which provided that free negroes
convicted of crimes punishable by sentence to the peni
tentiary could at the discretion of the court be sold into per
petual slavery.96

The right to go from place to place without hindrance
might well be regarded as a right fundamental to real free
dom, yet in few other respects was the liberty of free ne-

91 Acts, 1822-1823, p. 36. The constitutionality of this act was
passed upon and maintained by the general court of the State in
the case of John Aldridge (free negro) v. the Commonwealth, 2
Va. Cases, 447.

92 Reports of the Superintendent of Penitentiary, in House Docu
ments, no. 15, 1848-1849, and no. 4, 1853-1854, p. 45; W. B. Giles,
comp., Political Miscellanies: Letters to La Fayette; opinions of
Dade and Parker in John Aldridge v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. Cases,
452, 457-

93 Acts, 1827-1828, p. 29.

94 House Journal, 1832-1833, p. 208.

95 Acts, 1847-1848, p. 99; Code (1849), p. 728 et seq.
98 Acts, 1859-1860, p. 163.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO IO/

groes restricted so much as in this. In the colonial period
there was little regulation of their movements ; but from the
time that their number reached several thousand on to the
Civil War their liberty to move about in the State and to go
out and return was very much restricted. In 1793 free ne
groes were forbidden to come into the State from any source
to take up permanent residence.97 The penalty upon a
"master of a vessel or other person" for bringing in any
free negro or mulatto was £100. A free negro living within
the State could not go from one town or county to another
to seek employment without a copy of his register, which
was kept in the court of his county or corporation. Vio
lators of this law were often committed to jail until they
made proof of their freedom and paid the jailer's fee. If
they were unable to pay this fee, they were hired out to the
highest bidder for a time sufficient to pay the charges.98 By
an act of 1801 any free negro who, even though in posses
sion of " free papers," removed into another county or cor
poration was declared an intruder, and made liable to arrest
as a vagrant.99 By a later act they were denied the right to
change their residence from one county or town to another
without permission from the court of the county or corpora
tion to which they wished to go.100 After 1848 no free
negro could leave the State for the purpose of education,
or go for any purpose to a non-slave-holding State and re-

97 Hening, vol. xiv, p. 239. Free negroes travelling as servants
to white persons or working on vessels were excepted; but if such
negro servant got away from his master or from the ship, the bur
den of proof was upon him to show why he should not be whipped
as an unlawful emigrant (Acts, 1833-1834, p. 79).

98 Hening, vol. xiv, p. 238 ; i Revised Code, 441 ; Code of Va.
(1849), 467. "Ordered that the Jailor discharge from his cus
tody Aron Jackson and Johnson who were committed to Jail for
want of free papers (it appearing to the satisfaction of the court
that they are free) upon their paying the Jailor's fees and the costs
of this order" (MS. Minutes of Henrico County, no. 27, 1830).

99 Hening, vol. xv, p. 301 ; I Revised Code, 441. By the vagrancy
laws of this time, " persons within the true description of a vagrant"
were committed to a public workhouse for a term not exceeding
three months, or were hired out by the overseers of the poor (2
Revised Code, 275, 276).

100 House Journal, 1815-1816, p. 94, for grant of a petition to re
move from one county to another; Code (1849), 468> (1860) 522.

IO8 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

turn.101 Although these laws restricting the movements of
the free negro were not enforced with equal thoroughness
throughout the State, they were nevertheless enforced suffi
ciently to render precarious the condition of any violator.

Possibly the most extraordinary legal right possessed by
free negroes at any time during the continuation of slavery
was the right to choose a master and to go into voluntary
bondage. Liberty to become a slave was one variety of
liberty which a white man could not have exercised had he
wished to do so. One might surmise that this right pos
sessed for a while by free negroes was of a higher class of
rights than the fundamental, inherent rights spoken of by
the constitutional fathers ; for a free negress who exercised
it deprived and divested her posterity of liberty, and sub
jected both herself and it to perpetual tyranny.

Regardless of what may be said of the nature of this very
unusual right, it is a fact that free negroes did not possess
it until near the end of the slavery regime. Before 1856 a
special act was deemed necessary to render legal the slavery
of a free negro who of his own will selected a master. A
number of such private acts, making it lawful for certain
free negroes, whose names were mentioned in the acts, " to
select a master or mistress," were passed in the first half of
the decade of the fifties.102 In 1856 a general act was passed
making it lawful for any free colored man over twenty-one
and any free colored woman over eighteen years of age to
select a master or a mistress.103 A free negro desiring so
to alter his status could file a signed petition with the circuit
judge stating the name of the proposed master or mistress.
The petition would be posted for one month at the door of
the court-house; if the judge was satisfied that there was
no fraud, he would grant the request and fix a value on the
petitioner. When one half of the designated price was paid
into the public treasury, the petitioner became as much the

101 Acts, 1847-1848, p. 119.

102 Ibid., 1853-1854, P- 131 ; 1855-1856, p. 278.

103 Ibid., 1855-1856, p. 37 et seq.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO IOQ

absolute property of his chosen master as if he had been
born a slave. The rule that the status of a child followed
the status of the mother at the time of the birth of the child
was applicable to the offspring of free colored females who
elected to be slaves.

Hard as was the lot of some free negroes in Virginia be
tween 1856 and 1861, the courts had not many petitioners
seeking the refuge of slavery. The reports of the auditor
who took account of the receipts of the treasury from this
source show that not more than a score of free negroes took
advantage of their opportunities under the act of 1856. For
the year ending September 30, 1859, $2308.91 was received
into the treasury as receipts of the sale by the local courts
of four free negroes.104 The report for the fiscal year end
ing September 30, 1860, shows that three negroes went into
voluntary bondage, and that $902.50 was received by the
State from their purchasers.105

Thus far in this chapter attention has been confined to
the question of the extent and degree of protection over
property and liberty enjoyed by the free negro under the
laws of Virginia. A question no less essential to a full
treatment of the free negro's legal status is the extent of
his participation in the affairs of the government. In what
capacities could he, and did he, lend support to that govern
ment which afforded him the measure of benefits already
described ?

From a very early date in the history of the colony up
to the close of the Civil War military service was required
of the free negro. As early as 1723 there were some free
negroes enlisted in the state militia, and they were, for that
reason, permitted to keep one gun, powder, and shot.108
During the last war between the English and the French for
supremacy in America free negroes were employed in the
Virginia service as "drummers, trumpeters, or pioneers or

1M House Documents, 1859-1860, no. 5, p. 423.
105 Ibid., 1861, no. 5, P- 652.
108 Hening, vol. iv, p. 131.

I IO THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1661-1865

in such other servile labour as they shall be directed to
perform."107

In the War of Independence the free negro in Virginia
performed a worthy and useful service.108 The recruiting
laws made eligible for service " all male persons, hired ser
vants and apprentices above the age of sixteen and under
fifty,"109 but did not permit the enlistment of slaves or of
servants bound to serve till thirty-one years of age.110 That
free negroes were enlisted under these laws there is no
room for doubt. A letter written April 24, 1783, to the
governor by William Reynolds, commissary of military
stores, states that James Day had been accused of " trans
gressing in defrauding a black soldier and through a hasty
& rather unfair hearing was ordered to prison where he now
lies punishing."111 In 1777 an act of Assembly designated
drumming, fifing, and pioneering for the employment of
the free mulattoes of the company.112 Runaway slaves pre-

10THening, vol. v, p. 17 (1748) ; vol. vi, p. 533 (1755) ; vol. vii, p. 95
(1757).

108 Cf. G. H. Moore, Historical Notes on the Employment of
Negroes in the American Army of the Revolution, p. 16.

109 Proceedings of Convention of Delegates for the Counties and
Corporations of the Colony of Virginia, 1775, p. 36.

uo Hening, vol. ix, pp. 81, 346, 592; MS. Petitions, Prince Wil
liam County. The enforcement of this act excluding servants gave
rise to the following statement of certain officials in a petition to
the legislature: "Jesse Kelly, a mulatto man bound agreeably to
act of assembly to Lewis Lee until the said Kelly should arrive at
the age of thirty-one years . . . was enlisted as your petitioners
believe they had a right to do by act of May session, 1777." By
the act referred to, " Apprentices and servants could be enlisted "
(Hening, vol. ix, p. 275). Strictness was shown also in enforcing
the law against the enlistment of slaves. A court martial was held
in Goochland County, March 19, 1781, to try Colonel Jolly Parrish
on the accusation of having " enlisted a slave as a substitute for his
division knowing him to be so." Parrish pleaded that he believed
the negro to be a free man; but the evidence showed the contrary,
and Parrish was cashiered (Calendar of Virginia State Papers, vol.
i, P. 582).

1U Calendar of Virginia State Papers, vol. iii, p. 472.

The following advertisement appeared in the Virginia Gazette for
March 7, 1775 : " Deserted the following recruits from King William
County : Copeland a white man & William Holmes a mulatto about
45 yrs of age is about 6 ft high. A Guinea reward for the white
man as a Pistole for Holmes." (A bound volume of the Virginia
Gazette in the Library of the Johns Hopkins University.)

113 Hening, vol. ix, p. 268.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO III

tending to be free were accepted for enlistment to an extent
that demanded in 1777 an act which required of every negro
a certificate from a justice of the peace that he was a free
man before he could be admitted into the army.113 Some
white slave-owners preferred to offer their slaves as sub
stitutes rather than render personal service in the army.
In order to induce the negroes to enlist and to get them
accepted they were presented for substitutes as if they were
free. When the war was over, a law was passed to make
good the promise of such masters by declaring free all ne
groes who had served in the war, and by further providing
that any such negro held as a slave could recover damages
by a suit at no expense to himself.114

There were some free negroes in Virginia who took part
in the War of 1812. For example, Lewis Bowlagh, a Vir
ginia free negro, served for a time in the United States
army, and was transferred to the squadron of Commodore
John Shaw, where he served until the close of the war.115
A good many were drafted into the Confederate service in
the War of Secession. All male free negroes between the
ages of eighteen and fifty years were held "liable to per-

118Hening, vol. ix, p. 280. The Virginia Gazette for April 14, 1783,
contained an advertisement over the name of Henry Skipwith which
offered a " handsome reward " for the apprehension of a mulatto
slave who had run away from his master and had been received as
a substitute in the continental army. He " reenlisted for the war
last fall," says the notice, " went with the troops to Winchester
from whence he deserted. . . . Since his desertion he has cut off his
forefinger of his right hand in order to marry a free woman near
Pine Creek Mill in Powhatan County, who had determined never
to have a husband in the continental army, and supposed this mutila
tion would procure him a discharge."

U4Hening, vol. xi, p. 308 (1783). It should be observed that the
law held these negroes to be free from the time they enlisted, and
that it was passed to protect them in their right to freedom and not
in any sense to confer freedom upon them. The few slaves that,
contrary to law, were enlisted as slaves were unaffected by this act.
To receive freedom for their services in the cause of independence,
slaves had to obtain the passage of special acts (ibid., vol. xiii, pp.
103, 619; Virginia Historical Collections, vol. iv, p. 309). See the
petition of Saul, a slave who served in the American army both as a
soldier and as a spy among the British (MS. Petitions, Norfolk
County, 64314). Compare also Petition 64051, New Kent County;
B 314, Norfolk County.

115 MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1816, A 9353-

112 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

form any labor or discharge any duties with the army or in
any connection with the military defenses, producing and
preparing materials for war, building roads, etc."118 Such
free negroes as were engaged in the public service were
subject to the military rules, which were explained especially
for their benefit by the officers of the army. In both the
Confederate and the United States navies service was per
formed by Virginia free negroes.117 The positions they
filled were doubtless of the lowest rank, and the services
performed of a menial or routine nature, as indeed was most
of their military service throughout the entire period under
consideration.

In the matter of taxation, also, the free negro stood in
relation to the government as its supporter. Far from being
exempt from taxation, he was usually required to pay a
higher poll-tax than the free white man. As early as 1668
a question arose as to whether free negro women should be
exempted from capitation taxes as English women were.
The legislature declared in an act that they ought not " in
all respects to be admitted to full fruition of the exemptions
of the English," and that they were still liable to payment
of taxes.118 In 1769 a petition signed by free negroes and

"'Acts, 1861-1862; Senate Bill no. 129, among pamphlets relating
to the Confederate government, in Virginia State Library.

Joseph Tinsley, a freeborn negro of Hanover County, was drafted
into the Confederate service, and was at first assigned to the duty
of keeping the telegraph lines in repair. He was later pu: to driv
ing a government wagon. An aged antebellum free negro living
(1910) at 208 Broad Street, Richmond, says that his father was
drafted for service in the Confederacy.

UT MS. Petitions, A 9353 ; cf. Hening, vol. xiii, p. 103. John Miller,
at one time a colored statesman of the reconstruction period, and
in 1910 overseer of laborers in the United States Navy-yard at
Portsmouth, gave the following account of his life : Born of free
parents in Portsmouth, Virginia, August 15, 1839; worked on a
farm when a boy ; served for one year W. W. Davis, a groceryman ;
went into the service of the United States Navy in 1858; was on
board the Cumberland when it was attacked by the Merrimac; was
discharged at the expiration of his time; went to Boston, reen-
listed, and served to the close of the war. He soon got a position
in the navy-yard, where he has since remained in the service of the
United States Government.

118 Hening, vol. ii, p. 267 ; vol. iv, p. 133. Only white women and
children under sixteen years of age were exempted from the pay-

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 113

mulattoes was presented to the legislature praying that the
wives and daughters of the petitioners might be exempt
from taxation.119 It met with a ready response in the law-
making body, and an act was passed which, after declaring
that the former law was very burdensome to such negroes,
mulattoes, and Indians and derogatory to the rights of free-
born subjects, exempted " from the payment of any public,
county, or parish levies all free negro, mulatto, and Indian
women and all wives other than slaves of free negroes,
mulattoes and Indians."120

Male free negroes were of course still subject to the pay
ment of taxes on the same basis as were white males. It
appears that collecting from them offered unusual difficul
ties, which the legislature endeavored to meet in 1782 by a
law providing that any free negro who failed to pay the
levies should be hired out by the sheriff upon the order of a
county court for a time sufficient to pay all back taxes, pro
vided he had not sufficient property upon which distress
could be made for the amount.121 In 1787 capitation taxes
were abolished.122 The burden of the revenue was placed
upon property, and this burden was borne by free negroes
just in proportion as they were property owners. It does
not appear that there was ever any legal discrimination
against free negroes in the taxation of their property. They
paid the same rate on their possessions as did white prop
erty owners.123

ment of poll-taxes, with the exception of a few individuals who
were exempted by special act (ibid., vol. ii, p. 84; vol. iii, p. 259).
In the seventeenth century the taxes were principally polls assessed
upon " every master of a family and every freeman." The taxes
upon servants were paid by the master or owner (ibid., vol. i, p. 143).

In 1666, when the entire colored population in Virginia was be
tween one and two thousand, there were as many as nine negroes
in Northampton County who paid their own taxes (Virginia Mag
azine of History, vol. x, pp. 194, 254).

139 Journal of the House of Burgesses, vol. v, p. 198.
9 Hening, vol. viii, p. 393.

l^Ibid., vol. xi, p. 40.

122 Ibid., vol. xii, p. 431.

123 Land books of the various counties of Virginia, in the keeping
of the state auditor of public accounts, Richmond. For the year
1856 Reuben West, a free colored man of Richmond, paid $17.62 on

8

114 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

In 1813, however, discriminations in capitation taxes were
again renewed by laying a special poll-tax of $1.50 upon
all male free negroes above sixteen years of age, except
such as were bound as apprentices.124 This rate was con
tinued till 1815, when it was raised to $2.50 per poll and
applied to all male free negroes between the ages of sixteen
and forty-five.125 The occasion for levying this poll-tax
was the need for an increased revenue brought about by
the War of 1812. The reason for levying it upon free ne
groes only may have been a widespread desire and purpose,
strong at this time, to get rid of them. A tax of $2.50
assessed upon the most active, and therefore the most ob
jectionable, free negroes was supposed to operate to induce
some to leave the State, and to reduce others, who refused
to pay, to a state of servitude.126 Rigid enforcement pro
visions were made which authorized the sheriff to hire out
any free colored tax delinquent till the required amount plus
five per cent commission should be raised.127 Although
some free negroes allowed unpaid assessments to reduce
them to servitude, these capitation taxes were collected with
remarkable success. In 1814 $8322 was paid into the treas
ury by 5547 free negroes, or about ninety per cent of the
male free negroes within the taxable age. In 1815, when
the rate was $2.50 instead of $1.50, as in the two preceding
years, and only such as were between the ages of sixteen
and forty-five were taxable, 4023 free negroes paid their
assessments, which amounted to $10,057.50, — or a sum

real estate, the assessed valuation of which was $4420. Scott Cle-
menze, free colored, paid $22.72 on property valued at $5680. The
free colored population of Richmond paid in this year $286.81 on
property assessed at $71,702.50.
mActs, 1812-1813, p. 20.

125 Ibid., 1814-1815, p. 8.

126 House Journal, 1816-1817, p. 90; Alexander, p. 63; House
Journal, 1804, December 3.

127 Acts, 1814-1815, p. 61. If the free negro failing to pay the tax
had property, distress was made upon that before hiring him out
(i Revised Code, 431). By the Code of 1860 the minimum price
per day at which a free negro could be hired to raise back taxes was
fixed at ten cents, and five years was made the limit of time for
their collection (p. 522).

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO I I 5

which was equal to the amount received into the treasury
from lawyers' licenses or from the tax on carriages, and was
one and a half per cent of the total revenue of the State.128
During the three years when free colored men were paying
a high poll-tax the white inhabitants were paying none.

The capitation tax on free negroes was dropped in 1816,
after which for twenty years the assessments made on their
small property holdings were the sum of their contributions
to the public revenue.129 In 1850 a tax of one dollar was
levied annually upon all male free negroes between the ages
of twenty-one and fifty-five.130 According to the provisions
of this law and one of 1853, this tax was to have been used
for colonizing free negroes in Liberia, but it seems that
only small amounts were ever paid out for that purpose.
The disbursements of the treasury for the fiscal year ending
October, 1858, show that $2100 was the amount spent in
colonization. Between 1850 and 1853 less than $2000 per
annum was expended for the purpose. The balance of the
funds arising from the taxation of free negroes remained in
the treasury for public purposes.131 This levy continued in
force for ten years, and was regularly collected from the
free colored taxables with about the same success that simi
lar assessments were collected from white taxpayers.132

In 1860 a capitation tax of eighty cents was levied upon
all free male persons, white and colored, above the age of
twenty-one years. The former levy of one dollar per head
on free negroes had not been repealed, and when a question

^Auditor's Report for 1815-1816; Acts, 1815-1816, p. 88.

129 In the constitutional convention of 1829-1830 Leigh remarked
that free negroes were included as taxpayers, " though it is well
known that they contribute little or nothing to the treasury. They
should be excluded from the lists of taxpayers" (Proceedings and
Debates, 1829-1830, p. 152). Joynes, of Accomac County, said
" Instead of contributing to the revenue they are a perfect nuisance "
(ibid., p. 211).

130 Acts, 1849-1850, p. 7.

131 Auditor's Report for 1859-1860, p. 407; Message of Governor
Johnson, in House Documents, 1853-1854, no. I.

132 The average amount contributed to the public treasury from
1850 to 1860 by free negroes varied between $9000 and $13.000
(Auditor's Report for 1854-1855, p. 6; for 1861, no. 5, pp. 653, 669;
for 1859-1860, p. 401 et seq.).

Il6 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

arose as to whether one or the other or both of these taxes
should be collected, it was decided in favor of collecting
both assessments. The collections at $1.80 per head on free
negroes for 1860 amounted to $13,065.22. 133 The revenue
act of 1861 declared that no more collections should be
made under the law of 1853, thus leaving the tax on male
free negroes over twenty-one years of age at eighty cents
per poll.134 The war revenue acts raised the rate rapidly.
In 1862 adult male free negroes were paying $1.25 per
capita, and the following year $2. At the latter rate they
contributed in 1863 $11,554 to the public treasury.135 After
1860 the poll-tax assessments were uniform for whites and
free blacks.

The services of the free negro in official capacities were
not demanded or accepted in Virginia. In the seventeenth
century a few seem to have been entrusted with minor
offices. The justices of Lancaster County appointed as
beadle a negro whose duty it was to inflict punishment by
stripes upon those whom the court adjudged deserving of
corporal punishment.136 In 1660 a testator nominated as
executor of his will and as guardian of his foster daughter
a negro whose freedom was stipulated in the will.137 The
court, however, did not confirm the nomination. In at least
one instance in the last decade of the seventeenth century a
negro acted as surety.138 All office-holding by free negroes
was stopped by an act of Assembly of 1705 declaring that
"no negro, mulatto or Indian shall presume to take upon
him, act in or exercise any office, ecclesiastic, civil or mili
tary."139 The penalty for violation was £500. Even the
ability of a free negro to become a legal witness was lim-

133 Auditor's Report for 1861, no. 5; Code (1860), p. 243 n.

134 Acts, 1861, p. 4.

135 Auditor's Report for 1863; Acts, 1862-1863.

138 MS. Court Records of Lancaster County, 1652-1657, p. 213, cited
in P. A. Bruce, Economic History, vol. ii, p. 128.

137 MS. Court Records of York County, 1657-1662, pp. 211, 217,
in Virginia State Library.

138 Ibid., 1689-1698, p. 58; P. A. Bruce, Economic History, vol. ii, p.
127.

139 Hening, vol. iii, p. 251.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO I I /

ited.140 By this law of 1705, negroes were forbidden to be
witnesses in any case whatsoever ; but it was found that this
disability afforded a shield for dishonest free negroes who
avoided the payment of their just debts for the reason that
other free negroes were not admitted as witnesses. There
fore, in 1744 the law was amended so that " any free negro,
mulatto or Indian being a Christian " should be admitted as
a witness in both civil and criminal suits against any negro,
mulatto, or Indian, slave or free.141 But to allow free ne
groes to be witnesses even in civil suits to which a white
man was plaintiff against a negro defendant was discon
tinued in 1785 ; after that time they were competent wit
nesses in pleas of the Commonwealth for or against negroes
or in civil pleas where free negroes alone were parties, and
in no other cases whatsoever.142

Before any negro could become a witness in any case he
had to receive the following extraordinary charge: "You
are brought hither as a witness, and by the direction of the
law I am to tell you, before you give your evidence, that you
must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth ; and that, if it be found hereafter that you tell a lie,
and give false testimony in this matter, you must for so
doing have both your ears nailed to the pillory and cut off,
and receive thirty-nine lashes on the bare back well laid on
at the common whipping-post."143 Some time before 1849
this special injunction against lying was dropped.

Prior to 1723 there were no legal discriminations against
free negroes in the limitation or extension of the suffrage.

