Skip to main content

Full text of "A study of slavery in New Jersey"

See other formats


UC-NRLF 


B    3    SDfl 


CC: 


ccs;;cc 


ex  <r  <r  <:<jr 

cr  r  r-  c  e  c 
C(;  cc  «^c  cc£< 
C  c  c  c  c  cc< 


ca 


c  C  C(i  CC  CC  <  •  C(  c  «^<CC^ 
c  c  c«oc^cc;ccc^5c^,^cc 
cio  cdcc  c:  <:c;;C  -c-  .cscscC- 
<r  c  c  cc<£<  c  d  cc  c  c  <o  t<c  c?: 

f"-*  c"  Ccrcrcii  CGnc  c  '••  c  :  cicCK 


cc: 


cc 


eg  c  c  cc 


C  C.  C 
C  c  c 

CC 


cortc  cc:cc 


<s     C    C 

c  <  <r 


oc. 


-  'OciccT'XK  « 

:decd^c,  c 
i^ctcd"  «<r  e 

^CLCdc't:   c 


c  ec 


S"d    CC-  C 

esc    Cd  <t 
(&c    cc:  « 


<cc 


. 

de 


€<S     C.  <"< 

c<c  a/c 

ec    c  C 

CCC  'C("C 


<  CC      C  C     C   C     €  C 

CCC"    CXC    C'C   <J  < 

cec   CiC  ec  <£< 


(   GET       C  (  C      C  C      C  ' 

^   c  ec  <c 

CCC'  C"_ 
Sj.'CC    <£<C 

j-cd  cr  ece<d 


2-  Cd  CC.  «3>v      , 

^S  C dCC  <C(; 5 . d" C «:  dC C 

c  c  C'C  <d5:c<ccec:c.c 

-         cc  <cd<  d<  c 


c 


IX-X 


A  STUDY  OF  SLAVERY  IN  NEW  JERSEY 


JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

IN 

HlSTOKICAL   AND    POLITICAL   SCIENCE 
HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  Editor 


History  is  past  Politics  and  Politics  are  present  History— Freeman 


FOURTEENTH  SERIES 
IX-X 


A  STUDY  OF  SLAVERY  IN  NEW  JERSEY 


BY  HENKY  SCOF1ELD  COOLEY 


BALTIMORE 
THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 

PUBLISHED     MONTHLY 

September  and   October,  1896 


COPYRIGHT,  1896,  BY  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS. 


JOHN  MURPHY  &  CO.,  PRINTERS, 
BALTIMORE. 


.7 1  ;• 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION 7 

THE  INCREASE  AND  DECLINE  OF  SLAVERY. 

The  Proprietary  Colony 9 

Indian  Slavery 11 

The  Royal  Governors 13 

The  Slave  Trade 14 

The  Anti-Slavery  Movement , 20 

The  Extent  of  Slavery 30 

THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SLAVES. 

Regulations  Concerning  Truant  or  Fugitive  Slaves 32 

Other  Police  Regulations 35 

The  Criminal  Law  for  Slaves 37 

Negro  Plots 42 

THE  LEGAL  AND  SOCIAL  POSITION  OF  THE  NEGRO. 

Manumission 45 

Rights  and  Privileges  of  Slaves  and  Free  Negroes 50 

Social  Condition  of  Slaves 55 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  ...  59 


V  E 


INTRODUCTION. 


An  accurate  and  thorough  knowledge  of  slavery  as  it  developed 
in  the  United  States  can  best  be  gained  by  a  comparative  study  of 
the  institution  as  it  has  existed  in  the  various  States.  Preparatory 
to  such  a  study,  the  experience  of  each  of  these  commonwealths 
needs  to  be  investigated  separately.  This  has  been  done  in  several 
instances  very  satisfactorily.  The  writer  has  aimed  to  follow  lines 
of  investigation  already  opened,  and  has  pursued  the  history  of 
slavery  in  New  Jersey,  his  native  State. 