140 Andrew Burnaby mentions the exclusion of the evidence of
negroes as one of the laws " which make it almost impossible to
convict a planter or white man of the death of a negro or Indian "
(p. 54 n.).

1 Hening, vol. v, p. 245.

142 Ibid., vol. xii, p. 182; I Revised Code, 422; Code (1849), 663.
An interesting case arose in the circuit court of King William County
in 1835 in which a white man in an action for debt against J. Winn,
a free negro, used as witnesses two free negroes. Winn appealed
to the supreme court of appeals on the ground that free negroes were
not competent witnesses in the suit. The court sustained the negro's
claim (6 Leigh, 74).

143 Hening, vol. vi, p. 107; i Revised Code, 431.

Il8 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

Elections in Virginia in the seventeenth century were con
ducted in a very democratic fashion, in this respect resem
bling mass-meetings more than modern elections in which
tickets and ballot-boxes figure so conspicuously. The sheriff
presided over or governed the voters assembled at a voting
precinct, and determined the choice of the electorate either
" by view " or by subscribing the names of the voters under
the name of the candidate for whom they openly declared
their preference.144 It was the general feeling in Virginia
well up to the close of the seventeenth century that it was
"something hard and unagreeable to reason that any per
sons shall pay equal taxes and yet have no votes in elec
tions."145 Hence all freemen, and servants " having served
their tyme," were permitted to take part in elections pro
vided they would " fairly give their votes by subscription
and not in a tumultuous way."146 There is no reason or
evidence which would lead to a belief that the free negroes
in the colony were excluded from these " free elections "147
to which freed servants were admitted.

In 1670, in accordance with the wishes of the representa
tives of the restored English monarch, but contrary to the
feelings of the masses, the principle and practice of uni
versal suffrage were abandoned. Voting privileges were re
stricted to freeholders and housekeepers of certain qualifi
cations, with the avowed purpose of disfranchising persons
recently freed from servitude; these were thought to have
little interest in the country, and " oftener make tumults at
the election to the disturbance of his majesty's peace than
provide for the conservation thereof by making choyce of
persons fitly qualified for the discharge of soe great a
trust."148 The disfranchisement of a part of the rabble was
a cause of popular discontent, a fact evidenced by the repeal
of the restrictions by the Assembly, which was under the

144 Hening, vol. iii, p. 172.

145 Ibid., vol. i, p. 403.

148 Ibid., vol. i, p. 403 ; vol. ii, p. 280.

147 " Description of the Province of New Albion," in Force Tracts,
vol. ii, p. 30.
148 Hening, vol. ii, p. 280.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 119

influence or domination of the liberal leader, Nathaniel
Bacon.149 When the conservative government regained con
trol, Bacon's laws were repealed, and a statute was enacted
which restricted the suffrage further than it had ever been
restricted.150 Previously, freeholders and housekeepers could
vote, but now only freeholders could exercise that right.

From the date of this act, 1676, to 1723 the possession of
a freehold was a prerequisite to the exercise of the elective
franchise. Although the laws specifically stated that "no
woman, sole or covert, infants under the age of twenty-one
years, or recusant convicts, being freeholders," should be
allowed to vote, no discrimination was made against free
holders of color.151 The restrictions would not have elimi
nated all free negroes, for some at that time were free
holders. A freeholder was defined as a person who had
" an estate real for his own life or the life of another, or any
estate of any great dignity,"152 which meant that the pos
session of almost any property entitled a man to voting
privileges.

It is almost certain that some free negroes exercised the
suffrage rights under these provisions, for in 1723 a law
was enacted which specifically denied to free negroes the
right to vote. The act declared that " no negro, mulatto, or
Indian shall hereafter have any vote at the elections of bur
gesses or any election whatsoever."153 When this act was
referred by the Board of Trade to Richard West for the
consideration of its legal aspects, he remarked : " I cannot
see why one freeman should be used worse than another
merely because of his complexion. ... It cannot be right
to strip all free persons of black complexion from those

149 Hening, vol. ii, p. 356.

150 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 425.

151 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 172.

152 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 240.

153 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 133. As revised in 1762, the law provided that
any free negro or mulatto or other person not having the right to
vote, who should " presume to vote or poll at any such election,
shall forfeit and pay 500 pounds of tobacco" (ibid., vol. vii, p.
519).

I2O THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

rights which are so justly valuable to freemen."154 His pro
test was overruled; but an order was passed by the Board
of Trade and Plantations directing " that a letter be wrote
to the Governor to know what effect the act ... by which
free negroes are deprived of voting in all elections had."155
A draft of such a letter was presented to the board and
agreed to on December 10, 1735. Evidence is wanting as to
what effect the act had, but it marked the close of the period
prior to the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States when negroes could vote.
By the first three constitutions of the Commonwealth of
Virginia voting privileges were restricted to white males of
certain qualifications.156

The question whether the free negro in Virginia was a
citizen either of the Commonwealth or of the United States
is one that can be answered only when it has been made
clear what is connoted by the word " citizen." The free
negro was always a person in the eyes of the law, and could
maintain at law certain rights of personal liberty and prop
erty. He was undoubtedly a national, a subject of Virginia
and of the United States. If by the word " citizen " is
meant a subject having full civil and political rights, the
free negro was not a citizen of the Commonwealth of Vir
ginia, for after 1723 he could not bear witness except in
cases in which negroes alone were parties ; he could not be
a juror or a judge ; he could not bear arms without special
permission, and even though he owned property and paid
taxes he could not vote or hold office.^

If we attempt to answer the question by reference to the
statutes and constitutions, we are confronted by the use of
the word " citizen " in a variety of senses. In an act of 1779
it was declared that " all white persons born within this

164 E. D. Neill, Virginia Carolorum, p. 330; see S. B. Weeks, " The
History of Negro Suffrage in the South," in Political Science Quar
terly, vol. ix, p. 671.

155 Sainsbury Transcripts from the British Public Record Office,
vol. i, p. 158.

158 Constitution of 1776, art. 7; constitution of 1830; constitution
of 1850.

LEGAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 121

Commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years
. . . shall be citizens of this Commonwealth."157 This act
was repealed and supplanted by an act of 1783 which de
clared that " all free persons born within the territory of
this commonwealth shall be deemed citizens of this com
monwealth."158 George Bancroft says that the treaty of
peace between the American Commonwealths and Great
Britain " as interpreted alike in America and England . . .
included free negroes among the citizens."159 In 1785 the
General Assembly used the word in a sense which included
free negroes in the citizen body. A bill being before the
Assembly defining the part of the citizen body which should
have the right to vote, and attention being called to the neces
sity of excepting free negroes and mulattoes, the words
" every male citizen " were changed to read " every male
citizen other than free negroes or mulattoes."160 Judge
Tucker observed in 1796 that " emancipation does not confer
the rights of citizenship on the person emancipated; on the
contrary, both he and his posterity of the same complexion
with himself must always labor under many civil inca
pacities."161

If free negroes in Virginia were citizens in the meaning
of the clause of the Federal Constitution which provides
that " citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges
and immunities of citizens of the several States," the con
stitutional guaranty was of no practical value to the Vir
ginia free negroes against discriminatory action of state gov
ernments in whose domains they might attempt to travel or
reside. " Citizens of the United States," said Chief Justice
Taney in the Passenger Cases,162 "must have the right to
pass and repass through every part of it without interrup
tion as freely as in [their] own States." In Crandall v.

157 Hening, vol. x, p. 129.

158 Ibid., vol. xi, p. 323 ; vol. xii, p. 263.

159 History of United States, author's last version, vol. v, p. 579.
-80 House Journal, 1785, p. 96.

, 161 St. G. Tucker, A Dissertation on Slavery, p. 75.
162 7 Howard, 492.

122 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

Nevada163 the Court sustained this view, holding that the
right to pass through a State by a citizen of the United
States is one guaranteed to him by the Constitution. But
throughout the first sixty-five years of the nineteenth cen
tury every branch of the government of Virginia partici
pated in making or enforcing restrictions upon the liberty
of free negroes to move from place to place or to go from
the State and return. When a bill was introduced in the
Virginia legislature providing for the deportation of free
negroes without their consent, the argument that it was un
constitutional was feebly made, but General Brodnax, a
leading member of the House, scoffing at the idea, asserted
that the Constitution was about to be worn threadbare. " In
truth," said he, " free negroes have many legal rights but no
constitutional ones." There is no doubt that the opinion of
the tribunals before whom the legal rights of free negroes
were to be tested and applied was in agreement with this
assertion.

168 6 Wallace, 35-

CHAPTER V
THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO

The three principal elements in the population of Virginia
to which the free negro had to adjust himself were the
whites, the native Indians, and the negro slaves. A discus
sion of the social relations of the free negro class with each
of these three other elements of the population of the State
in the order named may well occupy a place of first consid
eration in this chapter.

If prejudices did not exist in the minds of the white in
habitants of Virginia against persons of the black race be
fore the coming of the negro, they were not long in spring
ing up after the two races met on Virginia soil. From the
very first mention by whites of Africans in Virginia special
care was taken, in writing or in speaking of them, to des
ignate their race or color. In the earliest records of the
courts and the parishes they were carefully distinguished
from other persons by such words and phrases as " negroes,"
" negro servants," and " a negro belonging to " such a one.
As early as 1630 the conduct of a white man who had vio
lated a rule of strict separation of the white and black races
was denounced as an " abuse to the dishonor of God and
shame of Christians," and in atonement for such conduct
the white man received a sound whipping and was required
to make a public apology.1 In the case of a similar viola
tion of decency and standards of race purity in 1640 the
guilty white man was compelled to " do penance " in the
church, and the negro woman was whipped.2 So prominent
and uncouth were the physiological characteristics and so

1 Hening, vol. i, p. 146.

2 Ibid., vol. i, p. 552.

123

124 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

rude were the manners of the African emigrants that before
the end of the seventeenth century many of the white colo
nists came to regard them as not of the human kind.3

This prejudice against the negro was not the result of his
servile station; for in that respect he was on a par with a
large part of the white population. Freedom, therefore,
was not sufficient to make a negro servant or a negro slave
the social equal of the whites. By the middle of the seven
teenth century there were negroes who were free from all
forms of legal servitude or slavery, but they were not ab
sorbed into the mass of free population. Their color ad
hered to them in freedom as in servitude, and the indelible
marks and characteristics of their race remained unchanged.4
In 1668 the law-making body of the colony gave unmistak
able sanction to the exclusion of the free negroes from social
equality in a declaration that " negro women set free, . . .
although permitted to enjoy their freedom, yet ought not in
all respects to be admitted to full fruition of the exemptions
and impunities of the English."5

Yet, in spite of strong racial antipathies, there were some
illicit relations between shameless white persons and ne
groes, by reason of which it was deemed necessary as early
as 1662 to enact legislation concerning the status of mulatto
children. In 1691 a law prescribed for "any white woman
marrying a negro or mulatto, bond or free," the extreme
penalty of perpetual banishment.6 The strength of public
sentiment was soon tested in the matter of enforcing this
law in the case of Ann Wall, an English woman, who was
arraigned in the county court of Elizabeth City on the charge
of " keeping company with a negro under pretense of mar
riage."7 Upon conviction, she and two of her mulatto chil-

3 M. Godwyn, Negro's and Indian's Advocate, suing for their Ad
mission into the Church, p. 23 et seq.

4 Compare G. Bancroft, History of the United States, ed. 1843, vol.
iii, p. 410.

5 Hening, vol. ii, p. 267.

6 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 87.

7 MS. Court Records of Elizabeth City County, 1684-1699, p. 27,
in Virginia State Library. In 1737 a negro who attempted to assault
a white girl was compelled to stand in a pillory for an hour, was

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 125

dren were bound for terms of service to a man living in
Norfolk County, and a court order was recorded to the
effect that in case she ever returned to Elizabeth City
County she should be banished to the Barbadoes.8 Whether
the "abominable mixture or spurious issue," as the mulatto
was called, was of slave or free negro parentage, it was
equally detested by respectable white persons.

In the seventeenth century there were a few free negroes
of exceptional merit who were accorded, in all relations not
involving or leading to a blending of the races, social privi
leges about equal to those accorded to freed white servants.
A few were prosperous owners of personal and real prop
erty, respected by white persons, dealt with by white men
in business relations, and permitted to participate in elec
tions, — facts which seem to indicate that for a while the
prejudices of the white inhabitants against the negroes went
only to the extent of preserving the Teutonic blood from
contamination, and did not at first deny to the African free
dom of opportunity to take such station in other relations
as his individual merit enabled him to assume. At that
time the theory that the negro was fit for nothing but slavery
or some servile capacity had not been so carefully elaborated
nor so generally applied as it was in the eighteenth and nine
teenth centuries. Although precluded from the possibility
of intermarrying with white persons, the negro freed from
servitude or slavery had about the same industrial or eco
nomic opportunities as the free white servant. But as
slavery advanced toward a more complete inclusion and sub
jection of the negro race in Virginia, the social and indus
trial privileges of the free negro were gradually curtailed.
The denial to him, by laws passed in 1723, of the right to
vote, the right to bear arms, and the right to bear witness
is proof of the fact that prejudice had extended beyond a
demand for race separation and race purity to an imposition
upon the negro of a low and servile station.

"pelted by the populace, and afterwards smartly whipped" (Vir
ginia Gazette, August 19-26, 1737; quoted in Virginia Magazine of
History, vol. xi, p. 424).
8 MS. Court Records of Elizabeth City County, 1684-1699, p. 83.

126 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

From 1723 to the end of the colonial period the number
of the free negroes was, both absolutely and relative to the
other populations, so small that the social status of the class
would have been unimportant except for the fact that preju
dices accumulating in this period were handed down to the
time when the free colored class became numerically impor
tant. Except for natural procreation, the principal addi
tions or recruits to this class throughout this period were
the result of illegitimacy. There was no tendency to attrib
ute to a few free negroes and mulattoes of such low origin
any higher social standing than that occupied by more than
ninety-nine per cent of their race and color. Too small and
of too low an origin to preserve for itself, by the formation
of an exclusive caste, higher social rights than slaves, the
free colored class was nevertheless sufficiently large to pass
on to the larger free negro class of the period of the Com
monwealth all the disabilities and social disadvantages that
it had gathered to itself for a hundred years. The freedom
which masters were to be allowed to confer upon their slaves
under the act of 1782 was the freedom of the colonial free
negro and no more. Even those persons who professed a
desire to apply to the slaves the principles of natural and
equal rights had no intention or desire to exalt the manu
mitted slave to social equality with the whites. Chastellux,
travelling through Virginia in the early eighties of the eight
eenth century, noticed the inferior social status of the free
negroes, and wrote : " In the present case it is not only the
slave who is beneath his master, it is the negro who is be
neath the white man. No act of enfranchisement can efface
this unfortunate distinction."9

The free negro population which came to be numbered
by tens of thousands in the nineteenth century was as remote
from a social plane upon which intermingling or intermar
riage with the white race was possible as were the slaves.
"A companion to slaves . . . forbidden to intermarry with
whites or to bear testimony against them ; forbidden to learn

9 Vol. ii, p. 99.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO I2/

to read or to write, or to preach the word of God even to
his fellows, to bear arms or to resist assault — in every rela
tion from the cradle to the grave he was never allowed to
forget that he was an inferior being."10 Illegal marriages
or associations of whites with free negroes were so disrepu
table and disgraceful that they were entered into by the vilest
white persons at the peril of chastisement by privately or
ganized bands of white persons supported by community
sentiment.11 The free mulatto class, which numbered 23,500
by 1860, was of course the result of illegal relations of white
persons with negroes ; but, excepting those born of mulatto
parents, most persons of the class were not born of free
negro or free white mothers, but of slave mothers, and were
set free because of their kinship to their master and owner.12

When we come to consider the social contact and affilia
tion of the free negro with the native Indian, the barriers to
social affinity and intermixing of races on terms of equality
are seen to be less important than those between free negroes
and whites. No law forbade the intermarriage of free ne
groes and Indians, and there existed between them some
fundamental grounds of sympathy and mutual appreciation.
Both bore the marks of a savage race and had a colored
skin; hence they shared the racial antipathy of the whites,
although possibly to a different degree. Both were wanting
in experience and acquaintance with the manners of civilized
life, to which they were being introduced through the agency
of an alien race. Both enjoyed liberty to go and come at
will; but, unlike slaves, they were dependent upon their
own resources for subsistence. Both were, in a way, misfits
and discordant elements in a society organized as was that
of Virginia, on a basis of slavery, — a society economically
and politically complete, with a governing white aristocracy
and a class of colored toilers living in a condition of com-

10 Message of Governor Smith, 1848-1849, in House Journal, p. 21.
" MS. Petitions, Amelia County, 1821, A 781.

12 MS. Petitions, King William County, 1825, BIIQI; Essex
County, 1825, A 5396; Halifax County, 1857, A 7724.

128 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

plete subjection. While there existed dissimilarities be
tween free negroes and Indians, there was certainly a com
mon bond of union ; and it is significant that in the massacre
of 1622 not an African perished at the hands of the Indians,
although there were at the time of the massacre more than
twenty negroes scattered throughout the little colony.13

Before 1724 there were in the colony some persons of
mixed blood, part negro and part Indian, called mustees or
mustizos.14 A number of reservations of land, containing
from a few hundred to many thousand acres, were set apart in
the eastern section of Virginia in the seventeenth and eight
eenth centuries for the use and enjoyment of the Indians.15
After a time, these reservations became the common homes
of free negroes and the tribesmen for whom they were in
tended, who associated on terms of social equality. It was
said in 1787 of the inhabitants of the Gingaskin reservation16
that those who were not entirely black had at least "half
black blood in them."17 The place was called Indian Town,
but many of the squaws had negroes for husbands, and
Indian braves lived with black wives. As a means of im
proving the social order in Indian Town, the white people
thereabouts proposed that no negroes, except the husbands
of female Indians, be allowed to remain in the tribe. The
town, they said, afforded " a Harbour and convenient asy
lum to an idle set of free negroes," and was a great nuisance
to the public.18

In 1744 the Nottaway and kindred tribes possessed about

"McDonald Transcripts from the British Public Record Office,
vol. i, p. 46; Hotten, pp. 218-258; Colonial Records of Virginia,
Senate Document, 1874, Extra, p. 61.

" " Such as are born of an Indian and negro are called Mustees "
(H. Jones, The Present State of Virginia, p. 37).

19 Hening, vol. ii, p. 290; P. A. Bruce, Economic History, vol. i,
p. 492 et seq. ; vol. ii, p. 115.

16 See Hening, vol. viii, p. 414, for facts concerning this reservation
in Northampton County. In 1769 it contained six hundred acres.
The legislature then passed an ordinance providing for the sale of
two hundred acres of this land, the proceeds to be used by the par
ish to provide for such of the tribe as should become public charges.
Compare Hening, vol. ii, p. 13; vol. iii, p. 85.

"MS. Petitions, Norfolk County, 1787, 64865.

18 Ibid., 1782, B 4865 ; 1782, B 4845.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 129

20,000 acres of land which they could not, according to law,
alienate.19 In 1821 they still occupied 3370 acres. White
persons in the vicinity of this reservation affirmed in 1821
that "their [the Indians'] wives and husbands are free ne
groes,"20 and that they had neither prudence nor economy.

As late as 1843 tne Pamunkeys possessed sixteen hun
dred acres of land in King William County. One hundred
and forty-three citizens of the county petitioned the legisla
ture to have the lands divided, saying that all but a small
remnant of the old Indian tribe was extinct, and that in its
place were free mulattoes, all of whom were believed to have
one fourth negro blood, — an amount sufficient under the
provisions of the code of 1819 to class them as mulattoes.21
" They are so mingled with the negro race as to have oblit
erated all striking features of Indian extraction. It is the
general resort of free negroes from all parts of the country."22

The association and intermarriage of free negroes with
Indians was not confined to areas given up to Indians. From
an early date mustees were a small constituent element of
the population, intermingling with the other inhabitants of
the colony.23 John Dungie, an Indian of King William
County, was in 1824 legally married to Anne Littlepage, a
mulatto daughter of Edmund Littlepage, esq., a man of con
siderable wealth. "The husband was a sailor . . . con
stantly employed in the navigation of the Chesapeake Bay
and Rivers of Virginia." His free mulatto wife was heir
to a considerable annuity.24 In a case before the supreme

19 Hening, vol v, p. 270.

20 MS. Petitions, York County, 1821.

Hening, vol. xiv, p. 123; i Revised Code, 423.

22 MS. Petitions, King William County, 1843, 61207. Petition
B 1208 is a counter-petition from the chief men of the tribe, who
wish to retain their lands. They admit that some persons not of
their tribe are within their boundaries, but claim that the inhabi
tants generally are of at least half Indian extraction. That mem
bers of the Pamunkey tribe to this day (1912) bear in their features
evidences of a mixture of the tribe with negroes may be stated
on the authority of a prominent citizen of Richmond who has
observed them.

23 Jones, p. 37.

24 MS. Petitions, King William County, 1825, B 1191.

9

I3O THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

court of appeals in 1831 we find an attorney making the
assertion as an historical fact that Indians had intermarried
with negroes.25

The names " mustizo " or " mustee " and " mulatto " were
not always applied with discrimination, the latter being
often used where the former should have been applied.26 In
the censuses no separate enumeration is made of the mus-
tees, but there is no doubt that a considerable element in
the free colored population of the nineteenth century was
of Indian extraction.

The most congenial companion pf the free negro outside
of his own class was found among his kinsmen in bondage.
The larger part of the free negro class met and mingled
with negro slaves on a plane of almost perfect social equal
ity.27 Prior to 1782 the fact that the free colored persons
were few in number would have been sufficient to prevent
the formation of an exclusive caste had there been differ
ences between free and slave negroes so radical as to render
conditions favorable for such a development. Even when
their numbers became sufficiently large for the formation of
an exclusive caste, there were absent those differences in
economic and political station to make it desirable either for
the free negro or the slave class to exclude the other from
its social life, the freedom of the free negro being in most
lines of activity only nominal. There were lacking to the
free negro the better education, the higher standard of
wants, and the better opportunities for acquiring wealth and
position necessary to supply an actual basis of superiority
and to give him higher social rank than that occupied by
the slave.

25 Gregory v. Baugh, 2. Leigh, 665; cf. also Jenkins v. Tom, I
Hening and Munford, 123; T. Jefferson, Notes on the State of Vir
ginia, ed. 1801, p. 182.

26 Virginia Gazette, December i, 1782. A reward is offered for a
runaway slave who, according to the description, was the offspring
of an Indian and a negress; but he is called a mulatto.

"The free negroes continue to live with the negro slaves, and
never with the white man" (Chastellux, vol. ii, p. 199).

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO

Had it been possible for the free negro to hold himself
aloof from the slaves, he might have borne a better reputa
tion among slave owners ; for, as will appear later, his con
nection and his relation with slaves rendered him the object
of much undeserved suspicion and criticism. To the slaves
themselves the free negro was a welcome visitor ; at feasts,
barbacues, dances, and negro meetings of every kind he was
present to participate on a plane of equality with his slave
neighbors. While very few would have exchanged this
condition for that of the slave, they rarely ever regarded
slavery as the badge of a rank inferior to their own.