New  Jersey  history  is  conveniently  studied  in  three  periods :  the 
period  of  the  Proprietary  Colony,  1664-1702 ;  the  period  of  the 
Province  of  the  Crown,  1702-1776  ;  and  the  period  of  the  State. 
These  divisions  have  not  been  adopted  in  the  plan  of  this  mono 
graph,  an  arrangement  by  subject  appearing  more  desirable ;  but 
it  is  hoped  that  they  have  been  sufficiently  recognized  throughout 
the  paper.  In  general,  in  the  Proprietary  Colony  we  find  the  early 
beginnings  of  slavery ;  in  the  royal  Colony,  a  steady  increase  in  the 
number  of  slaves,  and  special  forms  of  trial  and  punishment  for 
slaves  prescribed  in  the  criminal  law.  This  was  also  the  period  of 
a  strong  abolition  movement  among  the  Friends,  ending  in  1776 
with  the  denial  by  Friends  of  the  right  of  membership  in  their 
Society  to  slaveholders.  In  the  State  the  anti-slavery  movement, 
largely  under  the  leadership  of  the  abolition  societies,  grew  to 
greater  and  greater  strength.  Its  influence  showed  itself  in  practi 
cal  ways  in  the  support  given  to  negroes  before  the  courts,  in  the 
extinction  of  the  slave  trade,  and  in  the  passage  of  the  gradual 
abolition  law  of  1804. 

The  writer  takes  this  opportunity  to  express  his  thanks  for  many 
courtesies  received  in  the  use  of  the  New  Jersey  State  Library  at 

7 


8  Introduction.  [41 8 

Trenton,  the  New  York  Historical  Society  Library  and  the  Lenox 
Library  at  New  York,  the  Bergen  County  Records  at  Hackensack, 
and  particularly  to  F.  W.  Ricord,  Esq.,  Librarian  of  the  New  Jersey 
Historical  Society,  for  full  and  free  access  to  its  collections.  The 
writer  wishes  also  to  recognize  most  gratefully  his  obligation,  to 
Dr.  Bernard  C.  Steiner  for  many  valuable  suggestions  as  to  the 
method  of  investigation,  and  to  Dr.  Jeffrey  R.  Brackett  for  very 
helpful  criticism  of  the  manuscript. 


£  u  xi  Ji  v  fa  *.  - 

<?*• 


A  STUDY  OF  SLAVERY  IN  NEW  JERSEY. 


CHAPTER  I. 
THE  INCREASE  AND  DECLINE  OF  SLAVERY. 

In  nearly  all  of  the  English  Colonies  in  America  the  insti 
tution  of  slavery  was  recognized  and  accepted  by  both  gov 
ernment  and  colonists  from  the  earliest  period  of  settlement. 
In  New  Jersey  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  had  legal 
recognition  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Colony's  political 
existence.  The  earliest  constitution,  the  "  Concessions  " l  from 
Lord  Berkeley  and  Sir  George  Carteret  in  1664,  specifies  slaves 
as  possible  members  of  the  settler's  family. 

By  the  "  Concessions "  the  Lords  Proprietors  granted  to 
every  colonist  that  should  go  out  with  the  first  governor 
seventy-five  acres  of  land  for  every  slave,  to  every  settler 
before  January  1,  1665,  sixty  acres  for  every  slave,  to  every 
settler  in  the  year  following  forty-five  acres  for  every  slave, 
and  to  every  settler  in  the  third  year  thirty  acres  for  every 
slave.  For  the  colonist's  own  person  and  for  every  able- 
bodied  servant  other  portions  of  land  were  given,  and  all, 
according  to  the  text  of  the  instrument,  "  that  the  planting  of 

luThe  concessions  and  agreement  of  the  Lords  Proprietors  of  the  pro 
vince  of  New-Caesarea  or  New  Jersey,  to  and  with  all  and  every  of  the 
adventurers,  and  all  such  as  shall  plant  there."  Learning  and  Spicer, 
Grants,  Concessions,  etc.,  pp.  20-23. 

9 


10  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [420 

the  said  province  may  be  more  speedily  promoted."  Some 
have  thought  to  see  in  these  grants  an  unworthy  readiness  to 
serve  the  interest  of  the  Duke  of  York,  President  of  the  Royal 
African  Company.1  That  the  desire  of  the  Lords  Proprietors 
was  anything  different  from  that  stated,  namely,  the  rapid 
development  of  the  Province,  I  have  found  no  evidence  to 
prove.  To  what  extent  slaves  were  actually  imported  even  is 
uncertain. 

The  earliest  legislation  in  New  Jersey  bearing  on  the 
subject  of  slavery  is  a  provision  in  1668  that,  if  "any  man 
shall  wilfully  or  forcibly  steal  away  any  mankind,  he  shall  be 
put  to  death." 2  This  provision  constituted  the  sixth  of  the 
"  Capital  Laws "  passed  by  the  General  Assembly  at  Eliza 
beth-Town.3  It,  therefore,  merely  formed  a  part  of  the  gen 
eral  criminal  code  and  was  intended  for  the  protection  of 
persons  of  white  race  only.  Another  reference  to  slavery  of 
a  similar  character  is  found  in  the  "Fundamental  Laws" 
agreed  upon  by  the  Proprietors  and  settlers  of  West  Jersey  in 
1676.  A  chapter  designed  to  secure  publicity  in  judicial  pro 
ceedings  concludes  with  the  declaration  "  that  all  and  every 
person  and  persons  inhabiting  the  said  Province,  shall,  as  far 
as  in  us  lies,  be  free  from  oppression  and  slavery."4 

Bancroft,  History  of  U.  S.t  9th  ed.,  Vol.  II,  p.  316,  refers  to  the  Pro 
prietors  as,  in  this  action  "more  true  to  the  prince  than  to  humanity." 
Whitehead,  East  Jersey  Under  the  Proprietary  Governments,  maintains 
strongly  that  Bancroft's  expression  is  not  warranted  by  the  evidence. 

*  Learning  and  Spicer,  p.   79. 

3  The  provision  when  reenacted  seven  years  later  has  the  same  position, 
L.  and  S.,  p.  105. 

*  Learning  and  Spicer,  p.  398. 

That  slavery  was  an  institution  which  the  dwellers  about  the  Hudson 
and  Delaware  recognized  and  had  some  acquaintance  with,  is  shown  by  the 
action  of  a  Council  at  New  York  in  1669.  A  certain  Coningsmarke,  a 
Swede,  popularly  known  as  "the  long  Finne,"  having  been  convicted  of 
stirring  up  an  insurrection  in  Delaware,  as  part  of  his  punishment  was 
sentenced  to  be  sent  to  "  Barbadoes  or  some  other  remote  plantation  to  be 
sold."  After  having  been  kept  prisoner  in  the  "  Stadt-house  at  York" 
for  a  year,  the  long  Finne  was  duly  transported  for  sale  to  Barbadoes. 
Smith,  S.,  History  of  New  Jersey,  pp.  53,  54. 


421]  The  Increase  and  Decline  of  Slavery.  11 

The  earliest  legislation  implying  the  actual  presence  of 
slaves  in  the  Province  is  an  enactment  in  1675  against  trans 
porting,  harboring,  or  entertaining  apprentices,  servants  or 
slaves.1  From  that  time  on  laws  having  reference  to  slavery 
become  more  and  more  frequent. 

In  general,  in  the  Proprietary  Colony  (1664-1702)  slaves 
were  regarded  by  the  law  very  much  as  were  apprentices  and 
servants.  In  the  "  Concessions  "  and  in  the  earlier  legisla 
tion  either  slaves  are  treated  in  the  same  way  as  "weaker 
servants," 2  or  slaves,  apprentices  and  servants  are  treated  as 
forming  one  class.3  Gradually  there  were  established  special 
regulations  for  the  government  of  slaves,  until  toward  the  end 
of  this  period  we  find  special  punishments  and  a  special  form 
of  trial. 

To  what  extent  slave  labor  was  employed  at  this  time  it  is 
difficult  to  estimate.  That  slaves  were  an  important  element 
in  the  economic  life  of  the  Colony  seems  probable  in  view  of 
the  amount  of  legislation  relating  to  slavery.  Mr.  Snell  says 
that  the  earliest  recorded  instance  of  the  holding  of  negro 
slaves  in  New  Jersey  is  that  of  "Col.  Richard  Morris  of 
Shrewsbury,  who  as  early  as  1680  had  sixty  or  more  slaves 
about  his  mill  and  plantation."  Mr.  Snell  thinks  that  by 
1690  nearly  all  the  inhabitants  of  northern  New  Jersey  had 
slaves.4 

Indian  Slavery. 