It was very common in the nineteenth century and the
twenty years immediately preceding for free negroes to
marry slaves. Numerous instances can be cited of mar
riages of free negro women with slave men. A case oc
curred in Brock County in i826.28 A free negress by the
name of Rachel married a slave in Alleghany County in
i828.29 Dilly, a free negro woman of Giles County, was
married to a slave husband by whom she had two children.30
Similar examples may be found in almost any county.31

Since the status of the mother became the status of the
offspring, it might be supposed that free colored women
would have had less aversion to choosing slave husbands
than free colored men would have had to marrying slave
wives, but that does not appear to have been the case.
Numerous examples might be cited to show that the prospect
of having children who would be slaves did not deter free
negro men from marrying slave wives. Rice Stephens, a
freeborn negro, was living in Northampton County in 1843
with a slave wife and three children.32 Samuel Johnson, a

28 MS. Petitions, Brock County, A 2684.

29 MS. Petitions, Alleghany County, A 651.

30 MS. Petitions, Giles County, 1829, A 6784.

31 MS. Petitions, Goochland County, 1840, A 7109. According to
the story of Mary Winston, a free negro woman of Hanover County
still living (1909), her grandmother and great-grandmother married
slaves.

32 MS. Petitions, Northampton County, 64905.

u*.

132 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

free negro of Fauquier County, had a slave daughter who
became the wife of a free negro.33

Indeed, it is apparent that there were not a few free ne
groes who preferred a slave to a free wife. Certainly there
was less responsibility upon a husband whose wife and chil
dren were slaves and were therefore supported by their
white owners than upon one whose wife and children had to
be provided for by himself. "A freeman," says a pro-
slavery editor in 1802, "as soon as he is his own master,
marries the female slave of some farmer. He cannot well
be prevented from residing with his wife. She feeds him
gratis."** This was the opinion also of a later pamphlet
writer who wrote under the pseudonym of " Calx." " Every
male free negro," he wrote, "prefers to have a slave wife,
and will be so provided, if permitted by too careless indul
gence. In this manner he will not only have his wife and
children supported by the owner, and a lodging provided for
himself, but much of his own food will be obtained from his
wife and, directly or indirectly, to the loss of her master."35

In addition to the temptation to free colored men to select
wives who were sure of support, and who might even partly
support their husbands, there was after 1806 another reason
why some free negroes might have considered themselves
fortunate to be connected by marriage with a slave woman.
Such a family connection often prevented a free negro man
umitted after 1806 from having to leave the State, according
to law, within twelve months from the date of his manu
mission. If such a free negro husband comported himself
well and made a useful laborer in the community, he was
sure to have the good will of his wife's master, to whose
interest it was to keep his slaves contented in their place.
If the free husband stayed in the community, his presence
would not only be a guaranty against his slave family mak
ing trouble for their master by becoming runaways, but he
himself might also become a useful employee of his wife's

33 MS. Petitions, Fauquier County, 1837, A 5859.

34 Richmond Recorder, November 10, 1802.

35 " Calx," p. 5 et seq.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 133

master. If he was forced to leave, he immediately endan
gered the interest of the master by establishing himself in a
border State and inducing his wife and children to join him.
Many a free negro petitioning the legislature for permission
to remain in the State made a special point of the fact that
his wife and children were slaves.36 Many slave-owners
endorsed their petitions, and joined in asking the legislature
to grant the privilege asked for. Particularly was it true
in counties bordering on Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and
Kentucky that the slave-owners realized and were frank to
admit that a free negro, though not desirable on his own
part, was more desirable in Virginia than in a border county
of an adjoining State.37

There is, however, nothing in the facts above stated, nor
in truth in any authentic evidence thus far examined, to
give support to the contention frequently made by slavery
apologists in the nineteenth century, and to this day not in
frequently repeated, that slaves generally regarded free ne
groes as of inferior social rank. The negro " aristocracy,"
if such there was, was not based on the superiority of slaves
over the free negroes, but on the superiority of the wealthy
planter's " servants " over the " poor man's nigger."38 Thomas
Bruce, writing in 1891 concerning the happy state of slavery,
said : " As a class, happier beings never existed, and they
had a most unbounded contempt for a free negro . . . and
shunned him as they would a leper, and even to this day
that prejudice still exists in the minds of the negro who can
recall the days of slavery."39 Ellen Glasgow, in her novel
entitled "The Battle-Ground," depicts Free Levi as a free

86 House Journal, 1832-1833, p. 201.

87 Writing to the legislature to ask that a certain free negro be
permitted to remain in the State, fifty-five slave-owners of Harrison
County say : " He will take up his residence in the nearest point in
Pennsylvania or Ohio and of course will make occasional visits to
his family, and from the clamor which is going on in those states
upon the subject of abolition we judge that we should have more
to fear from that source than from his being permitted to remain
among us" (MS. Petitions, Harrison County, 1839, A 8677; se$ also
MS. Petitions, Cumberland County, 1815, A 4728).

38 A. Bagby, King and Queen County, p. 283.

88 T. Bruce, Southwest Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley, p. 46.

134 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

colored man " who shares alike the pity of his white neigh
bors and the withering contempt of his black ones."40 If
there is a basis of truth which gave rise to this mistaken
belief here and elsewhere expressed, it is in the fact that
slave-owners disapproved of the association of their slaves
with free negroes, whom they suspected of scattering seeds
of discontent in slave quarters. The master of slaves did
indeed have a withering contempt for free negroes, but one
of the reasons for such a feeling was the realization that his
slaves might readily emulate the superior privileges of free
dom as exemplified in the free negro. The slaves, being
generally of a docile, tractable disposition, may have pre
tended to regard free negroes as their inferiors, but their
" unbounded contempt " was merely an echo.41

From one source, however, there sprang up in slaves a
certain dislike of free negroes with whom they were required
to work, but the feeling was quite different from contempt.
When free negroes were employed to work for wages with
slaves, as they often were,42 and to do no harder work than
the slaves, the slaves were sometimes envious of the free
negroes because of the superior privileges of the latter in
the way of recompense. Such dislike for the free negroes
on the part of slaves was envious dislike for a superior
rather than contemptuous dislike for an inferior.43

40 P. 148.

"William Dunston, slave of John R. Dunston, of Accomac
County, married a free negress whose name was Jane Jubilee. In
this instance it required not a little determination and self-will for
the slave to follow his suit to victory; for he was constantly met
by his master's reproachful queries : " Bill, would you marry into
that family of Jubilees? They are free negroes." This incident,
related to the author by C. C. James, of Northampton County, illus
trates the way in which masters tried to create in their slaves a
dislike for free negroes.

42 " They [free negroes] are sometimes hired for field labour in
times of harvest and on other particular occasions" (Madison's
Writings, vol. iii, pp. 310-315).

43 William E. Waddy, esq., of Eastville, Virginia, born in 1827, and
familiar with the facts concerning the relation of free negroes and
slaves from his boyhood to the close of the Civil War, vividly re
calls that a distaste for working with free negro hired laborers was
often manifested by slaves. He was unaware, however, of the ex
istence among slaves owned or observed by him of a feeling of
social superiority over free negroes.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 135

The acknowledgment repeatedly made by the enemies of
the free negro is alone sufficient to controvert the traditional
belief that slaves considered themselves in a superior station
or social rank to that of the free negroes. The latter were
spoken of as "possible chieftains of formidable conspira
cies," and " leaders " in servile outbreaks.44 Mr. Moore,
in the slavery debate of 1832, said, " I lay it down as a
maxim not to be disputed, that our slaves, like all the rest
of the human race, are now and will continue to be actuated
by a desire of liberty."43 This assumption was constantly
made by both antislavery and proslavery advocates, and par
ticularly by that portion of the latter class who regarded the
presence of the free negroes as a source of danger to the
institution of slavery as well as a menace to the discipline
and control of slaves. Antebellum free negroes and their
descendants still living are very proud to relate facts con
cerning their free ancestry; and while the most reliable of
the survivors of this class admit that many free negroes
were on no higher plane than slaves, they hold to the view
that many of the better class of free negroes considered
themselves socially superior to any slave. This must indeed
have been true of the free negroes who owned considerable
property, or owned or hired negro slaves and servants, as
did a few in the seventeenth century and many in the nine
teenth. It was certainly true of some free mulattoes whb
because of their white connections had received special op
portunities for education and an independent support.46

Whether a free negro was to be married to a free person
or to a slave, who was legally incapable of making a con-

44 Richmond Enquirer, January 18, 1805.
5 Ibid., January 19, 1832.

49 In 1857 eight 'quadroon children belonging to Craddock Vaughn
of Halifax County made petition to the legislature for permission
to reside in the State notwithstanding the law of 1806, which ap
plied to them. The petitioners affirmed that they had had every
care in bringing up, and that they were " beyond the sphere of the
free negro class so degraded" (MS. Petitions, Halifax County,
1857, A 7724). See also MS. Petitions, King William County, 1825,
B 1191; Alleghany County, 1828, A 651; Halifax County, 1783, A
7551-

136 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

tract,47 legal forms were adhered to, and the nuptial cere
monies observed by white persons were imitated. White
ministers officiated at weddings of all classes of colored per
sons. Free colored candidates for matrimony obtained li-
•censes just as did white persons, and often procured the
parlor of a white family as a place for the ceremony. A
glance at the records of marriages by the ministers of Hen-
rico parish from 1823 to 1860 will reveal numerous instances
of marriages of free colored persons and a few of marriages
of free negroes with slaves.48 Of six marriages solemnized
by Rev. Edward Peet in 1831 one was the union of free
colored persons ; and of sixteen persons married by the same
minister in 1832, four were free colored. In 1829 Rev. W.
F. Lee married eight white and two free colored persons;
in 1833 the record was the same as in 1829; in 1834 he
married ten white and two free colored couples ; and in
1846, four white couples and one free colored couple.49

In the seventeenth century and the part of the eighteenth
when the free negro class was so small as to be numbered
in hundreds there were to be found examples of well regu
lated, orderly families, appreciative of the sanctity of the
family relations, in which both parents were free colored.
The Northampton County records show a few examples as
early as i655-50 The parish registers of the eighteenth cen
tury contain numerous examples of free colored parents

'"It is agreed that slaves have no power [of contract]. Hence
the marriages of slaves are void" (Minor, vol. i, p. 168).

48 L. W. Burton, Annals of Henrico Parish, pp. 236-248. For
instances of marriages of free with slave negroes, see p. 247 :
" Morris Harris a free colored man, to Patience, a servant to Mrs.
Mary E. Robinson, by Rev. H. S. Kepler, 1855." " Servant " in this
register was a euphonious designation for " slave." The entries con
cerning the marriage of a free colored man with a free colored
woman uniformly stated that both were free, as : " Ned lightfoot and
Sophy Buck, both free people of color. License bearing date as
above." By Rev. W. M. Hart : " Aug. 16, 1825, John Jarvis, a free
man of color, and Lucy Marble, a free woman of color. License
bearing date Henrico Court, Aug. 1825." For another example, see
p. 248.

49 Burton, pp. 236-244.

WMS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1651-1654, pp. 28,
161.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 137

whose children were regularly baptized into the church.51
When toward the latter part of the eighteenth century and on
to the end of the antebellum period the free colored popula
tion came to be numbered by tens of thousands, numerous
examples of respectable free colored families are to be
found. On a petition signed by ninety free colored persons
of Richmond in 1823 there were nineteen families repre
sented by the names of both husband and wife.52 It was
thought that a rather large proportion of free colored fe
males, particularly free mulattoes, were unchaste.53 How
ever this may have been, there is ample documentary evi
dence to show that in the nineteenth century there was a
certain large class of the free colored population the mem
bers of which were respectable and observant of decency
and regularity in their family relations.54

Throughout the period of the colony when the number of
free negroes was comparatively small, and even in the
nineteenth century before the time of the active propagation
of antislavery doctrines, there existed little if any prejudice
against the education of free colored persons. In the third
quarter of the seventeenth century there was opposition to
offering baptism to negro slaves until it was determined by
law that the administration of the baptismal rite did not
bestow freedom.55 This objection did not apply, however,
to the religious instruction of free negroes or negro appren
tices. Before the middle of the seventeenth century pro
vision was made by certain white persons for guaranteeing
religious instruction and education to negro servants who
would eventually become free.56 In 1654, when Richard

51 Bruton Parish Register, p. 57 ff. Original copy, Bruton Church,
Williamsburg.

52 MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1823, A 9335.
63 "Calx," pp. 5-11.

M Cf. MS. Petitions, Accomac County, A 42.

M Hening, vol. ii, p. 260; Godwyn, p. II ff.

66 General Court Records, printed in Virginia Magazine of His
tory, vol. xi, p. 281,; MS. Court Records of Northampton County,
1645-1651, p. 82.

138 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

Vaughan freed his negroes, he provided in his will that they
should be taught to read and to make their own clothes, and
that they should be brought up in the fear of God.57

In colonial times the Anglican church did a great deal to
provide for the religious instruction and baptism of the free
colored class. The reports made in 1724 to the English
bishop by the Virginia parish ministers are evidence that the
few free negroes in the parishes were permitted to be bap
tized, and were received into the church when they had been
taught the catechism.58 It had been a practice of the seven
teenth century to stipulate in the indenture or contract by
which a free negro was apprenticed to a master that the
master, in return for the negro's service, must provide in
struction in the Christian religion in addition to sufficient
food, apparel, and lodging.59 In 1691 the church became the
agency through which the laws of negro apprenticeship
were carried out.60 Free mulatto children born of white
mothers and any free colored boy or girl without visible
means of support were bound by the churchwardens to serve
white men for a certain term of years. The custom of the
churchwardens of requiring these masters to provide some
degree of education for the colored apprentices remained in
vogue throughout the colonial period, as is shown by numer
ous orders of the vestry meetings and orders of the county
courts for binding out free colored children. For example,
in 1727 it was ordered that David James, a free negro boy,
be bound to Mr. James Isdel, " who is to teach him to read
ye bible distinctly also ye trade of a gunsmith that he carry

01 MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1654-1655, pp. 102,
103.

58 Papers Relating to the History of the Church: Westminster
parish, p. 261 ; Lawn's Creek parish, p. 289.

"The church is open to them all" (Report of the minister in
Isle of Wight County, in Papers Relating to the History of the
Church, p. 274). As a means of encouraging baptism of negro
children, a proposition was made to exempt from taxation for four
years any negro or mulatto child baptized (ibid., p. 344).

59 See an indenture to this effect executed by Francis Pott in
1646, in MS. Court Records of Northampton County, 1645-1651, p. 82.

60 Hening, vol. iii, p. 87. v

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 139

him to ye Clark's office & take Indenture to that purpose."61
By the Warwick County court it was " ordered that Malacai,
a mulatto boy, son of mulatto Betty be, by the church war
dens of this Parish, bound to Thomas Hobday to learn the
art of a planter according to law."62 By the order of the
Norfolk County court, about 1770, a free negro was bound
out " to learn the trade of a tanner."03 After 1785 the duty
of binding out free colored children was placed upon the
overseers of the poor, who required of the masters, accord
ing to the laws and the custom, an agreement to teach the
apprentice reading, writing, and arithmetic.64

In the period between the Revolutionary War and the be
ginning of the nineteenth century there were two religious
societies that were very active in teaching and offering reli
gious instruction to the free negroes, namely, the Quakers
and the Methodists.65 The Quakers set free no inconsider
able part of the slaves manumitted in this period, and the
various meetings took official action to see that negroes set
free by their members were taught and Christianized.66 It
was in accordance with the advice of the yearly and quarterly
meetings of Friends that the monthly meetings extended
"a watchful care over those negroes ... set free within
the verge of the monthly meeting, administering counsel and
advice particularly to those in their minority " and render
ing them temporal and spiritual assistance.67 In 1781 a

61 From the court records of Princess Anne County, cited in Vir
ginia Magazine of History, vol. ii, p. 429. See also MS. Minutes of
Northampton County, 1754-1757, p. 100.

63 MS. Minutes of Warwick County, 1748-1762, p. 30, in Virginia
State Library.

63 MS. Orders of Norfolk County, 1768-1771, pp. 232-233. See
also ibid., pp. n, 91; Vestry Book of Saint Peter's Parish, p. 135:
an order, 1771; Register of St. Peter's Parish, p. 117.

"Herring, vol. viii, pp. 376-377; vol. xii, pp. 28, 29; vol. xvi, p. 124.

63 The friendship of the Quakers and the Methodists for the negro
was mentioned by Randolph in the Federal Convention at Philadel
phia, 1787 (Papers of James Madison, ed. by Gilpin, vol. iii, p. 1396).

c<i MS. Minutes of the Hopewell Monthly Meeting, 1777-1791, p.
190.

6TMS. Minutes of the Fairfax Monthly Meeting, 1776-1802, p.
105 (1776), pp. no, 243 (1/82) ; MS. Minutes and Proceedings of
Goose Creek Monthly Meeting, 1785-1818, p. 533.

I4O THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

committee of Friends appointed by the Warrenton and
Fairfax Quarterly Meeting " to have under their Care and
labour to promote the Education and religious Instruction
of such negroes as have been set free" reported that aa
good degree of care and labor had been extended, and that
there still remained other work along the same line that
must be done."68 The Methodists were likewise mindful of
the spiritual welfare of the negroes, whether free or slave,
and were so active in the advocacy of the cause of freedom
that they were denied by many slave-owners the opportunity
of instructing slaves;69 but they continued to offer private
instruction to free negroes, and to slaves when opportunity
was afforded.70 Besides Quakers and Methodists, there
were smaller religious societies, such as Moravians, Har-
monites, and Shakers, who, besides giving the negroes reli
gious instruction, taught them many useful industries, and
even worked with them in creating a common property.71

After the fears of the slave-owners were aroused by the
Gabriel insurrection in 1800 and by rumors of a general out
break, it was thought desirable to curtail the opportunities
of the free negroes for acquiring a knowledge of books
which might render them propagators of seditious anti-
slavery doctrines among the slaves ; hence the overseers of
the poor were commanded by legislative authority to cease
requiring the master or mistress to whom a free negro or
mulatto child was apprenticed to teach the child reading,
writing, and arithmetic, as had hitherto been the custom.72

68 MS. Minutes of Warrenton and Fairfax Quarterly Meeting,
1776-1787, p. 123.

69 Journal of the Rev. Francis Asbury, vol. ii, p. 71 ; vol. iii, pp. 253,
257 ; Bennett, p. 547.

"What directions shall we give for the promotion of the spir
itual welfare of the colored people?

" We conjure all our ministers and preachers ... to leave nothing
undone for the spiritual benefit and salvation of them . . . and to
unite in Society those who appear to have a real desire of fleeing
from the wrath to come; to meet such in class and to exercise the
whole Methodist discipline among them" (Annual Minutes, 1787,
quoted from H. N. McTyeire, History of Methodism, p. 381).

71 Madison's Writings, vol. iii, pp. 495, 497.

72 Hening, vol. xvi, p. 124.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO

A more rigorous enforcement of the laws against unlawful
assemblages of slaves further discouraged efforts to give
instruction to negroes, bond or free. Quakers were prose
cuted in court for assembling negroes for instruction in their
meeting-houses.73 Probably owing to discouragement thus
received and to some relaxation of their former zeal due to
other causes, the Friends were not so active in behalf of the
negro in Virginia as they had been in the eighteenth century,
although they continued to hold a prominent place among
his sympathizers and helpers. In 1816 a committee ap
pointed by the Goose Creek Monthly Meeting to inquire
into the opportunities for education afforded African chil
dren in the homes of Friends reported that "only two in
stances were found of colored children suitably provided
for, and opportunity afforded them of acquiring useful
school learning."74

In the nineteenth century the Baptist Church, by a less
bold assertion of views in opposition to slavery than those
advanced by Methodists, avoided the hostility of the slave
owners which fell to the share of the Methodists, and thus
gained the larger share of negro evangelization.75 Even
when the laws discouraged negro education, the Baptists
did much toward instructing free negroes privately and in
Sunday schools,78 and received them into their churches.77
In churches where colored persons attended in considerable
numbers a section of the pews was set aside for their use,
and at all times a strict observance of the color line seems
to have prevailed. The condition of the free colored people
before 1831 as regards religious and educational advantages
is so well shown by a petition to the legislature in 1823 of

"See E. Woods, Albemarle County, in Virginia, p. in, for in
stances of indictments of Friends for unlawfully assembling slaves.

74 MS. Minutes of Goose Creek Monthly Meeting, 1785-1818, p.
534-

75 In 1835 Professor E. A. Andrews wrote a letter from Fredericks-
burg saying that the " religious instruction [of the free negroes] has
fallen, in a great measure into the hands of the Baptists, as in Balti
more it is conducted by the Methodists" (Slavery and the Domestic
Slave Trade in the United States, p. 162).

76 Cf The Liberator, July 4 1845.

"MS. Petitions, Floyd County, 1836, A 6081.

142 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

ninety-one free negroes of Richmond that the document is
worth reproducing in full: —

The petition of a number of persons of colour residing in the
City of Richmond, respectfully represents : that from the rapid in
crease of population in the City, the number of free persons of col
our and slaves has become very considerable and although few of
them can boast any knowledge of letters, yet that they are always
desirous of receiving such instruction from public and divine wor
ship as may be given by sensible and prudent Teachers of religion.

It has been the misfortune of your petitioners to be excluded from
the churches, meeting-houses and other places of public devotion
which are used by white persons in consequence of no appropriate
places being assigned for them, except in a few Houses, and they
have been compelled to look to private Houses, where they are
much crowded and where a portion of their Brothers are unable to
hear or to partake of the worship which is going on. Your Peti
tioners consisting of free persons and slaves, have been for some
time associated with the Baptist church. A list of their members
consisting of about 700 persons has been submitted for his inspec
tion to the Head of Police of this City and no objection has been
by him made to their moral characters.

Your Petitioners for these reasons humbly pray that your honour
able body will pass a law authorizing them to cause to be erected
within this city a house of public worship which may be called the
Baptist African Church. To such restrictions and restraints as are
consistent with the laws now existing or which may hereafter be
passed for the proper restraint of persons of colour and for the
preservation of the peace and good order of society . . . your peti
tioners are prepared most cheerfully to submit, and although it would
be pleasing to them to have a voice in the choice of their Teachers
yet would they be quite satisfied that any choice made by them should
be approved or rejected by the Mayor of this city, they ask not
for the privilege of continuing in office any preacher who shall in
any manner have rendered himself obnoxious to the Mayor, nor can
they reasonably expect to hold night meetings or assemblages for
Baptizing but with the consent of that officer. And your Petition
ers as in duty bound will ever pray. . . ,78

78 MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1823, A 9335. Affixed to this
petition were the following names of free colored persons of Rich
mond and the mayor's certificate, as follows : —

" I hereby certify that I have examined the list of signatures of
free persons of colour hereunto attached and believe them to be
respectable.