In  New  Jersey,  as  in  many  of  the  other  Colonies,  Indians 
were  held  as  slaves  from  a  very  early  period.  I  have  found 
no  evidence  from  which  to  determine  in  what  year  Indian 
slavery  first  existed,  or  what  proportions  it  ever  actually  at 
tained.  That  there  were  Indian  slaves  in  the  Province  as 


1  Learning  and  Spicer,  p.  109. 

2  L.  and  S.,  pp.  20-23,  Concessions  of  the  Lords  Proprietors. 

3  Laws  of  1675  and  1682.     L.  and  S.,  pp.  105  and  238. 

4  Snell,  J.  P.,  History  of  Sussex  and  Warren  Counties,  N.  J.,  p.  76. 


12  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [422 

early  as  1682  there  is  sufficient  proof.  The  preamble  to  an 
"Act  against  trading  with  negro  slaves  "  passed  at  Elizabeth- 
Town  in  that  year  reads :  "Whereas,  it  is  found  by  daily 
experience  that  negro  and  Indian  slaves,  or  servants  under 
pretence  of  trade,  or  liberty  to  traffic,  do  frequently  steal  from 
their  masters,"  etc.1  Throughout  the  Act  in  the  several  places 
where  slaves  are  spoken  of,  the  designation  is  "  negro  or  Indian 
slave"  or  a  similar  term.  In  many  of  the  Colonial  laws 
Indian  slavery  is  recognized  by  the  use  of  the  enumerating 
phrase  "  negro,  Indian  and  mulatto  slaves  "  where  slaves  are 
referred  to.2  The  advertisements  for  fugitives,  found  in  the 
newspapers  of  the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
show  pretty  clearly  the  actual  presence  of  Indian  slaves.3 
Slaves  of  mixed  race,  half  negro  and  half  Indian,  are  also 
mentioned.4 

That  Indians  might  be  slaves  under  the  laws  of  New  Jersey 
was  established  judicially  by  a  decision  of  the  State  Supreme 
Court  in  1797.5  The  case  was  one  of  habeas  corpus  to  bring 
up  the  body  of  Rose,  an  Indian  woman,  claimed  by  the  de 
fendant  as  a  slave.  It  was  proved  that  Rose's  mother,  an 
Indian  woman,  had  been  purchased  as  a  slave  and  had  always 
been  considered  as  such.  The  Chief  Justice,  delivering  the 


1 L.  and  S.,  p.  254. 

9  Allinson,  pp.  5,  31,  307,  315  ;  Nevill,  I,  pp.  18,  242 ;  N.  J.  Archives,  III, 
473  ;  XII,  516-520 ;  XV,  30,  351.  Also  in  the  State  Laws  of  1798  and  1820. 
Paterson,  p.  307,  and  JV.  J".  Statutes,  44  ses.,  Statutes,  74.  The  expressions 
"  negro  slaves  or  others,"  "  negroes  or  other  slaves  "  are  found  in  Acts  of 
1682,  1695  and  1710.  L.  and  S.,  pp.  237,  257  ;  JV.  J.  Archives,  XIII,  p.  439. 

3  Fugitive  Indian  men,  apparently  slaves,  are  advertised  1716  and  1720. 
Boston  News-Letter,  July  23,  1716;    American  Weekly  Mercury,  Sept.  28, 
1721 ;  in  JV.  J.  A.,  XI,  pp.  41  and  58. 

4  In   1734,  1741  and  1747.    Am.  Wk.  Mer.,  Oct.  31,  1734 ;   N.  Y.  Wk. 
Journal,  May  11,  1741;  Penn.  Oax.t  Oct.  1,  1747;  in  JV.  J.  A.,  XI,  393; 
XII,  91,  403.     One  of  these  half-breed  slaves  is  mentioned  as  the  child  of 
an  Indian  woman.     N.  J.  A.,  XII,  403. 

5JV.  .7.  Law  Reports,  VI,  455-459  (1st.  Halsted).  The  State  vs.  Van- 
Waggoner. 


423]  The  Increase  and  Decline  of  Slavery.  13 

opinion  of  the  court,  said:  "They  [the  Indians]  have  been  so 
long  recognized  as  slaves  in  our  law,  that  it  would  be  as  great 
a  violation  of  the  rights  of  property  to  establish  a  contrary 
doctrine  at  the  present  day,  as  it  would  be  in  the  case  of 
Africans;  and  as  useless  to  investigate  the  manner  in  which 
they  originally  lost  their  freedom."1 

The  Royal  Governors. 