" I am of opinion that the prayers of their petition, if granted, may
be productive of benefit to themselves as well as to the white pop
ulation of Richmond and most sincerely wish them success.

JOHN ADAMS,
Mayor of the City of Richmond.

Free persons of colour of the City of Richmond of the Baptist
denomination :

Richard Dye, Hembrey Tompkins,

Teanah Dye, Mary Tompkins,

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 143

Although it appears that the bill introduced in the House
of Delegates granting the privileges asked for in this peti
tion was lost, the negroes were enabled by some means to
erect church houses for their use. There were three African
Baptist churches and two African Methodist churches in
Richmond in the decade before the Civil War.79

When the agitation for the abolition of slavery became
acute and antislavery tracts and pamphlets were in wide cir
culation in the State, the friends of the institution of slavery
became apprehensive of the evil which might result from
the reading of such literature by free negroes, and in conse
quence brought about legislation to prevent free negroes
from acquiring a knowledge of books.79* The proximate
cause of legislative action was probably the discovery in
1830 by the mayor of Richmond of a copy of Walker's Ap
peal to the Colored Citizens of the World in the house of a
free negro after his death.80 By an act of April 7, 1831, "all

William Caswell, Nancy Ellis,

Robert Dandridge, Phillip Robenson,

Martha Dandridge, Richard Vaughan,

Thomas Mondowney, Agness Vaughan,

Catherine Mondowney, John Harper,

Exland Henderson, Caesar Hawkins,

P. Wm. Reynolds, Fanny Hawkins,

Sarah Reynolds, James Greenhow,

Isaac Vines, Alice Greenhow,

Nicholaus Scott, Minis Hill,

Betsy Scott, Cas Hill,

Mary Barges, Isaac Reynals,

David Bowles, Billy Swann,

Susan Bowles, Aley Swann,

Joseph Bell, Edwd. Lightford,

John Peters, Edward Casey,

Agness Peters, Nanney Casey,

Douglass Tinsley, Wilson Morris,

John Green, Fanney Drummond,

Isham Ellis, Pleasants Price,

and 47 others, with certificates and endorsements by Joseph Price,
master of police, and seven other prominent white men of the city.
79 Richmond Directory, 1852, p. 165 ; 1856 passim.
'9a In his message to the legislature Governor Floyd asserted that
the free negroes had helped to stir up revolt, and had " opened more
enlarged views," and that inasmuch as they were allowed to go at
liberty they could " distribute incendiary pamphlets and papers "
(House Journal, 1831-1832, p. 10).

*° Richmond Enquirer, January 28, 1830. Cf . J. B. McMaster,'
History of the People of the United States, vol. vi, p. 70.

144 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

meetings of free negroes or mulattoes at any school-house
or other place for teaching them reading or writing, either
in the day or night, under whatever pretext," were declared
to be unlawful assemblies. Any justice either of his own
knowledge or on information of others could issue his war
rant to an officer authorizing him to enter the house and
arrest or disperse the offending free negroes and to inflict
upon them, at the discretion of a justice of the peace, cor
poral punishment not exceeding thirty-nine lashes. If a
white person attempted to teach free negroes for pay, he
was liable to a fine of fifty dollars and imprisonment.81
After " Brother " Nat Turner's insurrection the ban was put
upon negro preachers and teachers by an act declaring it
unlawful for negroes, whether ordained or licensed or other
wise, to preach, exhort, or conduct any meeting for reli
gious or other purposes.82 In the revision of this law in
1842 it was declared that "every assemblage of negroes for
the purpose of religious worship, when such worship is con
ducted by a negro, and every assemblage of negroes for
the purpose of instruction in reading and writing, or in the
night time for any purpose, shall be deemed an unlawful
assembly."83 Some free colored persons who possessed
sufficient means began sending their children to the North
to be educated; but in 1838 all such efforts were forestalled
by an act declaring that any free person of color who should
go beyond the State for education should be considered to
have emigrated.84 This was equivalent to a declaration that
no free negro going out of the State for education should
return. It was apparently in anticipation of this act for
bidding Virginia free negroes to seek education in the North
that sixteen free negroes of Fredericksburg, all of whom
possessed considerable property, petitioned the Virginia leg-

81 Acts, 1830-1831, p. 107; Supplement to Revised Code, 244-245.

82 Acts, 1831-1832, p. 20; Supplement to Revised Code, 246-247.
In 1834 ten free negroes of Richmond complained in a petition to
the legislature that the consequence of this law was that many
colored human beings were interred like brutes, their friends and rel
atives being unable to procure the usual ceremony in the burial of
the dead (MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1834, A 9483).

88 Acts, 1840-1842, p. 21 ; 1847-1848, p. 120; Code (1860), 810-811.
84 Acts, 1838, p. 76; Hurd, vol. ii, p. 10; Acts, 1847-1848, p. 119.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 145

islature in 1838 for the privilege of establishing a school
for free colored children in their city.85 They complained
of the inconvenience of sending their children to the North
for education, and very tactfully added that they preferred
not to send them where " they imbibe bad doctrines." The
legislature refused them the right to establish the school,88
and attended in its own way to the danger of imbibing bad
doctrines by withdrawing from free negroes even the privi
lege of educating their children beyond the limits of the
State. From 1838 to the close of the Civil War the only
educational advantage that could lawfully be given to the
free negroes was strictly private instruction. Rarely and
with difficulty did some free colored families procure white
persons to teach their children privately.87

In view of the difficulties to be met by free colored persons
in the pursuit of learning, the discovery of a high percentage
of illiteracy in that class of the population occasions no sur
prise. " Calx," writing in the later fifties, observed that
"the free negroes, as a class, are ignorant."88 There were,
however, in 1850 a little above one free negro in six who
could read and write. In the white population of the State
a little more than eleven out of twelve were literate. In
other words, about eighty per cent of the free colored popu
lation throughout the State was illiterate, as compared with
eight per cent, in the white population.89 Quite generally
throughout the entire period of two and a half centuries
under review free negroes and mulattoes could merely make
their marks in affixing their signatures to records of legal
or business transactions.

In the fifty years before 1861 it was the practice of persons

"MS. Petitions, Spottsylvania County, 1838.
88 House Journal, 1837-1838, p. 248.

87 Upon the authority of elderly men who are able to recall events
of the kst two decades before the Civil War, it may safely be stated
that white persons sometimes taught free negro children in the
homes of the negroes.

88 « /— 1 »

Calx, p. 4.

88 Census of 1850, Population, vol. vii, p. 271.

10

146 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

opposed to the residence of free negroes in Virginia, par
ticularly the promoters of societies for colonizing them in
Africa, to condemn them almost indiscriminately as being
not only morally depraved but economically worthless.90
Fortunately there are other and less biased witnesses from
whose evidence may be formed an estimate of the value and
merits of the free colored class as an economic factor. It
should be remembered that all efforts to remove the free
negroes from Virginia failed utterly, and with truth it may
be said that one of the chief obstacles in the way of those
efforts was, then as at the present time, the demand for
their labor. Between 1790 and 1860 the free negro class,
numbering from twelve thousand to sixty thousand, was far
from being a negligible factor in the labor supply of that
half of the State in which they resided and to which their
labor was accessible. Any conception that the free negro
was crushed in the scramble for employment between the
slave and the white laborer may at the outset be banished
from mind. Let us see in a general way what were the con
ditions affecting the economic opportunities of the free negro
from 1782 to the Civil War as regards the character of em
ployment and employers.

The agricultural and especially the plantation work was
done principally by slaves. But there was a large element
in the white population, even in the eastern part of the State,
which was non-slaveholding and not devoted to agriculture,
except in an avocational and subsidiary manner. To this
element belonged the larger part of town and city popula
tions. Whatever employment was furnished to laborers by
the non-slaveholding class of whites was open to competition
by the free negro ; and his competitors were white laborers
and persons who had slaves to hire.81 But many non-slave-

90 Compare what William Jay had to say in 1835 on the char
acter and tendency of the American colonization societies, in a little
book entitled Slavery in America, chapters i-v. He quotes C. L.
Moseby's address before the Virginia Colonization Society, as fol
lows: "This class of persons is a curse and a contagion wherever
they reside" (p. 12; African Repository, vol. iii, p. 203).

91 Local newspaper advertisement, City Point, 1800 : " Encourage-

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 147

holding employers preferred free labor to slave labor be
cause of conscientious scruples as to the moral justification
of slavery,92 and hired slaves were not well suited to do
small irregular jobs. Hence there was a certain amount of
employment for which the free negro had no competitor,
except the white laborer, or white hireling, as he was some
times called.

Within this field of demand for free laborers, where the
only handicap upon the free negro in his contest with the
free white workman was race prejudice, he was easily the
winner. In the first place, white men of pride, disdaining
to enter into competition with the free negro for employ
ment open to them, emigrated to the West. "While he
[the free negro] remained here," asserted citizens of Hen-
rico County in 1825, "no white laborer will seek employ
ment near him. Hence, it is that in some of the richest
counties east of the Blue Ridge the white population is sta
tionary and in many others it is retrograde."93 Governor
Smith in his message of 1847 to the legislature said, " I ven
ture the opinion that a larger emigration of our white labor
ers is produced by our free negroes than by the institution
of slavery."94

Such white laborers as remained to seek employment in
the State fared badly where the free negroes were at all
numerous. There were at least two important reasons for
the free negro's supremacy over the white laborer: First,
his standard of living and mode of living permitted him to
accept smaller wages than the whites could accept and live.
Governor Smith protested in 1848 that in the kind of work

merit offered to free negroes or to persons having negroes to hire. —
William Heth." The work to be done was ditching and draining.
(Taken from a fragment of a newspaper accompanying a legislative
petition, in Virginia State Library.)

92 MS. Petitions, Loudoun Co., 1843, B 1900; F. L. Olmstead,
A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States, p. 94; see statement of Ran
dolph in the National Federal Convention, 1787, in Madison Papers,
vol. iii, p. 1396.

93 MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1825, A 9358, A 9359.

94 House Journal, 1847-1848, p. 20. Governor Smith reaffirmed
this belief in his message of 1848 (ibid., 1848-1849, p. 22).

148 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

required in cities and in odd jobs the free negroes "wholly
supersede by the smallness and nature of their compensation
the employment of white men."95 Secondly, the free negro,
being naturally of an obedient, tractable disposition and re
spectful of personal authority, and being hedged about by
numerous legal incapacities and perils, was more easily com
manded and directed, and was therefore a more desirable
servant. Again, we have Governor Smith to testify, not in
praise, but in blame, of the free negroes that " they perform
a thousand little menial services to the exclusion of the
white man, preferred by their employers because of the au
thority and control which they can exercise and frequently
because of the ease and facility with which they can remu
nerate such services."96

The extent of the white employer's power to command a
free negro workman or servant was even greater than that
of a master over a slave ; for by nature the free negro was
quite as docile and as amenable to supervision as the slave,
and unlike the slave he could be driven from the job and thus
deprived of his means of support. Hence, as a matter of
practice, the free negro was not infrequently a better " slave"
than his kinsman in bondage. Between 1806 and 1860 large
numbers of free negroes, when found beyond the limits of
the counties or towns where they were known to have legal
residence rights, were hired out by law as vagrants. Upon
an occasion of a number of arrests, or when such prisoners
arrested at various times had accumulated, the sheriff held
a public auction, and cried off to the highest bidder the ser
vices of these freemen for a definite term of months or
years, their labor selling from a few cents up to twenty-five
cents per day.97 Certainly with this system of hiring out
free negroes under the vagrancy laws nothing but "poor
white trash " could compete. The feelings of the white

90 Message, in House Journal, 1848-1849, p. 22.

"Message, in House Journal, 1847-1848, p. 20.

97 Hiring out free negroes who were willing to be engaged by en
terprising white agents became such a prosperous business that in
1852 a license tax of twenty-five dollars was exacted of such agents
(Acts, 1852-1853, P- 15; 1855-1856, p. 45).

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 149

laborer in view of the conditions were correctly voiced by
a white citizen writing in the Richmond Whig, December
n, 1845 : " Those whose hearts are now sickened when they
look into the carpenters' shops, the blacksmiths' shops and
the shops of all the different trades in Richmond and see
them crowded with negro apprentices and negro workmen,
are ready to quit in disgust." Laws imposing direct restric
tion upon the economic activities and competition of the
free negro were repeatedly asked for, but were refused by
the legislature.98

Further light may be thrown upon the character and scope
of the economic need served by the free negro by summar
izing from many concrete cases the occupations in which he
prospered. From the list may be eliminated lawyers, doc
tors, and, after 1832, teachers and preachers. Free negroes
were forbidden by law to act in an official capacity, to ad
minister medicine, and to teach or preach to persons assem
bled." By reason of a prejudicial interpretation of the
laws, if not in open violation of them, free negroes were
not allowed to pursue unmolested the business of an inn
keeper or proprietor.100 A small part of the free colored
class were landowners and farmers, having come into pos
session of land usually by bequest from their former owner.

88 House Journal, 1830-1831. Citizens of Culpeper County peti
tioned the legislature in 1831 to pass a law " for encouraging white
mechanics by forbidding any slave free negro or mulatto to be bound
apprentice to learn any trade or art" (House Journal, 1831-1832,
pp. 2, 84). Certain limitations were placed by law upon the eco
nomic freedom of the free negro; but they were ostensibly for police
purposes, and only incidentally affected his freedom in getting
employment.

"See above, pp. 116, 144.

100 In 1844 Jacob Sampson, a free mulatto, was ordered to show
why his license of the court of Goochland County for keeping an
inn or ordinary should not be revoked, and with no charges against
him his license was revoked without any portion of the tax being
refunded to him. By way of appeal to the legislature, he procured
testimonials from a number of white citizens showing that he was
honest, sober, and of good character; that in an orderly house
which he had kept for fifteen years on the " three chopped " road
he had entertained persons generally, and stock drivers especially,
in a satisfactory manner. But his appeals were rejected by the
legislature (MS. Petitions, Goochland County, 1844, A 7113; House
Journal, 1844-1845, p. 37).

I5O THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

But the free negro was in general a toiler. Tucker observed
that " the occupations of persons of this class are nearly the
same as those of slaves."101 Among those petitioning the
legislature between 1776 and 1860 were the following,
enumerated by trades and occupations : barbers, coopers, car
penters, mechanics, cabinet-makers, wheelwrights, chair-
makers, bricklayers, plasterers, painters, tanners, shoemakers,
blacksmiths, millers, sawyers, wood-dealers, draymen, huck
sters, gardeners, confectioners, bakers, fishermen, fishmon
gers, oysterers, commanders of boats, lead miners, day labor
ers at all work, body servants and attendants, household ser
vants, and washerwomen. There were known also to be a
few merchants or dealers,102 a few musicians,103 and a few
undertakers.104

A glance at this list will reveal the reason why free negroes
flocked to the cities and towns. The employment in urban
districts was in the nature of job work and service in un
skilled trades to which the free negroes were adaptable.
"Bad as they are," admitted an unfriendly critic in 1859,
"the free- negroes [in cities and towns] serve best in many
menial and low stations."105 Furthermore, as between occu
pations on the water and on the land, the free negro showed
an inclination to choose the former. Tucker thought that
one reason why the number of adult free colored females

101 G. Tucker, Progress of the United States in Population and
Wealth in Fifty Years, p. 139. In the census enumeration made in
Virginia in 1782 some free negroes appear as appurtenances of the
estates of white persons (Heads of Families, First Census of United
States, 1790, Virginia, pp. 112-118).

102 Law and sentiment were not favorable toward free negro deal
ers, especially hawkers and pedlars (2 Revised Code, 43). See
Richmond Daily Dispatch, February 18, 1858, on the whipping of a
free negro poultry dealer for stealing.

103 At one time before the Civil War the colored band of the Rich
mond Blues was composed of free negroes.

104 A free negro undertaker of Charlestown, West Virginia, makes
the assertion that before the Civil War he buried the dead of the
better classes of whites.

105 " Calx," p. 15. See petition from Norfolk to the legislature,
which, while pleading the cause of a free negro who was about to
be forced to quit the city, pleaded also in behalf of " female fam
ilies " of the city whom the free negro had been supplying with
fuel (MS. Petitions, Norfolk County, 1834, B 4566).

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO

exceeded the number of adult males of this class, while the
reverse was true of other classes of the population, was
that the male free negroes sought a seafaring life.106 Bagby
hints that the negro's preference for the Baptist Church may
possibly find some explanation in his love for the water.107
Fishing, oyster-dredging, and working on ships or boats as
servants, cooks, stewards, stevedores, or navigators were all
enticing employments for the free negro. Many of the best
patronized boats on the rivers and bays were owned by free
persons of color.

Probably the most prosperous and useful class of free
negroes were the barbers. Many of the towns and cities,
for example Lynchburg and Richmond, were at times almost
wholly dependent upon free colored barbers.108 Reuben
West, a Richmond free negro following the trade of a
barber, acquired a fortune of several thousand dollars.109
In his shop on Main Street he ran from one to four chairs,
and had as apprentice a free mulatto, William Mundin, who
learned, and for a number of years followed, the trade as
an apprentice to this free black man. If an assertion may
be based wholly upon the declaration of a freeborn and very
respectable negro yet living110 who knew Reuben West, the
latter owned for a few years two slaves whom he employed
at his trade in his shop.

In some trades there were free negro entrepreneurs, who ;
used and directed the labor of hired free negroes and slaves.
A. E. Andrews, writing from Fredericksburg in 1835, as
serted that " some of the best mechanics of the city are
coloured men, and among them are several master workmen,

G. Tucker, Progress of the United States, p. 60.

108 A distinguished gentleman of Richmond, who in 1912 was
eighty-four years of age, asserts that in all his life he never had a
barber who was not colored to cut his hair or shave him. This was
told the author to illustrate the extent to which the free negro was
relied upon in the barber's trade.

109 Tax-books, 1856, 1857, 1859. City Hall, Richmond.

110 James H. Hill, 227 V Street, N. W., Washington, D. C, in
structor in wood-work in the public schools, owns property in
Richmond which belonged to the Hill family of free negroes long
before the Civil War.

152 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

who employ a considerable number of coloured laborers."111
It was no uncommon practice for free negroes to hire slaves
to labor for them. The legislature considered repeatedly
the expediency of denying to free negroes the right to hire
slaves,112 the ground of objection probably being the tendency
of such employment to cause the slave, commanded by one
not socially his superior, to despise his slavery, or the oppor
tunity in such employ to acquire a knowledge of antislavery
doctrines and propaganda.

How largely the failure of all attempts to remove the free
negro from the State was due to a fairer appreciation of
his economic worth when the value of an individual was to
be considered than when the class as a whole was under
review is shown by the protests forthcoming from the
white inhabitants wherever and whenever an effort was
made to enforce the law requiring negroes set free after
1806 to quit the State.113 The protests are hardly less sig
nificant because they attempt to have only individuals ex-
cepted from the operation of the law than if they aimed at
saving the entire class. In 1810 sixty persons prayed the
legislature to allow a free negro wheelwright, "who will
benefit the whole country," to remain in the State and the
county;114 and in the same year citizens of Petersburg de
clared to the Assembly that the town could not spare without
loss one Uriah Tyner.115 In 1812 a large number of citizens
of Berkeley and Frederick counties told the legislature that
"there is not a human being in this part of the country
where they [Jerry and Susanna, free colored] reside who is

111 P. 162.

112 The matter was before the legislature of 1841-1842 (House
Journal, p. 16) ; a bill was introduced to prevent the practice in
1843 (ibid., 1842-1843, p. 182) ; the expediency of similar legislation
was considered in 1844 (ibid., 1844-1845, p. 66), but the committee
asked to be discharged.

" The harsh measures often proposed in the legislature by those
who feel the evil of their increasing numbers, have not been carried
into laws " because of " the examples of intelligence, honesty and
worth among them" (Message of Governor Smith, in House Jour
nal, 1850-1851, p. 30).

114 MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1810, A 9180.

115 MS. Petitions, Dinwiddie County, 1810, A 4946.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 153

opposed to their remaining in Virginia."116 The plea of the
inhabitants of Lynchburg for Pleasant Rowan, a free colored
carpenter and mechanic, was that " his loss would be felt in
the community ;"116a for Frederick Williams that he was a
much needed barber ;llob and for Ned Adams, that he was
an almost indispensable cooper.117 The people of Henrico
County, petitioning for John Hopes, a free negro, said that
he was a cooper "who would be useful in any community."118
The same thing was said of Daniel Warner, a free negro
barber of Warrenton, by one hundred and twenty white peti
tioners.119 Ninety-five citizens of Accomac County declared
to the legislature in 1838 that the services of John, a free
negro sawyer, "are much required in his neighborhood."120
Henry Parker of Loudoun County was considered by his
white neighbors as "a good and useful man," desirable in
the community as. a day laborer.121 No better example of
the economic value placed upon the free negro could be
found than the following petition from thirty-eight citizens
of Essex County: "We would be glad if he [Ben, a free
negro] could be permitted to remain with us and have his
freedom as he is a well disposed person and a very useful
man in many respects, he is a good carpenter, a good cooper,
a coarse shoemaker, a good hand at almost everything that
is useful to us farmers."122

In behalf of Harriet Cook, free colored, nearly one hun
dred white persons, among whom were seven justices of the
peace, five ex-justices, sixteen merchants, six lawyers, and
one postmaster, made to the legislature this petition: "It

U8MS. Petitions, Berkeley County, 1812, A 1980. Cf. a petition
in behalf of Thomas Richard, of Lee County, who, it was asserted,
could have got every man who knew him to consent to his remain
ing (MS. Petitions, Lee County, 1820, B 1315).
*MS. Petitions, Campbell County, 1826, A 3482.

I9b Ibid., 1834, A 3546, one hundred and seventy-five white peti
tioners.

7 Ibid., 1834, A 3544, one hundred and sixty names.
MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1836, A 9531.

1 MS. Petitions, Fauquier County, 1836, A 5848.

20 MS. Petitions, Accomac County, 1838, A 88.

MS. Petitions, Essex County, 1842, A 5413.

152 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

who employ a considerable number of coloured laborers."111
It was no uncommon practice for free negroes to hire slaves
to labor for them. The legislature considered repeatedly
the expediency of denying to free negroes the right to hire
slaves,112 the ground of objection probably being the tendency
of such employment to cause the slave, commanded by one
not socially his superior, to despise his slavery, or the oppor
tunity in such employ to acquire a knowledge of antislavery
doctrines and propaganda.

How largely the failure of all attempts to remove the free
negro from the State was due to a fairer appreciation of
his economic worth when the value of an individual was to
be considered than when the class as a whole was under
review is shown by the protests forthcoming from the
white inhabitants wherever and whenever an effort was
made to enforce the law requiring negroes set free after
1806 to quit the State.113 The protests are hardly less sig
nificant because they attempt to have only individuals ex-
cepted from the operation of the law than if they aimed at
saving the entire class. In 1810 sixty persons prayed the
legislature to allow a free negro wheelwright, "who will
benefit the whole country," to remain in the State and the
county;114 and in the same year citizens of Petersburg de
clared to the Assembly that the town could not spare without
loss one Uriah Tyner.115 In 1812 a large number of citizens
of Berkeley and Frederick counties told the legislature that
"there is not a human being in this part of the country
where they [Jerry and Susanna, free colored] reside who is

111 P. 162.

112 The matter was before the legislature of 1841-1842 (House
Journal, p. 16) ; a bill was introduced to prevent the practice in
1843 (ibid., 1842-1843, p. 182) ; the expediency of similar legislation
was considered in 1844 (ibid., 1844-1845, p. 66), but the committee
asked to be discharged.

113 " The harsh measures often proposed in the legislature by those
who feel the evil of their increasing numbers, have not been carried
into laws" because of "the examples of intelligence, honesty and
worth among them" (Message of Governor Smith, in House Jour
nal, 1850-1851, p. 30).

14 MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1810, A 9180.
115 MS. Petitions, Dinwiddie County, 1810, A 4946.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 153

opposed to their remaining in Virginia."116 The plea of the
inhabitants of Lynchburg for Pleasant Rowan, a free colored
carpenter and mechanic, was that " his loss would be felt in
the community ;"116a for Frederick Williams that he was a
much needed barber ;llcb and for Ned Adams, that he was
an almost indispensable cooper.117 The people of Henrico
County, petitioning for John Hopes, a free negro, said that
he was a cooper "who would be useful in any community."118
The same thing was said of Daniel Warner, a free negro
barber of Warrenton, by one hundred and twenty white peti
tioners.119 Ninety-five citizens of Accomac County declared
to the legislature in 1838 that the services of John, a free
negro sawyer, uare much required in his neighborhood."120
Henry Parker of Loudoun County was considered by his
white neighbors as "a good and useful man," desirable in
the community as. a day laborer.121 No better example of
the economic value placed upon the free negro could be
found than the following petition from thirty-eight citizens
of Essex County: "We would be glad if he [Ben, a free
negro] could be permitted to remain with us and have his
freedom as he is a well disposed person and a very useful
man in many respects, he is a good carpenter, a good cooper,
a coarse shoemaker, a good hand at almost everything that
is useful to us farmers."122

In behalf of Harriet Cook, free colored, nearly one hun
dred white persons, among whom were seven justices of the
peace, five ex-justices, sixteen merchants, six lawyers, and
one postmaster, made to the legislature this petition: "It

118 MS. Petitions, Berkeley County, 1812, A 1980. Cf. a petition
in behalf of Thomas Richard, of Lee County, who, it was asserted,
could have got every man who knew him to consent to his remain
ing (MS. Petitions, Lee County, 1820, B 1315).
*MS. Petitions, Campbell County, 1826, A 3482.

I6b Ibid., 1834, A 3546, one hundred and seventy-five white peti
tioners.

7 Ibid., 1834, A 3544, one hundred and sixty names.
MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1836, A 9531.

1 MS. Petitions, Fauquier County, 1836, A 5848.

* MS. Petitions, Accomac County, 1838, A 88.

" MS. Petitions, Loudoun County, 1848, B 1961 ; 1849, B 1971.

122 MS. Petitions, Essex County, 1842, A 5413.

156 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

the terms of the act placed a penalty upon white persons
employing a free colored person not known to be a resident
of the county or town in which the employer lived, thus
narrowly limiting the scope of industrial activity of every
free negro to his home town or county unless he ventured
abroad to face conditions of employment doubly hazardous.
Five years later an act made unlawful the permanent resi
dence in Virginia of any slave set free after May I, 1806.
For a number of years there was almost no effort made to
punish violators of this law ; consequently there accumulated
a considerable number of free colored persons who were not
by law entitled to reside in the State. By and by spasmodic
efforts began to be made to give the act life. The efforts
were not such as to prevent the increase of this expatriated
class by means of manumission, but were sufficient to incite
many of them to leave a community in which they were
threatened or molested, and to seek safety and a means of
subsistence elsewhere in the State. Some who were forced
to move by the operation of this law were kept from settling
by the above-mentioned prohibitions upon white employers
to furnish them work. By 1860 probably from one fourth
to one third of the free colored population in Virginia were
unlawful residents under the provisions of the act of 1806.
How little wonder it is that a colored population, facing
the adverse industrial conditions which produced the " poor
whites," and contending furthermore with every obstruction
to economic freedom that laws could provide short of slav
ery, furnished many recruits for a class of negroes that
were idle, vagrant, and parasitical in their method of ob
taining a living.

In passing now to a discussion of the moral character of
the free negro, we must avoid the error of his unfriendly
contemporary critics who judged him solely by that portion
of his class which was wandering through or living in the
State without employment. If we have in mind only this
idle set of vagabond free negroes, it would indeed be difficult

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE 'FREE NEGRO I 5/

to exaggerate the moral degradation into which they fell.
It is well worth while to take notice of some of the many
adverse criticisms of the Virginia free negro by persons and
societies unfriendly to him, because such characterizations
may be justly applied to the worst element of the free col
ored population.

A petition of the Virginia Colonization Society for legis
lation in aid of efforts to remove the free negroes declared
in 1833 that "the free negro is degraded, vicious and crimi
nal."132 In 1846 Governor Smith asserted that " our crimi
nal statistics . . . demonstrate the moral degradation of the
free negro, the hopelessness of his reform, the mischievous
influence of his associations."133 Again, in 1847 Governor
Smith characterized the free negro class as " a race of idlers,
thriftless and unproductive ; they labor only from necessity,
are content to put up with only a meagre supply of wants,
prowl at dead of night and filch the labor of others."134
Olmstead found a Virginia slave-owner who contended with
him that the free negroes were "a miserable set of vaga
bonds, drunken, vicious, worse than those who are retained
in slavery."135 C. L. Moseby, in a speech before the Vir
ginia Colonization Society, characterized the free colored
class as " a large mass of human beings who hang as a vile
excrescence upon society."136 General Mercer, vice-presi
dent of the society, described the class as " a horde of mis
erable people — the objects of universal suspicion — subsist
ing by plunder."137

133 MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1833, A 9456.

133 House Journal, 1846-1847, p. 9.

134 Ibid., 1847-1848, p. 20. But Governor Smith's generalizations
were not expressed in words which conceal his prejudiced point of
view. Having declared that the free negro was " a moral leper,"
he added : " That he will prove the ready instrument of those to be
found in certain sections of our Union, who would kindle into flame
our social edifice, cannot be doubted," thus revealing a strong motive
for rinding fault with the free negro character (ibid., 1846-1847,

130 Address before the Virginia Colonization Society, quoted from
Jay, Slavery in America, p. 12; African Repository, vol. iii, p. 203.
137 African Repository, vol. ii, p. 189.

158 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

A few of the free negro's critics were more discriminat
ing, and by carefully confining their criticisms to the lowest
stratum of the free negro class they afford additional proof
that persons or societies who indiscriminately condemned all
free negroes were judging the whole in view of only its
worst part. For an example of the more conservative opin
ion of the degradation of the free negroes we may note the
petition of the county court of Loudoun County to the legis
lature in 1836: "It is a curious fact that this unfortunate
and degraded population, unwilling to leave the state ; and
placing itself in a condition to elude the officers of justice
by flying from neighborhood to neighborhood and from
county to county, is restrained from making permanent set
tlements; and is thus actually legislated into poverty, va
grancy, and crime."138

In the debate of 1832 Thomas Marshall with truth and
with a discernment not usual with those who attempted to
solve the free negro problem declared that in proportion as
they were idle they were mischievous.139 Professor Thomas
R. Dew saw the close relation which the crimes and moral
degradation of free negroes bore to their poverty and want,
and explained it thus : " Idleness generates want, want gives
rise to temptation, and strong temptation makes the crimi
nal."140 The wisdom of these observations is abundantly
verified when we turn to the record of free negroes who
were able to find remunerative employment in a tolerant
community. In the place of such descriptive words as " de
graded," " idle," " vicious," " drunken," " dishonest," which
filled the memorials of the colonizers, there appear such
phrases as " a man of integrity and honesty,"141 " honest and
prosperous man,"142 " gentility, trustworthiness and skill."143
In 1810 some of the most prominent citizens of Accomac
County certified to the legislature that Jingo, a free negro,

138 MS. Petitions, Loudoun County,, 1836, B 1849.

139 Richmond Enquirer, February 14, 1832.

140 P. 83.

141 MS. Petitions, Campbell County, 1822, A 3460.

142 Ibid., 1851, A 3684.

143 MS. Petitions, Loudoun County, 1850, B 1988.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO I5Q

"hath uniformly supported an excellent character for so
briety, honesty and industry and that he hath a wife and five
children. . . . His wife is a woman of good character. . . .
The husband and wife have provided well for their children
and bring them up in a moral way."144 Even among the
class of whites who were hostile to the continued existence
of the free negroes in Virginia there was an occasional wit
ness to the fact that " examples of intelligence, honesty and
worth are not lacking among them,"145 and that " there are
many of better habits — and a few who are industrious, provi
dent and even worthy and useful ;"146 and a traveller from
a Northern State expressed the opinion that " the free blacks
are more moral and respectable than many among the lowest
class of whites."147 In view of the various conflicting as
sertions we are led to give credit to the recollections of
respectable free negroes still living, who insist on dividing
the free negroes, on a moral and social basis, into two classes,
the upper one of which was thoroughly respectable, law-
abiding, and prosperous, while to the lower element prop
erly belongs the reputation for being evil associates and
corruptors of slaves, and parasites on the community in
which they lived.148 Persons of the former class were des
ignated by the respectful name of " men of color ; " indi
viduals of the latter class were called " free niggers."149
The foregoing remarks on the moral character of the free

144 MS. Petitions, Accomac County, 1810, A 42.

145 Governor Floyd's message, in House Journal, 1850-1851, p. 30.

1 " Calx," p. 5. In his essay, written about 1859, Calx proposed a
scheme for reducing the number of free negroes by making a lack
of employment evidence of guilt sufficient to authorize sale into slav
ery as a punishment He opposed any indiscriminate sale or re
moval of both good and bad.

147 Andrews, p. 162.

148 This is the testimony of William Mundin, born 1839, now living
(1911) in Richmond.

149 Interview with Richard A. Tucker, 13 Suffolk Street, Norfolk,
Virginia. Judge Crothers, of Portsmouth, recalled that when he
was a boy going to school four miles from his home in Isle of
Wight County he passed on the way five families of free negroes.
" They were respectable, respected, and fairly well-to-do." As far
as he knew, there was no desire on the part of the white persons
of the community to be rid of them (interview, Portsmouth, Jan
uary 4, 1911).

l6o THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

negro have been made touching his deportment in general.
To be able to determine what measure of justification there
was for a vast deal of legislation imposing special limita
tions and restrictions upon his conduct inquiry must be
made specifically into the truth of a few of the oft-repeated
charges and indictments upon which discriminatory legisla
tion was based. The four charges which were made with
most telling effect were: (i) that he was a thief and a re
ceiver of stolen goods; (2) that he was criminally disposed
in an unusual degree; (3) that he was insurrectionary; and
(4) that he was lazy and improvident.

First, then, as to his propensity to steal. That the free
negro class produced a rather disproportionate number of
thieves should not be doubted, but that the free negroes were
worse in this respect than the slaves, or that they were worse
than so many white persons would have become if placed in
their circumstances and forced to remain there, is by no
means proved. Jefferson observed with truth that " a man's
moral sense must be unusually strong if slavery does not
make him a thief."150 While many of the free negroes of
the period between 1782 and 1865 received their training
in slavery, the possession of such qualities as trustworthi
ness, honesty, and faithfulness to duty was a prerequisite
to the attainment of freedom. A bad slave, like an unruly
horse, was more likely to go on the market, and was less
likely to have the commiseration of his master, than one of
better qualities. The fact is that the free negroes, as far as
they had employment, were less inclined to steal than were
slaves; but in this regard the less fortunate free negroes
were subject to greater temptation, if possible, than slaves,
and the evidence is conclusive that they were surpassed by
no other inhabitants of the Commonwealth in the number
and variety of their depredations. Mr. Archer, addressing
the Virginia Colonization Society, said : " The free blacks are
destined by an insurmountable barrier — to the want of occu
pation, thence to the want of food — thence to the distresses

150 Writings of Jefferson, vol. v, p. 66 (1789).

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO l6l

which ensue that want— thence to the settled deprivation
which grows out of those distresses and is nursed in their
bosoms."151 " Since they are idle," observed ninety citizens
of Culpeper County, " they either steal or perish."152

It should, however, be kept in mind in a comparison of
the free negro with the slave in regard to all such misde
meanors as thievery that the free negro was severely brought
to account and universally criticised for his offenses, whereas
the slave was often shielded from prosecution and criticism
by reason of the dignity and authority of his master. Slave
owners were sometimes reluctant to admit that their slaves
were as bad as or worse than the slaves of their neighbors,
and by way of self-defense and self-protection from criti
cism condoned the misdemeanors of their slaves or punished
them in private. But there was no cloak for the " free nig
ger." The old warning " Be sure your sin will find you
out " had abundant sanction as applied to him.

The economic activities of the roguish free negroes and
slaves were thoroughly complementary and harmonious.
The free negro, unlike the slave, could market products, the
presumption being that he lawfully possessed them. The
slave possessed first-hand information as to the location of
many articles of produce. Hence the problem of produc
tion was managed by the slave ; the burden of transportation
was borne by the free negro ; and the method of distribution
was determined by mutual agreement. As early as 1691 the
free negro was charged with being a receiver and conveyer

151 Quoted from Dew, p. 83.

152 MS, Petitions, Culpeper County, 1846, A 4611. County and
hustings court records of the nineteenth century contain numerous
examples of theft by free negroes. See, for example, case of Bob
Green, a free negro, who in a single night stole seven hams of
bacon (Orders of the Richmond Hustings Court, no. u, 1814, p.
153). Newspaper notes of their larcenies were sometimes tinged
with a sarcasm that is indicative of their frequent repetition, as for
instance the following : " The Poultry Trade — A negro engaged in
the poultry business was detected a few nights ago in the act of rob
bing a hen house on the premises of a citizen of Manchester. A
magistrate ordered '39' for his benefit the next day" (Richmond
Daily Dispatch, February 18, 1858).

1 1

162 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

of stolen goods,153 and upon this and other accusations was
based the legal restriction upon manumission. Soon after
the act removing these restrictions went into effect, in 1782,
complaints were heard from different quarters that " free
negroes are agents, factors, and carriers to the neighboring
towns for slaves, of property by them stolen from their
masters and others."154

In the neighborhood of almost every gristmill in certain
parts of eastern Virginia there were located squads of free
negroes who were suspected by their white neighbors of
procuring a large part of their sustenance by concert with
roguish slave millers. In 1831 a number of citizens of
Charles City and New Kent counties, seeking from the leg
islature relief from such conditions, asserted that it was a
custom almost universal with owners of mills in their coun
ties and in fact in the whole lower part of the State to em
ploy slaves to attend the mills, and that the millers " are a
sort of communication between slaves and the free persons
of color" in the neighborhood.155 The legislature, however,
took no action in relief of the persons aggrieved.156

A complaint of a similar kind was received by the legisla
ture in 1836 from Loudoun County. According to the peti
tioners, free negroes who owned " trading carts " and oper
ated them between Washington or Georgetown and the rural
communities of Virginia near the District of Columbia line
were in the habit of receiving stolen goods from free negroes
and slaves.157 Complaints were heard at the same time from
other quarters of the State, and, although the legislature
refused to grant the specified request of the Loudoun County
petitioners,158 a bill of general application was introduced
which was designed to prevent free negroes from trading

153 Hening, vol. iii, p. 87.

154 MS. Petitions, Hanover County, 1784, A 8124; Henrico County,
1784, A 8971.

165 MS. Petitions, Charles City County, 1831, A 3962.
158 House Journal, 1831-1832, pp. 56, 84.
m MS. Petitions, Loudoun County, 1836, B 1840.
158 House Journal, 1835-1836, p. 262.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 163

beyond the town in which they resided. The measure met
with defeat.159

There was a manifest reluctance on the part of the legis
lature to interfere by law with the right of the free negroes
to trade freely, and, although complaints were becoming
ominous,160 proposed legislation for prohibiting them from
selling grain without a certificate or evidence that they were
the lawful possessors of it was in 1840 declared inexpe
dient.161 In some counties, however, the white citizens were
determined not to take further denial from the legislature.
In 1843 one hundred and twenty-seven citizens of Accomac
County signed a petition for a law imposing a penalty upon
all white persons who made purchases of grain from free
negroes without requiring from them the certificate of two
respectable housekeepers showing that the grain was law
fully possessed. " Country stores are in the habit," reads
the petition, " of receiving grain from free negroes who are
not the producers of a single bushel of grain of any kind.
The grain they sell is either stolen by the negroes who sell it
or more frequently received by them of slaves who steal it
from their masters and others and by this means exerts a
most pernicious influence upon our slaves."162 In response
to the appeal there was introduced in the House of Dele
gates a bill containing provisions similar to those asked for
by the Accomac petition and applicable to the entire State.
It was later narrowed in application to the counties of Acco
mac and Richmond and enacted into law.163

159 Ibid., p. 244.

180 In 1836 the following petition was made to the legislature by
citizens of Northumberland County : " This class of people, as is
well known to your honorable body, is everything that is the very
opposite of honesty and industry. . . . The law to prevent dealing
with slaves is a dead letter . . . for the slave has nothing to do
but to pass over the plundered property of his owner to the free
negroes who can openly carry it to market and make sale of it as
the production of his own labor."

Since 1785 it had been unlawful for free persons to trade with a
slave without leave from the slave's master and to trade with slaves,
free negroes, or mulattoes on Sunday (i Revised Code, 426).

161 House Journal, 1840-1841, p. 59.

62 MS. Petitions, Accomac County, 1843, A 98.

163 House Journal, 1842-1843, pp. 213, 269; Acts, 1842-1845.

164 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

The second charge or accusation, as above enumerated,
which was repeatedly made against the free negro was that
he was unusually criminal. Upon the assumption of the
truth of this indictment were based the criminal laws of the
second quarter of the nineteenth century applicable to the
free negro. Before the beginning of the nineteenth century
the free negro class was not so large as to attract special
attention to its criminal record. Statistics relative to the
inmates of the penitentiary made and published during the
first quarter of the nineteenth century brought to the atten
tion of the public the fact that the free negroes were com
mitting from two to twelve times as many of the crimes of
the State for which punishment was meted out as an equal
number of average white persons. According to criminal
statistics in 1804, the free negroes committed in proportion
to the population twice as many crimes as the free whites.
In 1808 in proportion to the population they committed
twelve crimes punished in the penitentiary to one among the
whites; in 1810, three to one; in 1812, eight to one; and in
1824, twelve to one. The conclusions drawn from these sta
tistics created a very general belief that the free negro was
fast becoming more criminal, and that existing criminal laws
were wholly inadequate for a class so vicious as the free
Africans. Consequently, in 1823 a law was passed which
substituted for confinement in the penitentiary, transporta
tion and sale as a method of punishing the crimes of free
negroes. For four years this law was effective, during
which time thirty-five free negroes were convicted, trans
ported, and sold into slavery.164 During this period the
number of free negro convicts in proportion to the whites
was no less than it had been under the penitentiary system.
It is to the credit of Governor William B. Giles that the law
was repealed in 1828. He realized the absurdity of taking
the number of free negro convicts and comparing it with
the number of white convicts in judging the relative criminal
capacities and tendencies of the free negroes and the whites.

104 House Documents, no. 15, 1848-1849; no. 4, 1853-1854.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 165

The injustice to the negro of such a method consisted, first,
in an erroneous assumption that the laws were administered
as severely against white persons as against free negroes,185
and, secondly, in a comparison of the record of the free
negroes with the whole white population instead of with
an equal number of whites similarly situated as to means of
earning a living. So pertinent in this connection are the re
marks of Governor Giles that they may be quoted at some
length : —

I am far from yielding to the opinion expressed by the intelligent
committee of the House of Delegates of Virginia and the enthu
siastic memorialists of Ppwhatan respecting the degraded and de
moralized condition of this caste — at least in degree and extent. It
will be admitted that this caste of colored population attracted but
little of the public sympathy and commiseration, — in fact, that the
public feeling and sentiment are opposed to it. It is also admitted
that the penal laws against it have been marked with peculiar sever
ity ;166 so much so, as to form a characteristic exception to our whole
penal code. When I first came into the office of Governor, such
was the severity of the penal laws against this caste, that for all
capital offences short of punishment by death and for many of
fences not capital, slavery, sale and transportation formed the
wretched doom denounced by the laws against this unfavored,
despised caste of colored population. ... I have also reason to fear,
that under the influence of general prejudices, the laws, in some
instances, have been administered against this class more in rigour
than in justice. Yet, notwithstanding all these deprecated circum
stances, the proportion of convicts to the whole population has
been small.

He points out the fact that only about one out of every
thousand free negroes was a criminal, and concludes that

185 It was made a penitentiary offense for a free person " to advise
any slave to abscond from his master or aid such slave to abscond
by procuring for or delivering to him a pass, register or other
writing or furnish him money, clothes, etc." (Acts, 1855-1856, p. 42).

In 1848 ten put of eighty-one free negroes in the penitentiary were
there for aiding or abetting slaves to escape from their masters.
This is only one example of the many more chances for a free negro
to be sent to the penitentiary than for a white person (House Journal,
1847-1848, pp. 20, 22; MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1844, A 9654).
Two thirds of the offenses for which free negroes were arraigned
before the hustings court of Richmond were defined by laws which
did not apply to white persons, — such, for instance, as that which
made it a criminal offense for a free negro to remain in a city
or county without proper registration (Richmond Daily Dispatch,
February 8, 1859).

1M Compare Howison, vol. ii, pp. 458-459, for similar- expressions.
For example, he says: "They are subject to restraints and surveil
lance in points beyond number."