The  plan  for  the  administration  of  New  Jersey  outlined  in 
the  instructions  from  Queen  Anne  to  the  first  royal  governor, 
Lord  Cornbury,  included  the  regulation  of  slavery  as  existing 
in  the  Province  and  the  development  of  an  import  trade  in 
slaves  from  Africa.  Lord  Cornbury  was  directed  to  encourage 
particularly  the  Royal  African  Company  of  England,  along 
with  other  enterprisers  that  might  bring  trade,  or  otherwise 
"contribute  to  the  advantage"  of  the  Colony.  The  Queen 
was  "  willing  to  recommend  "  to  the  Royal  African  Company 
that  the  Province  "  may  have  a  constant  and  sufficient  supply 
of  merchantable  negroes,  at  moderate  rates,"  and  the  Governor, 
on  his  part,  was  instructed  to  "  take  especial  care  "  to  secure 
prompt  payment  for  the  same.  He  was  to  guard  against  en 
croachments  on  the  trading  privileges  of  the  Royal  African 
Company  by  inhabitants  of  New  Jersey.  He  was  to  report 
annually  to  the  Commissioners  for  Trade  and  Plantations  the 
number  of  negroes  imported,  and  the  prices  that  they  brought. 
The  "conversion  of  negroes  and  Indians  to  the  Christian 
religion  "  was  even  treated  of.  The  consideration  of  the  best 
means  to  encourage  this  pious  movement  was  commended  to 
the  attention  of  the  Governor,  assisted  by  his  Council  and  the 
Assembly.2 


1  It  was  decided  that  the  slavery  of  this  Indian  woman  had  been  suffi 
ciently  proved,  and  she  was  remanded  to  the  custody  of  her  master. 

8  L.  and  S.,  pp.  640,  642.  Instructions  from  Queen  Anne  to  Lord  Corn- 
bury. 


14  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [424 


The  Slave  Trade. 

In  the  action  of  the  Colony  on  the  subject  of  the  expediency 
of  restricting  the  importation  of  slaves,  we  find  some  indica 
tion  of  the  position  which  slavery  attained  among  the  institu 
tions  of  the  Province,  and  of  the  popular  feeling  as  to  the 
desirability  of  the  use  of  slave  labor.  The  question  of  an 
import  duty  was  one  upon  which  at  times  the  views  of  Assem 
bly,  Council,  and  the  Lords  of  Trade  did  not  agree.  Queen 
Anne's  instructions  to  Lord  Cornbury  show  clearly  a  desire 
to  encourage  the  importation  of  slaves.  The  Governor  was 
specifically  directed  to  report  annually  to  the  home  government 
the  number  and  value  of  the  slaves  that  the  Province  "  was 
yearly  supplied  with."  The  earliest  statute  on  the  subject  was 
in  1714,  when  a  duty  of  ten  pounds  was  laid  on  every  slave 
imported  for  sale.1  The  legislation  was  called  forth  by  the 
desire  to  stimulate  the  introduction  of  white  servants  that  the 
Colony  might  become  better  populated.2 

To  what  extent  slaves  were  actually  imported  at  this  period 
is  largely  a  matter  of  conjecture.  A  report  from  the  custom 
house  at  Perth  Amboy  in  1726  gives  "an  account  of  what 
negroes  appears  by  the  custom  house  books  to  be  imported 
into  the  eastern  division  of  this  Province"  since  1698.3  The 
report  states  that,  from  1698  to  1717  none  were  imported,  and 
from  1718  to  1726  only  115.  It  is  hardly  probably  that  this 
testimony  gives  an  accurate  indication  of  the  real  amount  of 
slave  importation.  Many  negroes  must  have  been  brought 
into  the  Province  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  appear  on  the 
books  of  the  custom  house  at  Perth  Amboy.  It  certainly 
would  seem  strange  that  it  should  be  thought  desirable  in 

1  Allinson,  S.,  Ads  of  Gen.  Assembly  (1702-1776),  p.  31 ;  N.  J.  A,,  XIII, 
pp.  516-520 ;  Journal  of  Gov.  and  Council. 

This  law  remained  in  force  for  seven  years  from  June  1,  1714. 

2  A  similar  law  in  Pennsylvania  had  been  observed  to  have  the  desired 
effect. 

*N.  J.  A.,  V,  p.  152. 