1 66 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

" these facts prove, first, that this class of population is by
no means so vicious, degraded and demoralized as repre
sented by their prejudiced friends and voluntary benefac
tors. And, second, that evils attributed to this class are
vastly magnified and exaggerated."167

From 1828, the date of the repeal of the law fixing trans
portation and sale as a penalty in the case of free colored
convicts, to 1861 the free colored class furnished from one
tenth to one fifth of the inmates of the penitentiary. The
apparent disproportion of the crimes of this class was often
pointed out in argument for a general deportation or colo
nization.168 Governors Smith, Floyd, Johnson, and Wise
brought the fact repeatedly to the attention of the legisla
ture.169 Governor Smith, however, attributed much of the
disparity to circumstances which, for the free negro, were
unavoidable. " If there be," said he, " in his natural char
acter the elements to make him a great and good man, it is
hopeless to expect that they will ever be developed under
our policy."170 Governor Wise, in stating in 1857 some pos
sible arguments in defense of the free negro, observed that
" if many of them are corrupted and degenerated ... it is
owing not only to their own improvidence, but to evil com
munication with bad white men who associate and deal with
them and abuse their weakness and who are not restrained
by penal laws."171

It should be said that the penal record of the Virginia free
negro was not worse than that of the negro in some northern
free States, — for instance, Massachusetts. Between 1840
and 1850 the number of colored convicts to one white con
vict, in proportion to the population, was in Massachusetts,

167 P. 20.

1 " An ominous disparity ! which was constantly pressed upon
the attention of the reflecting men of the state" (Howison, vol. ii,
p. 458).

169 Messages of the Governors, in House Journal, 1846-1847; 1847-
1848, p. 20; 1850-1851, p. 30; 1853-1854, doc. no. i, p. 14; House
Documents, no. I, 1857-1858, p. 151.

170 House Journal, 1847-1848, p. 20.

171 House Documents, no. i, 1857, p. 151.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO l6/

9.6 ; in Virginia, 7.2. For the first two years of the decade
of the fifties it was in Massachusetts, 13 ; in Virginia, 6.3.172

If a comparison is made of the criminal record of the ne
groes of Virginia at the present time on the basis of the
relative number of white and black convicts in the peniten
tiary, the disparity will appear as great today as at almost
any time prior to the Civil War.173 The conclusion seems
irresistible that the criminal capacities and tendencies of the
antebellum free negro were not so great as they were quite
generally believed to be.

Thirdly, was the free negro insurrectionary and turbu
lent? No criticism of the free negro was more general and
more undeserved than that he contrived, or was disposed to
contrive, insurrections, and that he induced the slaves to
rebel against their masters. He was referred to on the
floor of the legislature in 1805 as a possible leader of a rebel
lion or an "active chieftain of a formidable conspiracy."174

The insurrection in Santo Domingo, headed by the free
blacks of the island, for a long time furnished the starting-
point of arguments advanced to show that free negroes
might at any time head a slave rebellion. In 1823 La
fayette asked Madison whether it was considered that the
increase in the proportion of free blacks to slaves tended to
increase or diminish the dangers of insurrection. Madison's
answer was, " Rather increases," and that in case of a slave
insurrection the free blacks would be more likely to side
with the slaves than with the whites. Madison certainly
gave a correct expression of the general feeling or belief
of the white population, but there is really little evidence to
show that the impression was correct. There are no in
stances on record of insurrections in Virginia initiated by
or carried out under the leadership of free negroes. Not
a free negro was proved to have had any criminal relation
to the Gabriel plot in 1800, and only two free negro men

L" House Documents, no. 14, 1853-1854, pp. 38, 54.

173 Reports of Virginia Penitentiary, October, 1909, September 30,
1910.

174 Richmond Enquirer, January 15, 1805.

1 68 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

whose wives were slaves were implicated in the Nat Turner
insurrection ; neither of the two seems to have been a lead
ing spirit among the seventy or more slaves who partici
pated in the affair.175

An insurrection always brought out expressions of fear
of the free negro, first, because he was presumed to have
kindred and sympathetic feelings for the slave and to share
with him prejudices against the whites ; and secondly, be
cause he was known to have intimate relations with the
slaves and an increased capacity for organization by reason
of his freedom to go from place to place. Expressed opin
ions of the danger of free negro insurrections were very
numerous for a while after the Southampton affair,176 but
occasionally some writer or speaker who thought twice be
fore venturing a remedy for the ills of society pointed out
the fact, which now seems plain enough, that the free negroes
who had a legal right to remain and those who, despite the
law, were tolerated in Virginia were too well satisfied to
create insurrection.177 Thomas Marshall observed with truth
in the legislature of 1832, " There is no evidence of a dispo
sition to join in revolt or disturb the public tranquility."178
Professsor Dew observed that the Virginia free negro had
been taught to understand his place and to occupy it hum
bly.179 The antebellum free negro did not demand social or
political equality, but rather felt that any right that he pos
sessed was so much for which he should be thankful. The
slave set free because of meritorious conduct or faithful
ness of service, far from being insurrectionary, was an ex
ample of politeness, humility, and respect for superiors and
for authority such as is rarely if ever seen at the present

175 Richmond Enquirer, November 18, 1831 ; W. S. Drewry, The
Southampton Insurrection, appendix.

170 " We are not unmindful of the aid slaves would get from
this source [the free negroes] in case of a servile insurrection"
(Petition of 200 citizens of Northampton, in MS. Petitions, Decem
ber, 1831, A 4884).

177 See article contributed to the Richmond Enquirer, November
18, 1831.

178 Richmond Enquirer, February 14, 1832.
'"Pp. 85, 87.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 169

among either the white or the black population.180 The in
fusion of this, the best type of African in America, among
the free negro class was sufficient in itself to influence the
class toward submissiveness.

Thomas Marshall believed with not a few thoughtful men
that the free negro constituted " no inconsiderable barrier
to a future insurrection of slaves."181 A similar opinion
was expressed on the floor of the legislature in i8o5.182 In
truth, there are numerous instances of the forestalling of
insurrections and the preventing of plots of slaves through
the agency of free negroes. Moses, a free negro of Gooch-
land County, revealed a conspiracy of slaves in 1822. 183 In
1810 two hundred citizens of Petersburg declared to the
legislature through a petition that a free negro, Emanuel,
had saved the town from conflagration by reporting and
aiding in the capture of incendiary, plotting slaves.184 Lewis
Bowlagh presented certificates to the legislature to show
that he had given information to the whites in time to pre
vent bloodshed plotted by slaves.185 A petition in behalf of
Isaac, of Rockbridge County, was based on the ground that
he had been a useful man in detecting and bringing negroes
to account for their wrongdoing.186 Daniel Brady's father,
a man of good character, even surrendered up his own son
to stand his trial and suffer punishment.187 It was certainly
not the disposition of the free negro, knowingly and with
design, to increase the prejudices of the whites against him
by creating insurrection. Far from being of "a turbulent
and discontented " disposition, as those in favor of coloniza-

are peaceable, orderly in their deportment, humble to
those whom the law has made their superiors and polite to those who
are considered their equals." Said by fifty-nine white persons of
Caroline County of nine free negroes — Joseph Tyree, his wife, and
seven children (MS. Petitions, Caroline County, 1821, A 3804).

81 Richmond Enquirer, February 14, 1832.

183 Ibid., January 15, 1805.

83 MS. Petitions, Goochland County, 1822, A 7085.

84 MS. Petitions, Dinwiddie County, 1810, A 5196.
"MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1824, A 9353.

86 MS. Petitions, Rockbridge County, uncatalogued.
187 Pardons issued by Governor Wise, in House Documents, no. I,
1857-1858, p. clxx.

I7O THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

tion declared him to be, he longed to be left alone in the
place of his birth, free from fears of molestation and annoy
ance, to enjoy perfect contentment. Without question the
free negro population in Virginia was in general meek and
submissive and not inclined to rebellion.188

Fourthly, the charge often made that the free negro was
lazy and improvident must not be accepted without some
qualification. It is reasonable to believe that the free ne
groes, like the slaves, were naturally lazy; but it is really
remarkable what examples of thrift and economy this class
produced. Within the space of four years Rose Hailstock
purchased with her saved earnings her own freedom and,
one by one, the freedom of her three children, paying alto
gether £125 sterling.189 Samuel Jackson saved enough to
purchase in 1815 the freedom of his wife and two chil
dren.100 Arthur Lee, of Alleghany County, displayed a per
severance and an ability to economize that is not often sur
passed by laboring men of any race or condition. For six
teen years he was the slave of a man named Brown, who
lived in North Carolina, but he was permitted to remain in
Virginia on the condition that he pay his owner one hundred
dollars per annum. Having paid, at this rate, sixteen hun
dred dollars by 1835, ne purchased his freedom, paying his
owner five hundred dollars for his future liberty. Not sat
isfied, he immediately set to work to earn three hundred and
fifty dollars with which to purchase his wife's freedom.
This done, he procured the signatures of one hundred and
seventy-six citizens of Alleghany County to his humble peti
tion to the legislature for a law granting to him and his wife
a legal right to reside in the Commonwealth, that he might
continue to ply the honorable trade of a blacksmith.191 As
to the character for industry of Billy Williams, forty-seven

188 Professor Dew admitted, or, we might say, contended that the
Virginia free negro was more orderly and well behaved than the
free negro of the Northern States. In the North, he said, the negro
was taught arrogance and equality. In the South he was made to
understand his place and to occupy it humbly (pp. 85, 87).

189 Hening, vol. xiii, p. 618.

190 MS. Petitions, Fauquier County, 1815, A 5760.

191 MS. Petitions, Alleghany County, 1835, A 666.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO

citizens of Campbell County said: "We are his neighbors
and are willing and indeed desirous that the legislature pass
the law permitting him to remain in the state, as he is not
only an honest, prosperous man, but in truth a most useful
and accommodating man to his neighbors and all with whom
he has anything to do. A farmer by occupation and owns
loo acres of land."192 Examples could be multiplied indefi
nitely in contradiction of indiscriminating indictments, such,
for instance, as that made by Governor Smith when he char
acterized the free colored population as a " race of idlers,
thriftless and unproductive/'103 The exaggerated and often
self-contradictory character of the statements of coloniza
tion zealots will best appear by a quotation from a widely
circulated memorial184 to the legislature: —

Their idleness is proverbial ; they live, few know in what way and
fewer where. . . . Whatever energy can be spared from annoying
both classes [slave and white] is expended in multiplying their own
numbers.

And yet this same individual, the pest of the land which gives him
only birth, when transported to a seat where his industry may have
excitement and object becomes the active, thriving, and happy citizen
of Liberia.195

Rigorous and discriminatory as were the laws of Virginia
enacted for the purpose of controlling that presumably law-

192 MS. Petitions, Campbell County, 1851, A 3684.

193 House Journal, 1847-1848, p. 20.

194 MS. Petitions, Henrico County, 1831, A 9431. See also me
morial of the Auxiliary Colonization Society of Buckingham County,
in MS. Petitions, Buckingham County, 1832, A 3080. A memorial
of the Fairfax Colonization Society read : " Pursuing no course of
regular business and negligent of everything like economy and
husbandry they are a part of the community supported by the in
dustry of others" (MS. Petitions, Fairfax County, 1832, A 5578).

195 With this picture of what the Virginia colonizers professed to
think the free negro would become in Liberia may be compared
what citizens of Somerset County, Maryland, thought of the Vir
ginia free negroes who had come into Maryland from Virginia
after the law of 1806 made the residence of certain ones illegal
in Virginia: "We reap not the rewards or fruits of our labor . . .
all is snatched from us by that curse of God's Creation, the de
graded free negro ... he toils not neither does he spin, yet like
Dives he fares sumptuously and is arrayed in purple and fine linen
and well he may, for he appropriates to his own use the labors of
the entire white population" (MS. Petitions to Maryland Legisla
ture, in Maryland Historical Society, portfolio 7, no. 28).

172 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

less, disorderly and vicious member of society, the free
negro, they fail in some respects to reveal the extent to
which he was subjected to surveillance and discipline, while
in other respects they represent a harsher treatment than he
actually received. In the nineteenth century there existed
a law for keeping watch over and controlling the conduct
of free negroes not found among the statutes or supported
by legal precedents. Its sanction was in community senti
ment, and its name was lynch-law. The practice before the
Civil War of policing the free negroes by self-appointed
bailiffs was the historical antecedent of the Ku Klux Klan
of reconstruction days, although there was not the same
degree of organization and not so wide a gap between local
sentiment and legal administration before as during that
time.

Prostitution and vice among the free colored population
.were frequently dealt with by methods not approved by
law. For example, in Amelia County in 1821 the inmates
of houses of ill repute were visited and chastized by a party
of disguised white men.196 Although a fine was imposed
upon at least one of the persons connected with this raid,
the state of sentiment favorable to the method of procedure
is seen in the effort made by half a hundred of the local resi
dents to have the convicted man released from his fine.
General Brodnax, speaking from the floor of the legislature
in 1832, was not challenged upon the assertion that such
methods of getting rid of undesirable free negroes were of
common occurrence. " Who does not know," said he, " that
when a free negro, by crime or otherwise, has rendered him
self obnoxious to a neighborhood, how easy it is for a party
to visit him one night, take him from his bed and family,
and apply to him the gentle admonition of a severe flagella
tion, to induce him to go away. In a few nights the dose
can be repeated, perhaps increased, until, in the language
of the physicians, quantum suff has been administered . . .

186 MS. Petitions, Amelia County, 1821, A 781.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO

and the fellow becomes perfectly willing to go away."197
So commonly was lynch-law of this character resorted to by
the whites in prevailing upon free negroes to yield to their
wishes that one argument strongly urged in 1832 in favor
of a law authorizing the use of force in carrying out a colo
nization scheme was the necessity of shielding the negroes
from the cruelty of private intimidation and compulsion.198
William Miles Cuffee, a free negro born in 1839, now living
at Hickory Ground, Virginia, tells how in 1859, upon a
rumor of insurrection, whites assembled in bands to intimi
date and frighten the free negroes in the community. Ac
cording to his report, he remained hidden in the woods for
about three days and nights while the raids were being con
ducted against persons of his class.

While local sentiment often permitted the authority of the
law to be exceeded or ignored by individuals self-appointed
to discipline and punish free negroes, it no less frequently
permitted laws to remain unenforced. Speaking of the laws
which forbade free negroes to move from one town or
locality to another and to assemble in considerable numbers
and of those which compelled them to submit to search of
their houses and persons by patrols, a writer in the Richmond
Enquirer declared that " these provisions and many other
laws on this subject are so much at variance with the feel
ings of our citizens that in many parts of the state they are
merely a dead letter. ... So long as our humanity prepon
derates over our fears, so long will those laws be very par
tially and feebly executed."19*

The same writer clearly discerns and explains the reason
why legislation dealing with the free negroes outran execu
tion: "As legislators, impressed with the jeopardy that
threatens the public safety, men readily give their assent to

L9T Richmond Enquirer, February 14, 1832. Compare Jay, Slavery
in America, p. 45.

198 Speech of Mr. Chandler, in the Richmond Enquirer, February
14, 1832. General Brodnax said that he understood that the consent
of the emigrants in a cargo which had recently set sail for Africa
was obtained by private compulsion.
, 189 Richmond Enquirer, October 8, 1805.

1/4 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

any measure that seems calculated to protect it, but when
they return to the bosom of their families and are sur
rounded by those among whom they were born and nursed
and from whose labor they obtain the means of comfort and
independence the sentiments of the legislator are frequently
lost in the feelings of humanity and affection in the private
man."

An illustration of this fact is seen in the operation of that
law which directed emancipated slaves to leave the State
within twelve months from the date of their emancipation.
Henry Howe said in 1845 tnat " these laws, and every other
having the appearance of rigor . . . are nearly dead letters
upon our statute books, unless during times of excitement,
or since the efforts of the abolitionists have reanimated
them. I have, until lately, scarcely known an instance in
which they have been enforced."200 Petitions were con
tinually being sent to the legislature by white persons com
plaining "that the law requiring the removal [of ex-slaves]
is in its operation perfectly nugatory."201

In certain localities, however, and at certain times the law
was rendered in some measure effective. The act was a
penal statute, depending upon local officials for its execu
tion; hence enforcement was not uniform as to times and
places. The appearance of the successive census reports
showing the rapid increase and accumulation of the free
negroes in the State usually gave rise to some zeal for pro
ceeding against free negroes who remained in violation of
the law.202 The number and the deportment of these ne
groes in a community went far toward determining the
length to which the local officials would go in prosecuting
them. In the counties of western Virginia, where but few
negroes resided, almost no use was made of this law. In

200 Historical Collections of Virginia, p. 157.

201 MS. Petitions, Hampshire County, 1836, A 7904; Loudoun
County, 1836, B 1849; Loudoun and Fauquier Counties, 1847, B 1952.

202 " The excitement which now prevails will in a little while en
tirely subside and you will see things move on just as they have
done until the next census, when we shall again begin to stir and
flutter for awhile" (Richmond Whig, December n, 1845).

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO 1/5

most of the eastern counties the prescribed penalty — sale
into slavery — was so much at variance with sentiment that
grand juries usually refused to indict, or attorneys refusecl
to prosecute, violators of the law.203 When indictments
were made, the cases were continued from time to time or
finally dismissed.204

When arrests, prosecutions, and sales of free negroes were
made, the object was usually to make examples of some that
all others might take warning and leave the community.
The overseers of the poor of Accomac County held a meet
ing in 1825, and determined to make an example of one
negro, thinking that they would by this means be spared
the necessity of selling as slaves the free negroes who had
become unlawful residents under the act of i8o6.205 A
negro named Jack Bagwell was the unlucky victim ; but a
single example was not sufficient to induce all other free
negroes liable to sale to quit the community, and at a meet
ing held the following year the Board of Overseers ordered
that notice be posted throughout the county " that the Over
seers of the Poor . . . will sell one free negro in each dis
trict of this county for every month from this date."206

In pursuance of the order, seven negroes were sold into
slavery on June 5, 1826. The maximum price received for
any one of the seven freemen was thirty-six dollars and
fifty cents. The fact that some of them brought so low a
price as one dollar creates a doubt as to whether the pur
chasers expected to force them into bondage or whether
they did not intend to allow them to escape from the neigh
borhood. In 1839 Richard Rew purchased at the price of
five hundred and thirty dollars a free negro who had lived
in Virginia contrary to law since his manumission in 1819.

203 MS. Orders of Northampton County, 1831-1836, pp. 136, 147,
505; MS. Petitions, Loudoun and Fauquier Counties, 1847, B 1952;
Frederick County, 1828, A 6495.

1 " By this mode, they were annually before the court, their
cases called and continued and in this evasive way, they spent the
remainder of their days in their old communities" (T. K. Cartmell,
Shenandoah Valley Pioneers and Their Descendants, p. 521).

205 MS. Petitions, Accomac County, 1825, A 91.

206 Ibid, 1826, A 80.

176 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

The negro made good his escape to New York, and Rew,
who had paid a high price for him, expecting to subject him
to actual bondage, appealed earnestly but in vain to the
legislature for a refunding of the purchase money.207

Even such a timid and spasmodic enforcement of this law
as these instances represent rendered the condition of a
great number of free negroes anomalous and insecure. Not
only those negroes emancipated after 1806, but also their
posterity were liable to be sold as slaves, and many deserv
ing negroes were forced to appeal to the humanity of their
white neighbors to save them from banishment or sale. In
1834 Titus Brown, whose hair was white with age, related
how he and his wife, childless and almost as old as he, had
been "ordered to depart from the Commonwealth."208 It
was not often that a free negro of fair character was unable,
even in times of excitement, to get his white neighbors to
intercede in his behalf. These could usually bring about a
relaxation of energy in the prosecution, or, as in the case of
Archy Carey, they might " agree that so long as his conduct
comports with his recommendation they will not enforce the
law against him."209 If in this way they could not render
secure a negro threatened with sale or banishment, his white
sympathizers would often draft earnest appeals to the hu
manity of the legislators, and procure to these petitions hun
dreds of white subscribers. Very frequently the legislature
was moved to pass acts excepting certain free negroes from
the operation of the law.210 In some such way were toler
ated nearly all ex-slaves who ventured to assume the risk of
losing their freedom. It was asked in the House of Dele
gates in 1832 why the laws providing for the banishment or
sale of certain free negroes had not been carried out. The
answer was : " Because its provisions were in violation of
the feelings of the people. A thousand such laws would

207 House Journal, 1839-1840, p. 205.

208 MS. Petitions, Loudoun County, 1834, B 1830.

"MS. Petitions, Campbell County, 1830, A 1013.
210 For examples, see Acts, 1821-1822, p. 84; 1833-1834, p. 316;
1834-1835, p. 240; or Acts of any year from 1812 to 1848.

SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FREE NEGRO

fall to the ground and be inoperative for lack of public sen
timent."211 The same explanation was given by Governor
Wise in his message to the legislature in 1857. " It would
be more humane and more just," he said, " to sell them
wholesale into slavery " than to force upon them dispersion
and extinction in the cold climate of the free States; "but
the moral sense of our people would revolt at a violation of
individual and personal rights like this and no such usurpa
tion would be tolerated by public sentiment."212

m Richmond Enquirer, February 14, 1832.
212 House Documents, no. I, 1857, p. 151.

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lack of space necessitates the omission from this list of
a large number of secondary authorities having bearing
upon, but not contemporary with, some portion of the period
treated in this monograph. Footnote references to the
most useful of the works of postbellum writers touching
the subject herein treated must suffice to show the extent
of the author's indebtedness to authorities. With the ex
ception of a few county or local histories having special
value because of their limited territorial scope, only primary
sources are here enumerated.

MANUSCRIPT

A. COUNTY COURT RECORDS, — Orders, Deeds, Wills, Inventories, and

so forth ; certified copies transcribed from the original records
in pursuance of an act of the Virginia State Legislature and
preserved in the Virginia State Library in Richmond, Virginia.
19 vols., folio:

1. Accomac County, 1632-1640, 1676-1690.

2. Elizabeth City County, 1684-1699.

3. Essex County, 1695-1699.

4. Henrico County, 1677-1692, 1682-1701.

5. Warwick County, 1748-1762.

6. York County, 1633-1694, 1638-1648, 1657-1662, 1664-1672,

1675-1684, 1677-1692, 1677-1699, 1684-1687, 1687-1691, 1690-
1694, 1694-1702, 1694-1697.

B. COUNTY COURT RECORDS, — Orders, Deeds, Wills, and so forth;

original records :

1. Henrico County, various volumes, 1776-1860, in County Court

House, Richmond, Virginia.

2. Lower Norfolk and Norfolk County, 1637-1646, 1646-1651,

1686-1695, and various volumes, 1700-1860, in Norfolk
County Court House, Portsmouth, Virginia.

In this county free negroes and mulattoes were registered
in volumes kept for that purpose only : vol. i, 1802-1852 ;
vol. 2, 1852-1861. Concerning each free negro registered
by the county court clerk there was recorded the answer
to the following queries: Name, How free, Age, Height,
Complexion, Marks or Scars. Each negro was numbered
and the date of his registration recorded.

3. Northampton County, 1632-1640, 1640-1645, 1645-1651, 1651-

1654, 1654-1655, 1655-1658, 1657-1664, 1683-1689, 1689-1698,
1710-1720, and various volumes, 1720-1860.
178

BIBLIOGRAPHY 179

Records of the Hustings Court, Richmond, Virginia, vari
ous volumes, 1782-1860.

Ordinances of the City of Richmond, 3 vols., 1804-1860.

C. PARISH RECORDS.

At Episcopal Theological Seminary, Alexandria, Virginia :

1. Register of Christ's Church, Middlesex County, Virginia,

1653-1812.

2. Register of Kingston Parish, Mathews County, Virginia,

1674-18 — .

3. Vestry Book of Charles Parish, York County, Virginia, 1670-

1800.
At Bruton Church, Williamsburg, Virginia :

4. Register of Middletown and Bruton Parishes, 1662-1797.
At Library of William and Mary College, Williamsburg:

5. Register of Abingdon Parish, transcribed by Lyon G. Tyler.

6. Register of Charles Parish, 1648-1800, transcribed for Li

brary of William and Mary College.

D. RECORDS OF FRIENDS' MEETINGS, at Park Avenue Meeting House,

Baltimore, Maryland.

1. Minutes of the Baltimore Yearly Meeting held at West River

and Third Haven, 3 vols., 1677-1758, 1754-1764, 1798-1821.

2. Condensed record of the action of yearly meetings on ques

tions relating to slavery and the slave trade, 1760-1819.

3. Minutes of the Warrenton and Fairfax Quarterly Meeting,

1776-1787.

4. Minutes of the Warrenton and Fairfax Quarterly Meeting of

Women Friends, 1775-1787.

5. Minutes of the Warrenton Quarterly Meeting, 1787-1801.

6. Minutes of the Fairfax Quarterly Meeting, 1787-1850.

7. Minutes of Crooked Run Monthly Meeting, 1782-1789.

8. Minutes of Fairfax Monthly Meeting: vol. A, 1745-1776; vol.

B, 1776-1802; vol. C, 1802-1845.

9. Minutes of Hopewell Monthly Meeting: bk. i, 1759-1777; bk.

2, 1777-1791; bk. 3, 1791-1811; bk. 4, 1811-1851.
10. Minutes and Proceedings of Goose Creek Monthly Meeting,
1785-1818; 1818-18— .

E. Records of the General Court of Virginia, transcribed by Con-

way Robinson, 1640-1661, 1670-1676. Virginia Historical So
ciety.

F. Legislative Petitions of Virginia, 1776-1860.

This collection of original manuscript documents, one of the
most important sources of this monograph, is preserved in the
archives of the State and is divided into as many groups
as there were counties from which the petitions or memorials
originated. The arrangement within the county groups is
with reference to chronology. Fifteen thousand five hundred
documents are catalogued and arranged in the archives in
upright filing cases, each document being assigned to a stiff
folder, folio size, having upon it a letter and a number which
distinguishes it from every other document in the files. The
numbers run in two series, A and B. Series A runs from I
to 10,000. Series B is complete from I to 5500; and the two
series combined cover the counties from Accomac to Orange.
The county groups from P to Y inclusive are wrapped sepa
rately in bundles, awaiting the systematic arrangement of the

ISO THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

other county groups. In most instances double reference by
date and by number has been made in the footnotes of this
monograph to the petitions that are filed in the cases. Little
if any use has been made, up to this time, of this, one of the
richest sources for Virginia history during the period of the
Commonwealth. The documents contain invaluable informa
tion about almost every subject that was of interest to the
people of the various localities of the State within the period
covered.

G. Virginia Land Patents, folio, vols. I and 2, 1623-1643; vol. 3»
1643-1651; vol. 4, 1652-1655; vol. 5, 1655-1664; vol. 6, 1666-
1679. Land Office, Richmond.

H. Tax Books (for various counties), 1856-60. Auditor's Office,
Richmond.

I. Transcripts made from original papers in the British Public
Record Office, London. By Angus W. MacDonald, 7 vols.,
1619-1695; containing abstracts or complete transcripts of 581
documents relating to the settlement and early history of
Virginia. By William Noel Sainsbury, 20 vols., 1606-1740;
containing abstracts of 5108 documents relating to early Vir
ginia history. Virginia State Library.

J. Letter Book of the Executive of Virginia, 1844-1848, folio. Vir
ginia State Library.

K. Proclamation Book; containing the proclamations of the Gov
ernors of Virginia from 1786 to Aug. 31, 1801. Virginia State
Library.

L. Land Books of the City of Richmond, 1856-1860. City Hall,
Richmond.

LAWS AND COURT DECISIONS

1. Statutes at Large of Virginia, 13 vols., 1619-1792. By William

Waller Hening. Richmond, 1819-1820.

2. Statutes at Large of Virginia, 3 vols., 1792-1807. By Samuel

Sheppard. Richmond, 1835-1836.

Being an addition to Hening's Statutes, these three volumes
are referred to in this monograph as vols. xiv, xv, and xvi
of Hening.

3. Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, 1807-1865.

4. Statutes at large of the Confederate States of America, 1861-

1864, including both public and private acts and resolutions.
Edited by James M. Mathews. Richmond, 1864.

5. Revised Code of Laws of Virginia, 2 vols. Richmond, 1819.

6. Supplement to the Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia. Rich

mond, 1833.

7. Code of Virginia. Richmond, 1849.

8. Code of Virginia. Richmond, 1860.

9. Constitutions of Virginia, 1776, 1830, 1851.

10. Reports of Cases Determined in the General Court and the Su
preme Court of Appeals of Virginia :
(a) By Thomas Jefferson, I vol., 1730-1740 and 1768-1772.
(&) By Bushrod Washington, 2 vols., 1790-1796.

(c) By Daniel Call, 6 vols., 1790-1825.

(d) By William W. Hening and William Munford, 4 vols.,
1806-1810.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 8 I

O) By William Munford, 6 vols., 1809-1820.

(/) By Francis W. Gilmer, I vol., 1820-1821.

(g) By Peyton Randolph, 6 vols., 1821-1828.

(/i) By Benjamin Watkins Leigh, 12 vols., 1829-1842.

(») By Conway Robinson, 2 vols., 1842-1844.

(/) By Peachy R. Grattan, 16 vols., 1844-1865.

(&) Virginia Colonial Decisions. The Reports by Sir John
Randolph and Edward Barradall of Decisions of the Gen
eral Court of Virginia, 2 vols., 1728-1741. Edited by R. T.
Barton. Boston, 1909.

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

1. Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1727-1776, 8 vols. Edited

by H. R. Mcllwaine, 1905-1910.

2. Journals of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of

Virginia, 1776-1865. [Journals for May session of 1782 and
session of 1796 are missing.] Richmond.

3. Journals of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1778-

1865. [Missing Journals: 1780-1784, 1791-1799, 1802-1828,
1836-1838, 1854-1855, 1856-1860.] Richmond.

4. Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates for the Counties and

Corporations of the Colony of Virginia, held at Richmond
Town, in the County of Henrico, 1775. Richmond, 1816.

5. Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia State Convention of

1829-1830. Edited by Ritchie and Cook. Richmond, 1830.

6. Journal, Acts, and Proceedings of a General Convention of the

State of Virginia, 1850. Richmond.

7. Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States of Amer

ica, 1861-1865. In 7 vols. Issued as Senate Document No.
234, 58th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, 1904.

8. Documents of the House of Delegates, containing the messages

of the Governors to the General Assemblies and annual re
ports of the public officers of the State, and of boards of direc
tors, visitors, superintendents, and other supervisors of pub
lic institutions of Virginia, 1814-1865.

9. Documents of the Senate, containing bills introduced and passed

by the Senate, reports of commissions and various other state
papers, 1831-1865.

10. Colonial Records of Virginia (1619-1680). Issued as State Sen

ate Document, Extra, 1874. Richmond.

11. A Collection of the Official Publications of the Confederate

States Government. Virginia State Library.

12. The Federal Censuses of the United States, 1790 to 1860, vol

umes on population.

NEWSPAPERS

FILES IN THE STATE LIBRARY.

1. The Richmond Examiner and Argus, August, i8oo-Febru-

ary, 1801.

2. The Virginia Argus, Richmond, February, i8o4-December,

1805.

3. The Daily Dispatch, Richmond, 1852-1865.

4. The Enquirer, Richmond, May, i8o4-December, 1864.

1 82 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

5. The Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg, January, 1767-Decem-

ber, 1768; January, I77i-December, 1777; February, 1779-
December, 1779.

6. The Virginia Gazette and General Advertizer, Richmond,

March, I79i-December, 1809.

7. The Norfolk and Portsmouth Herald, January-December,

1847-

8. The Constitutional Whig and The Daily Richmond Whig,

Richmond, 1824-1865.

9. The Recorder, Richmond, 1802-1803.
FILES IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

10. The Virginia Gazette and the American Advertizer, Rich

mond, January, 1782-December, 1794.

11. The Enquirer, Richmond, 1804-1805 [contain numbers ex

amined to supplement files in Virginia State Library].

MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS

1. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Edited by

R. A. Brock. Vols. i to v. Edited by William G. Stanard,
vols. vi-xix. Richmond, 1893-1911.

2. The William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine.

Edited by Lyon G. Tyler. Vols. i-xix. Williamsburg, 1892-
1911.

3. Calendar of Virginia State Papers. Edited by William P. Pal

mer. Vols. i-xi. Richmond, 1875.

4. Collections of the Virginia Historical Society, New Series.

Edited by R. A. Brock. Vols. i-xx. Richmond, 1882-1891.

The above serial publications are really source books of Vir
ginia history. They make available in published form many
original and valuable manuscripts from collections in the Vir
ginia Historical Society, the Virginia State Archives, county
archives, and in the possession of private individuals.

5. The Commercial Review of the South and West. A monthly

journal of trade, etc. Edited by J. D. B. DeBow. Vols.
i-xxxi. New Orleans, 1846-1861.

6. The Virginia Historical Register and Literary Advertizer. Edited

by William Maxwell. Vols. i-vi. Richmond, 1848-1853.

Contains extracts from "records, journals, diaries, letters,
inscriptions and other relics of the ' olden time.' "

7. The Lower Norfolk County Virginia Antiquary. Edited by Ed

ward Wilson James. Vols. i-v. Norfolk, 1897-1906.

Contains abstracts and gleanings from official records of
churches and courts of Lower Norfolk and Princess Anne
counties.

8. Virginia County Records. Published quarterly by the Genealog

ical Association, New York City. William Armstrong Croz-
ier, editor. Vols. i-vii.

These volumes contain abstracts of wills and extracts from
other county and probate court records such as orders, mar
riage bonds, and land grants.

9. The African Repository and Colonial Journal. Vols. i-xxv.

Published by the American Colonization Society. Washing
ton, 1825-1850.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 183

PUBLISHED PARISH RECORDS AND LOCAL HISTORIES

1. The Vestry Book and Register of Bristol Parish, Virginia,

1720-1789. Transcribed and published by C. G. Chamberlayne.
Richmond, 1898.

2. Register of Christ's Church, Middlesex County, Virginia, 1653-

1812. Published by the National Society of the Colonial
Dames of America in the State of Virginia. Richmond, 1897.

3. The Vestry Book of Henrico Parish, Virginia, 1730-1773, from

the original MS. By R. A. Brock. Richmond, 1874.

4. Register of St. Peter's Parish, New Kent County, Virginia, 1680-

1787. Published by the National Society of the Colonial
Dames of America in the State of Virginia. Richmond, 1904.

5. Vestry Book of Saint Peter's Parish, New Kent County, Vir

ginia. Published by the National Society of Colonial Dames
of America in the State of Virginia. Richmond, 1904.

6. Papers Relating to the History of the Church in Virginia,

1650-1776. Edited by William S. Perry. Privately printed.
1870.

7. BAGBY, REV. ALFRED. King and Queen County, Virginia. New

York and Washington, 1908.

8. BRUCE, THOMAS. Southwest Virginia and the Shenandoah Val

ley. Richmond, 1891.

9. BURTON, REV. L. W. Annals of Henrico Parish, Diocese of Vir

ginia and especially of St. John's Church, 1611-1884. Rich
mond, 1904.

10. CARTMELL, T. K. Shenandoah Valley Pioneers and Their De

scendants. A History of Frederick County, Virginia, from
its formation in 1738 to 1908. Compiled mainly from orig
inal records of old Frederick County, now Hampshire, Berke
ley, Shenandoah, Jefferson, Hardy, Clarke, Warren, Morgan,
and Frederick. Privately published by the author, 1909.

11. GOODWIN, REV. W. A. R. Historical Sketch of Bruton Church,

Williamsburg, Virginia. Williamsburg, 1903.

12. WISE, JENNINGS CROPPER. Ye Kingdome of Accawmacke; or,

the Eastern Shore of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century.
Richmond, 1911.

13. WOODS, REV. EDGAR. Albemarle County in Virginia, giving some

account of what it was by nature, of what it was made by man,
and of some of the men who made it. Charlottesville, 1901.

CONTEMPORARY WORKS AND PAMPHLETS

1. ALEXANDER, ARCHIBALD. A History of Colonization on the

Western Coast of Africa. Philadelphia, 1849.

2. ANDREWS, E. A. Slavery and the Domestic Slave Trade in the

United States. In a series of letters addressed to the ex
ecutive committee of the American Union for the relief and
improvement of the colored race. Boston, 1836.

3. ASBURY, REV. FRANCIS, BISHOP OF M. E. CHURCH. Journal from

Aug. 7, I77i-Dec. 7, 1815. 3 vols. New York, 1821.

4. ASHMUM, J. History of the African Colony in Liberia, from

December, 1821 to 1823. Compiled from the authentic records
of the colony. Washington, 1826.
Bound in " Slavery Pamphlets," in Virginia State Library.

184 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

5. BEVERLY, ROBERT. The History and Present State of Virginia,

in four parts. By a native and inhabitant of the place. Lon
don, 1705.

6. BULLOCK, WILLIAM, GENT. Virginia impartially examined and

left to the publick view to be considered by all iudicious and
honest men, etc. London, 1649. Pp. 66.

7. BURK, JOHN. The History of Virginia from its first settlement

to the present day. n vols. Petersburg, Virginia, 1804-1816.

8. BURNABY, ANDREW. Travels Through the Middle settlements of

North America, in the years 1759 and 1760. Pp. 52.
In Pinkerton, J., Voyages, vol. 13.

9. " CALX." Two Great Evils of Virginia and their one Common

Remedy.

A pamphlet written September 17, 1859, and printed by
John W. Randolph of Richmond. Pp. 18.

One of the evils referred to was the free negro and the
other was the seduction of slaves by abolitionists. Bound in
" Political Pamphlets," vol. 12, in Virginia State Library.

10. CHASE, A. M., AND SANBORN, CHARLES W. A Statistical View of

the Condition of the Free and Slave States. Compiled from
official documents. Boston, 1856.

11. CHASTELLUX, FRANCOIS JEAN. Travels in North America in the

years 1780-82. Translated from the French by an English
gentleman who resided in America at that period. 2 vols.
London, 1787.

12. DABNEY, PROF. ROBERT L. A Defence of Virginia in Recent and

Pending Contests against the Sectional Party. New York,
1867.

13. DEW, THOMAS R. Review of the Debates in the Virginia Legis

lature of 1831-32. Richmond, 1832.

14. FITZHUGH, GEORGE. What shall be done with the Free Negroes.

Four essays written for the Fredericksburg Recorder, 1851.
This is a biased argument in favor of reducing free negroes
to slavery.

15. • Sociology for the South, or The Failure of Free Society.

Richmond, 1854.

16. FORCE, PETER. Tracts and Other Papers, relating principally to

the Origin, Settlement, and Progress of the Colonies of North
America, from the discovery of the country to the year 1776.
4 vols. Washington, 1836-1846.

17. GARLAND, HUGH A. The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke.

2 vols. New York, 1851.

18. GODWYN, MORGAN. Negro's and Indian's Advocate suing for

their Admission into the Church: For a persuasive to the in
structing and baptizing of the Negroes and Indians in our
Plantations, To which is added a brief account of religion in
Virginia. London, 1680. Pp. 174.

19. . A Supplement to the Negro's and Indian's Advocate, or

some further considerations and proposals for the effectual
and speedy carrying on of the Negro's Christianity in our
plantations without any prejudice to their owners. London,
1681. Pp. 12.

20. GOODELL, WILLIAM. The American Slave Code in theory and
practice: Its distinctive features shown by its statutes, judicial
decisions, and illustrative facts. Fourth edition. New York,
1853-

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 8$

21. HAMMOND, JOHN. Leah and Rachel, or the Two Fruitfull Sis

ters Virginia, and Mary-Land: Their Present Condition, Im
partially stated and related. London, 1656.

22. HARTWELL, BLAIR, AND CHILTON. The Present State of Virginia

and the College. London, 1727. Pp. 95.

23. HILDRETH, RICHARD. The History of the United States of

America from the discovery of the continent to the organiza
tion of the government under the Federal Constitution. 1497-
1789. Revised edition. 3 vols. New York, 1856.

24. HOWE, HENRY. Historical Collections of Virginia. Charleston,

S. C, 1852.

25. HOWISON, ROBERT R. A History of Virginia from its Discovery

and Settlement by Europeans to the Present Time. 2 vols.
Richmond, 1848.

26. JAY, WILLIAM. Miscellaneous writings on Slavery. Boston,

1853-

27. . Slavery in America : or An Inquiry into the character

and tendency of the American Colonization and the American
Anti-Slavery Societies. London, 1835.

28. JEFFERSON, THOMAS. Writings. Edited by P. L. Ford. 10 vols.
New York, 1892-1899.

29. . Notes on the State of Virginia with an appendix. Third

American edition. New York, 1801.

30. LEIGH, BENJAMIN WATKINS. The letter of Appomattox to the
People of Virginia exhibiting a connected view of the recent
proceedings in the House of Delegates on the subject of aboli
tion of slavery; and a succinct account of the doctrines
broached by the friends of abolition in debate; and the mis
chievous tendencies of those proceedings and doctrines.
Richmond, 1832.

31. . Virginia Slavery Debate. Richmond, 1832.

Contains nine of the speeches delivered by members of the
House of Delegates of 1831-1832 on the policy of the State
in relation to her colored population, and the Letter of Appo
mattox to the People of Virginia.

32. MADISON, JAMES. Letters and other Writings of James Madison.

In four volumes, published by order of Congress, 1769-1836.
New York, 1884.

33. MONROE, JAMES. The Writings of James Monroe, including a

collection of his public aad private papers and correspondence
now for the first time printed (1778-1831). Edited by S. M.
Hamilton. 7 vols. New York, 1898-1903.

34. NEILL, EDWARD D. History of the Virginia Company of London,

with letters to and from the first colony never before printed.
Albany, N. Y., 1869.

35. OLMSTEAD, FREDERICK LAW. A Journey in the Seaboard Slave

States, with remarks on their economy. New York, 1856.

36. ROWLAND, KATE MASON. The life of George Mason, 1725-1792.

Including his Speeches, Public Papers, and Correspondence;
with an Introduction by General Fitzhugh Lee. 2 vols. New
York, 1892.

37. RUFFIN, EDMUND. African Colonization Unveiled. By Edmund

Ruffin. Washington [1859?]. Pp. 32. Virginia State Library.
38. . The Political Economy of Slavery, or the institution con
sidered in regard to its influence on public wealth and the

1 86 THE FREE NEGRO IN VIRGINIA, 1619-1865

general welfare, with an appendix on the influence of slavery,
or of its absence, on manners, morals, and intellect. 1852.
Pp. 32.

39. SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R. Information respecting the History,

Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United
States. 5 vols. Philadelphia, 1855.

40. SLAUGHTER, PHILIP. Virginia History of African Colonization.

Richmond, 1855.

41. SMITH, CAPT. JOHN. Works, 1608-1631. Edited by Edward

Arber. Birmingham, England, 1884.

42. STITH, WILLIAM. The history of the first discovery and settle

ment of Virginia : being an essay towards a general history of
this colony. Williamsburg, Virginia, 1747.

43. STRINGFELLOW, B. F. Negro Slavery no Evil ; or the North and

the South. A report to the Platte county self-defence asso
ciation, St. Louis: 1854. Pp. 38.

Bound in " Slavery Pamphlets " in the library of William
and Mary College.

44. STROUD, GEORGE M. A Sketch of the Laws Relating to Slavery

in the Several States of America. Philadelphia, 1827.

45. TUCKER, GEORGE. Progress of The United States in Population

and Wealth in fifty years, as exhibited by the decennial Cen
sus from 1790 to 1840. New York, 1855.

46. TUCKER, ST. GEORGE. A Dissertation on Slavery with a proposal

for the gradual abolition of it in the State of Virginia. Phil
adelphia, 1796. Pp. 106.

A second edition was printed in 1803 as an appendix to the
author's Commentaries on Blackstone.

47. A Dialogue Concerning the Slavery of the Africans ; Shewing it

to be the Duty and Interest of the American States to eman
cipate all their African Slaves. With an Address to the
owners of such Slaves, New York, 1785. Norwich, 1796.
A rare pamphlet in Virginia State Library.

48. Political Pamphlets.

A collection of 45 bound volumes of miscellaneous pamph
lets, most of which refer to political events immediately pre
ceding or during the Civil War, in Virginia State Library.

49. Views of American Slavery, taken a century ago. Anthony

Benzet, John Wesley, etc. Philadelphia, 1858.

This pamphlet contains a miscellaneous collection of views
of slavery in the eighteenth century. It is important on man
umission sentiment in Virginia.

INDEX

Aberdeen, a slave set free, 62.

Abolition Society, the Virginia,
58 n.

Abolitionists, attacks of, 79; ef
forts of, reanimate harsh laws,
174.

Adams, John, Mayor of Rich
mond, 142.

Adams, Ned, free negro, 153.

Africans, first brought to Vir
ginia, 16.

Anglican church, aid of, to ne
groes, 40, 41 ; labors to edu
cate them, 138.

Angus, Judith, free negress,
owns two slaves, 93 ; will of,
93-

Anthony, negro in Virginia in
1623, 24, 24 n.

Apprentices, free negro, 40, 41 ;
to be given instruction, 138,
I39>" opposition to, 149, 149 n.

"Aristocracy," negro, 133-135-

Bacon, Nathaniel, sr., will of, 51.

Bagwell, Jack, free negro sold
into slavery, 175.

Ballagh, Dr. J. C, 18, 18 n., 20.

Bancroft, George, 121.

Banishment, penalty upon white
persons marrying negroes, 124;
of slaves freed after 1806, 70;
spasmodic enforcement of law
requiring, 174 et seq.

Baptism, of free negroes, 12,
12 n.; of slaves does not be
stow freedom, 137.

Baptists, favorable toward manu
mission, 58; offer education
and Christianity to negroes,
141-143 ; African churches, 143.

Barbers, free negro, 151.

Barlow, Betsey, manumits and
renames two slaves, 84 n.

Barnhouse, Anne, discharges a
negro servant, 48.

Barr, John, will of, setting slaves
free, 44.

Beasley, Thomas, petitions to be
allowed to use firelock, 97.

Berkeley, Governor, estimate of
black population of Virginia,
10.

Beverly, Robert, 18; defines over
seer, 38.

Bilberry, Benjamin, slave of, set
free by act of legislature, 44.

Bill of Rights, appealed to in be
half of negroes, 61 ; principles
of, interpreted by courts, 98.

Binford, William, last will of,
56 n., 61.

Bird, Samuel, a free mulatto, 65.

Black masters, or free negro
slave-owners, 78, 90-94.

Bledsoe, A. T., defends slavery,
80.

Bowlagh, Lewis, free negro, in
War of 1812, in; gave infor
mation concerning plot, 169.

Brady, Daniel, free negro, sur
rendered by his father to stand
trial, 169.

Brodnax, General, on deporta
tion of free negroes, 90, 172,
173 n. ; on constitutional rights
of free negroes, 122.

Brown, Titus, free negro, 176.

Bruce, Thomas, 133.

Bruton parish, free negroes in,
12.

Burdett, William, inventory of
estate, 36.

Burk, John, history of Virginia,
16 ; on emancipation, 75 n.

Burnaby, Andrew, observations
of, 54; on two laws of Vir
ginia, H7n.

Bushrod, Thomas, purchaser of
mulatto as slave, 31.

Caesar, a slave, set free, 62.

" Calx," on manumission, 81 ; on
intermarriage of free negroes
and slaves, 132; on illiteracy
of free negroes, 145; scheme

187

188

INDEX

for reducing free negro popu
lation, 16, I59n.

Cambew, Emanuel, negro, ac
quires title to land, 38.
Campbell, history of Virginia, 16.
Capitation tax, on free negroes,

112-116.

Carter, John, will of, 51.
Casor, John, negro servant of a
negro, 32; gains his freedom,
32; reduced to slavery, 33;
owned by Anthony Johnson,
negro, 93.

Charlton, Stephen, 26, 27.
Christian servants, 21, 31, 37, 39,

91.

Christianity, test of freedom, 22.
Church wardens, care of, for

mulatto bastards, 40, 41, 138.
Citizenship, of free negroes, 120-
122 ; Bancroft's opinion con
cerning, 121 ; Judge Tucker's
opinion concerning, 121.
Clark, Bowling, negro, purchases

freedom of wife, 77.
Classes of free negroes, 40, 41.
Clemenze, Scott, free negro,

property tax of, H4n.
Colonization, resolution in legis
lature concerning, 65, 73; cor
respondence concerning, be
tween Monroe and Jefferson,
66; becomes an important is
sue, 71 ; appropriations for, 73 ;
failure of, 74 n. ; Brodnax on,
oo, 172.

Colonization Society, American,
735 Virginia, 73, 157; Powha-
tan, 75 ; Richmond, petition of,
76; Fairfax County, memorial
of, 171 n.; misrepresentations
of free negroes in memorials,
157, 171 ; tax levied on free
negroes for, 115; money spent
for, 115.

Constitution, state, 68, 122; Fed
eral, provisions respecting cit
izenship, 121.

Cook, Harriet, free negress, peti
tion in behalf of, 153, 154.
Cook, history of Virginia, 16.
Cooper, Phil, petition of, 92 n. ;

in bondage to wife, 92 n.
Corporal punishment, adminis
tered to free negroes, 105, 161 n.

Cowen, Philip, defrauded of free
dom, 34.

Criminal tendencies of free ne
groes, 164-167.

Cuffee, William Miles, free ne
gro, intimidated by mob, 173.

Cuffie, James, free negro, li
censed to keep a gun, 96 n.

Dabney, Sally, slave of husband,
93; incapable of receiving be
quest of property, 93.

Day, James, no.

Debts, free negroes sold for, 82,

83-

Declaration of Independence, 56,
56 n. ; in contradiction of slave
laws, 62 n. ; doctrines of, held
not to apply to negroes, 98.

Delony, Henry, negro slave of,
set free, 44.

Dew, Thomas R., defends slav
ey* 79 > "Essay on Slavery,"
81 ; views regarding criminal
tendencies of free negroes,
158; views concerning behavior
of free negroes in Virginia,
170 n.

Disfranchisement, of free ne
groes, 119.

Dogs, free negroes not allowed
to own, 97, 98.

Doyle, Benjamin, grant of land
to, 37-

Dregis, Emanuel, negro servant,
26, 27, 28, 28 n.

Dregis, Frances, 27.

Dregis, Jane, 26, 27.

Dungie, John, an Indian, mar
ries mulatto, 129.

Dunmore, Governor, 44.

Dutch, bring in cargo of negroes,
17, 22 ; import duties on slaves
assessed upon, 19; importers
of negroes, 20 n.; plantation
of, 30 n.

Edloe, Henry, 89 n.

Education, free negroes forbid
den to leave State to obtain,
107 ; opportunities for, open to
free negroes, 137-145; of ne
gro apprentices, 138, 139.

Elkonheade, Jane, discharges ne
gro servant, 29.

INDEX

189

Emancipation, progress of, in
Virginia, Maryland, and north
ern colonies, 55; propositions
looking to, 59, 60 ; accomplished
in Virginia, 42, 42 n.

Emanuel, free negro, reveals plot,
169.

Employment of free negroes,
146-156.

Equity courts, open to free ne
groes, 101.

Ermana, slave woman, escheats
to literary fund, 93.

Ex-slaves, removal of, provided
for, 51, 71, 156, 174; law of
1806 concerning, not enforced,
174-177-

Farnando, Bashasar, negro owner
of property, 27, 28.

Farrar, John, last will, 50.

Firearms, free negroes forbidden
to own or carry, 52, 95; free
negroes licensed to keep, 96,
96 n. ; petition of free negro
farmers concerning, 97.

Fiske, John, 79.

Fitzgerald, John, will of, con
strued, 87 n.

Fitzhugh, George, defends slav
ery, 80.

Fitzhugh, Giles, frees slaves, 85.

Floyd, Governor, 143 n., 166.

" Free niggers." See " Men of
Color."

"Free papers," free negroes re
quired to have, 101, 107; prima
facie evidence of freedom, 100,
101 ; free negroes imprisoned
for want of, 107 n. ; transferred
by free negroes to slaves, 64,
64 n.; forged by slaves, 64,
64 n.

Freedom, purchased by slaves,
63, 77, 170.

Freedom dues, negro servants
entitled to, 34 n., 39, 49.

Freehold, definition of, 119; as
requirement for voting, 119.

Friends. See Quakers.

Fuller, Betsey, owns her husband
as slave, 92 n.

Gabriel Insurrection, 64, 65, 65 n.,
69; effect of, on negro educa

tion, 140; no evidence of free
negroes in, 167.

Gatch, Philip, liberates slaves, 58.

Geaween, John, negro servant,
28.

Giles, Governor William B., pro
cures reform of criminal laws
applicable to free negroes, 164;
condemns discriminations
against free negroes, 165.

Gingaskin Indians, 128, 128 n.

Glary, John, servant, 47.

Glasgow, Ellen, "The Battle-
Ground," 133.

Gooch, Governor, 53 n.

Goodell, W., 54-

Gowen, Mihil, set free, 48.

Grayson, Colonel William, sets
free slaves, 56 n.

Greene, Rev. Charles, 53.

Gromes, Frank, purchases free
dom of his family, 91, 92.

Gwyn, Hugh, servants of, 29.

Habeas corpus, free negroes en
titled to writ of, 101, 102, 102 n.

Hailstock, Rosetta, set free, 45 n. ;
purchases freedom of her chil
dren, 170.

Hamander, John G., negro serv
ant, 26.

Harmonites, befriend negroes,
140.

Harris, James, free negro, 96.

Harris, John, negro, land deeded
to, 38.

Hawkins, Peter, deed of manu
mission to his wife Rose, 84.

" Head rights," claimed by ne
gro, 25, 37, 88.

Heth, William, wants free negro
laborers, 147 n.

Hill, James H., free black man,

95-

Hill, Joseph, last will of, 61.

Hiter, Abram, free negro, loon.

Hobday, Thomas, 139.

Holmes, William, mulatto, de
serter from Revolutionary
Army, lion.

Hopes, John, free negro, 153.

House of Burgesses, right of, to
manumit slaves, 45.

Howe, Henry, 174.

190

INDEX

Howell, Peggy, children of, kid
napped, 100.

Hungar's parish, negroes in, u.

Hunnicutt, Cloister, bequeathes
slaves to Monthly Meeting, 57.

Illiteracy, of free negroes, 145,
146.

Immigration of free negroes
forbidden, 64; laws concern
ing, revised, 66.

Indentures of negro servants,
26, 32, 38.

Indians, not to be slaves, 19 ;
forbidden to purchase Chris
tian servants, 91 ; presumed at
law to be free, 99 ; denied right
to hold office, 116; not to be
admitted as witnesses, 117;
social and marriage relations
with free negroes, 41, 127-130;
Gingaskins, 128; Nottoways,
128; Pamunkeys, 129, 129 n.

Infidels, forbidden to purchase
Christian servants, 91 n.

Ingle, Edward, on manumission
sentiment, 80.

Insurrections, negro, feared, 52,
168; Gabriel, 64, 65, 65 n., 69,
140, 167; Southampton, 80, 144,
168.

Intermarriage, of free negroes
and Indians, 127-130; of free
negroes and slaves, 130-133;
of negroes with whites, 123,
124, 126.

Isdel, James, 138.

Jackson, Samuel, free negro, 170.

James City County, free negroes
in, 15.

James, David, free negro, 138.

Jefferson, Thomas, on status of
first negroes brought to Vir
ginia, 24; favors emancipation,
54; proposes freedom of man
umission, 55, 56 n., 59; on colo
nization, 66; concerning f reed-
men, 75; on effect of slavery
on character of bondmen, 160.

Johnson, Anthony, free negro,
exempted from taxation, 24,
24 n., 25, 25 n. ; owner of negro
servant, 32, 33; land grant to,

Johnson, James, will of, 86 n.

Johnson, John, negro landowner,
37-

Johnson, John, sr., negro, suit
against, 38.

Johnson, Mary, free negress, 24,
24 n., 25 n.

Johnson, Richard, free negro
landowner, 25, 38.

Johnson, Samuel, free negro, 131.

Jones, David A., sells slaves to a
black man, 91, 92.

Jones, Robert, deeds land to ne
gro, 38.

Jubilee, Jane, free negress, wife
of slave, 134 n.

Jury trial, allowed to free ne
groes, 103 ; denied to them, 104.

Kidnapping of free negroes, pen
alty for, 99; decision relating
to, 100; reward for offenders,
100.

Kingsmall, Richard, 23 n.

Kitt, set free by legislative act,
44-

Lafayette, Marquis, slave spy of,
62 n. ; inquiry of, concerning
free negro insurrection, 167.

Landowners, free negro, 25, 37,
38.

Lee, Arthur, slave, purchases
freedom of himself and wife,
170.

Lee, Governor Henry, proclama
tion of, 100.

Legal rights of free negroes, to
own and alienate property, 88-
90 ; to own and sell slaves, 90-
94 ; limited as to ownership of
white servants, 94; limited as
to ownership of firearms, 95~
97; limited as to ownership of
dogs, 97, 98; to freedom from
unjust restraint of liberty, 98-
102; means of asserting, 102-
104 ; to go from place to place,
106-108; to enslave themselves,
108-109.

Light, George, owns indented
negro servant, 26; judgment
against, 38.

London Company, servitude in,
23-

INDEX

Lucas, Charles, defrauds a negro
servant of his freedom, 34.

Ludlowe, Thomas, owner of ne
groes, 36.

Lynch-law for controlling free
negroes, 172, 173.

Madison, James, favors manu
mission, 81 ; on negro insur
rections, 167.

Malacai, mulatto boy, to be
taught trade, 139.

Manumission, free negro popu
lation increased by, 41 ; mean
ing of term, 42; methods of,
42 ; by special act of the legis
lature, 43-45 ; precedents found
in customs of servitude, 46-
50; right of, restricted bylaw,
51; right denied except for
meritorious service, 53; un
popular in colony, 53, 53 n. ;
growth of sentiment favorable
to, 54-59; law permitting free
dom of, proposed in legisla
ture, 55; movement favoring,
aided by religious societies, 57-
59; proposed law enacted, 59,
59 n. ; produces sudden increase
of free negro class, 61 ; aided
by Revolutionary philosophy,
61, 62 ; evil results of, 64, 65 ;
repeal of act of 1782 proposed
and debated, 67-69; effect of
law of 1806 upon, 70, 71 ; prop
osition relating to, 74; causes
of decline in frequency of, 70-
82 ; relation of, to economic
conditions, 77-82; stages in
progress of, summarized, 82;
legal aspects of, 82-87 ; instru
ments of, 83, 84; in future, 86.

Marshall, Thomas, in debate of
1832, 90, 158; thought free ne
groes a barrier to servile in
surrection, 169.

Martin, Nicholas, last will, 49.

Mayo, Joseph, frees slaves, 56.

Medlicott, Richard, Spanish mu
latto, 39 n.

" Men of color," and " free nig
gers " distinguished, 159.

Mercer, General, 157.

Methodists, favor manumission,
57; disapprove of slavery, 58,

58 n.; petition for gradual abo
lition, 60 n. ; to be spared by
insurgent negroes, 65; offer
Christianity to negroes, 139,
139 n., 140; arouse hostility of
slave owners, 141.

Military service required of free
negroes, 109-112.

Militia, free negroes in, 95; reg
ulation for enlistment of free
negroes, 96.

Miller, John, free negro, account
of his life, H2n.

Millers, roguish slave, aid to free
negroes, 162.

Monroe, Governor, on coloniza
tion, 66; favorable toward
manumission, 81.

Moorman, Charles, 56.

Moral character of the free ne
groes, 156-159-

Moravians, befriend negroes, 140.

Morgan, Philip, negro lessee, 38.

Morris, Richard, on taxation of
slaves, 78 n.

Moseby, C. L., 157.

Moses, free negro, reveals con
spiracy, 169.

Mulattoes, Spanish, 39; classes
of, 40, 41 ; set free, 44 ; de
tested by whites, 125 ; number
in Virginia in 1860, 127; dis
tinguished from mustees, 130.

Mundin, William, free mulatto,
apprenticed to free negro, 95
n., 151.

Mustees, 128, 128 n., 130.

Mustizos. See Mustees.

Natural rights, philosophy of,
54, 55; interpreted to apply to
negroes, 56, 59; victory for, 61.

Navy, Confederate, free negroes
in, 112; United States, 1 12,
112 n.

Nottoway Indians, 128.

Occupations of free negroes,

149, 150.
Offices, free negroes forbidden

to hold, 116.
Olmstead, F. L., 157.
Overseers, negro, 38.
Overseers of poor, to bind out

free negroes, 41, 139; to sell

192

INDEX

free negroes remaining in
State in violation of law, 175.

Pamunkey Indians, 129, 129 n.

Parke, Daniell, manumits slave,
50, 51 n.

Parker, Henry, free negro, 153.

Parker, Robert, sued by a free
negro, 33.

Parrish, Col. Jolly, lion.

Payne, John, frees his slave, 56.

Pedro, John, negro, 23 n.

Petition, of ninety-one free ne
groes, 142; right of, belonging
to free negroes, 103.

Philosophy of the Revolution,
effect on slavery, 55, 56 ; favor
able to freedom, 59.

Pillory, negro compelled to stand
in, 124 n.

Pleasants, John, last will, 57.

Pleasants, Jonathan, 56 n.

Pleasants, Robert, frees slaves,
61.

Poll tax. See Capitation tax.

Poor whites, unable to compete
successfully with free negroes,
147, 148, 156.

Population, free colored in Vir
ginia, compared with that of
other States, 9-13 ; increase of,
39-41 ; from 1782 to 1810, 61 ;
from 1820 to 1840, 80; relative
to slaves in colonial period,
126.

Pott, Francis, 26, 27, 34, 34 n.,
138.

Pott, John, 34, 34 n.

Preachers, negro, forbidden to
preach, 144.

Presbyterians, favorable toward
manumission, 58.

Prostitution among free negroes,
how dealt with, 172.

Pryne, Francis, negro discharged
from servitude, 29.

Punch, John, negro servant, 29,

30-

Punishments, prescribed by law
for free negroes, 104-106.

Quakers, favor manumission, 57,
58, 58 n.; urged to free slaves,
62 ; condemn slavery and the
slave trade, 62 n. ; to be spared

by insurgent negroes, 65 ; offer
instruction to free negroes, 139,
140, 141.

Quickley, Mary, free black wo
man, owns slave, 94.

Rachel, free negress, wife of
slave, 131.

Radford, George, negro, pur
chases a slave, 91.

Radford, James, sells slave to a
black freeman, 91.

Randolph, John, of Roanoke, lib
erated slaves of, driven from
Ohio, 72; will of, 76, 85, 85 n.

Reginald, Mr., runaway negro
of, 30 n.

Registers. See "Free papers."

Registration of free negroes,
101, 108, 178.

Revolutionary War, service in,
by slaves rewarded with free
dom, 62, 62 n.; free negroes
in, no, non.

Rew, Richard, purchases free
negro, 175.

Richmond Enquirer, attitude to
ward manumission in 1805, 68;
on variance of laws and senti
ment, 173.

Richmond Recorder, manumis
sion opposed by, 75.

Richmond Whig, on free negro
labor, 149.

Rolfe, Master John, 22.

Rowan, Pleasant, free negro
carpenter, 153.

Ruffin, Edmund, defends slav
ery, 80; views in regard to
manumission, 85.

Sabb, John, free negro, purchased
and manumitted father-in-law,
92.

Sampson, Jacob, free negro, li
cense of, to keep an ordinary
revoked, 149 n.

Santo Domingo, negro insurrec
tion in, 67, 67 n., 167.

Schools, free colored, not al
lowed by law, 144, 145.

Schwartz, J. A., nuncupative
will of, concerning his slaves,
85 n.

INDEX

193

Servitude, distinguished from
slavery, 18; white, or indented,
beginning of, 22; negro servi
tude, 25-31, 38; encroachments
of slavery upon, 31-34.

Shakers, befriend negroes, 140.

Sheepraising, free negroes and
dogs a menace to, 97, 97 n.

Sheppard, Robert, 28.

Slavery debate of 1832, 135.

Slavery, what is evidence of, 18;
distinguished from servitude,
18; developed in customary
law, 18, 19; servitude the his
toric basis of, 18 n. ; first act
concerning, 19; Indian, 19;
legislative sanction of, 21-22;
Ballagh's history of, 20; earli
est records of, 34-37; abol
ished in Virginia, 42 n.

Slaves, permitted to give testi
mony against free negroes, 66;
owned by free negroes, 77, 91-
95 ; social relations with free
negroes, 130-137.

Smith, Colonel William, 31.

Smith, Governor, on free negro
labor, 147, 148; characterizes
free negroes, 157, 157 n. ; opin
ion concerning lack of indus
try among free negroes, 171.

Smyth, of Wythe County, op
poses manumission, 67.

Stafford, Christopher, 48.

Stephens, Rice, free negro, 131.

Stringfellow, Rev. Dr. Thornton,
defends slavery, 80.

Suffrage, rights shared by free
negroes, 117-119; denied to
free negroes, 119, 120.

Taxation, of free negroes, 112-
116.

Taxpayers, free negroes as, 1151*.

Taylor, John E., will of, 86 n.

Testimony, free negroes not al
lowed to give, against a white
man, 116, 117; slaves permit
ted to give, against free ne
groes, 66.

Thacker, Samuel, gift to servant,
47-

Thomas, Fortune, free negress,
petition in behalf of, 154.

Tidewater, free negro popula
tion of, 13, 14, 15.

Trans-Allegheny, free negro pop
ulation of, 13, 14. i

Trial of free negroes, method of,
102-106.

Tucker, St. George, u, 12, 17;
on progress of manumission in
Virginia, 61 n. ; decision of, in
suit for freedom, 98, 98 n. ; on
citizenship of negroes, 121.

Turner, Nat, insurrection, 144.

Tyner, Uriah, free negro, peti
tion in behalf of, 152.

Unlawful meetings of negroes,
52; of slaves, 141 n.

Vagrants, free negroes as, 107,
107 n. ; liable to arrest, 155.

Valley of Virginia, free negro
population of, 13, 14.

Vaughan, Richard, discharge of
negro, 47; last will and testa
ment of, 49, 49 n.

Vaughn, Craddock, quadroon
children of, 135.

Viney, Joseph and James, free
negroes, petition to keep fire
locks, 97.

Voting. See Suffrage.

Walker, Major Peter, inventory
of slaves of, 36.

Wall, Anne, banished from col
ony, 124.

War of 1812, free negroes serve
in, in; poll-tax on free ne
groes to support, 114.

Warner, Daniel, free negro bar
ber, 153.

Warwick, Hannah, 38.

'Washington, George, on slaves
as property, 78.

West, Reuben, free negro slave
owner, 95 n. ; property tax on,
H3n. ; occupation as barber,

I5i.
West, Richard, on free negro

suffrage, 119.
Whitehead, Thomas, last will of,

49, 50, 89 n.
Whittaker, William, petition of,

35-

194

INDEX

Whittington, William, sold negro
slave, 34.

Will, negro slave, set free by
legislature, 43, 52. _

Wilson, Henry, on introduction
of negroes into Virginia, 17; in
error concerning manumission
laws of Virginia, 82 n.

Wise, Governor Henry A., on
need of free negro labor, 155;
on general character of free
negroes, 166; on banishment of
free negroes, 177.

'Witness, limited ability of free
negroes to become, 116, 117;
charge administered to free
negro witnesses, 117. See also
Testimony.

Wood, Janette, free negress, 92.

Wyatt, Sir Francis, 24.

Wythe, George, decision of, as
chancellor, 98.

Yates, William, free negro, will

of, 89 n.
Yeardly, George, 23 n.

VITA

John Henderson Russell was born in Lee County, Vir
ginia, April 8, 1884, and received his elementary and sec
ondary education in the public schools and in the Jonesville
Institute. After teaching for two years in the public schools
of Lee County, he entered Emory and Henry College in
1904, and received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1907.
For the two following sessions he was principal of a state
high school in Lee County. He entered the Johns Hopkins
University in October, 1909, and pursued graduate studies
in Political Science, History, Philosophy, and Political Econ
omy. In the summers of 1910 and 1911 he was instructor
in Civil Government in the Virginia Summer Institute for
Teachers at Big Stone Gap, Virginia. He was a holder of
a Hopkins Scholarship from Virginia for three years, 1909-
1912, and was Fellow in Political Science, 1912-1913.

TO'

1

2

3

4

5

6

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

SENT ON ILL

JUL 1 4 »93

U. C. BERKELEY

• n KI A o ofift

JAN 0 3 200

rJAN22

2003

°CT 2 7 2004

FORM NO. DD 19

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CA 94720

®s

LD21A-40m-4,'63:
(D6471slO)476B

*TThiversiry of California
Berkeley

GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKI

BDOOfllSTtS