425]  The  Increase  and  Decline  of  Slavery,  15 

1714  to  pass  an  act  laying  a  duty  upon  slaves  imported,  if 
actually,  there  had  been  little  or  no  importation  for  fifteen 
years  previously.1 

The  law  of  1714  was  permitted  to  expire  in  1721,  and  for 
nearly  fifty  years  there  was  no  duty  upon  the  importation  of 
negroes,  although  during  that  period  bills  to  establish  such  a 
duty  were  at  several  times  before  the  governing  houses.2  In 
1744,  a  bill  plainly  intending  an  entire  prohibition  of  the 
importation  of  slaves  from  abroad  was  rejected  by  the  Provin 
cial  Council.3  That  body  declared  that  even  the  mere  dis 
couragement  of  importation  was  undesirable.  The  Council 
maintained  that  the  Colony  at  that  time  had  great  need  of 
laborers.  An  expedition  to  the  West  Indies  had  drawn  off 
from  the  Province  many  inhabitants.  The  privateering  pro 
fession  had  attracted  many  others.  For  these  causes,  wages 
had  risen  so  high  that  "  farmers,  trading-men,  and  tradesmen  " 
only  with  great  difficulty  were  able  to  carry  on  their  business. 
The  Council  expected  little  relief  from  Ireland  ;  for,  since  the 
establishment  of  the  linen  manufacture  on  that  island,  there 
had  been  little  emigration.  The  Silesian  war  in  Europe  allowed 
slender  hope  of  help  from  Germany  or  England.  Under  the 
existing  conditions,  encouragement  of  slave  importation  rather 

1 A  similar  inference  may  be  drawn  from  information  afforded  by  an 
extract  from  the  minutes  of  the  Friends'  Yearly  Meeting  held  at  Burling 
ton  in  1716,  given  by  Mr.  J.  W.  Dally.  From  this  extract  we  learn  that 
certain  Friends  at  a  Quarterly  Meeting  at  Shrewsbury  had  shown  great 
solicitude  for  the  discouragement  of  the  importation  of  slaves,  although 
the  question  had  received  consideration  at  the  previous  Yearly  Meeting. 
Dally,  Woodbridge  and  Vicinity,  p.  73. 

*In  1739,  a  bill  was  passed  by  the  Assembly,  but  rejected  by  the  Coun 
cil.  The  Assembly  and  Council  were  just  then  at  odds  on  the  subject  of 
governmental  appropriations.  Possibly  the  strained  relations  may  have 
influenced  the  action  on  this  bill.  See  Assem.  Jour.,  Dec.  5,  1738,  Feb.  16, 
1739,  and  N.  J.  A.,  XV,  30,  31,  45,  50  (Jour,  of  Gov.  and  Council). 

3  The  bill  imposed  a  duty  of  ten  pounds  upon  all  slaves  imported  from 
the  West  Indies,  and  five  pounds  upon  all  from  Africa.  N.  J.  A.,  VI,  219, 
232,  and  XV,  351,  384,  385  ( Jour,  of  Provin.  Council)  ;  Assem.  Jour.,  Oct.  9  to 
Nov.  7,  1744. 


16  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [426 

than  prohibition  of  it,  was  needed,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Council.  Again,  in  1761,  the  question  of  a  duty  was  under 
discussion.  The  free  importation  of  negroes  had  then  become 
a  source  of  inconvenience.  A  large  number  of  slaves  were 
"  landed  in  this  Province  every  year  in  order  to  be  run  into 
New  York  and  Pennsylvania"  where  duties  had  been  estab 
lished.  Furthermore,  New  Jersey  had  become  overstocked 
with  negroes.  In  response  to  two  petitions  from  a  large  num 
ber  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Colony,  praying  for  a  duty  on 
all  negro  slaves  imported,  a  bill  for  that  purpose  was  introduced 
into  the  Assembly.1  Governor  Hardy,  however,  informed  the 
House  that  his  instructions  would  not  permit  him  to  assent  to 
the  bill,2  and  it  was  abandoned.  At  the  request  of  the  Assem 
bly,  the  Governor  laid  the  matter  before  the  Lords  of  Trade, 
and  besought  them  for  some  relief.3  Less  than  a  year  later 
Governor  Hardy  assented  to  a  bill 4  imposing  import  duties ; 
but  insisted  upon  a  suspending  clause  that  the  act  should  not 
not  take  effect  until  approved  by  the  King.  The  Lords  of 
Trade,  because  of  technical  faults  in  the  bill,  did  not  lay  it 
before  the  King ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  they  disclaimed  any 
opposition  to  the  policy  of  an  import  duty.5 


Assembly  voted  that  the  duties  to  be  provided  for  in  this  bill 
should  not  be  so  high  as  to  amount  to  a  prohibition  (Assent.  Jour.,  Dec.  3, 
1761). 

8 He  was  forbidden  to  give  his  "assent  to  any  act  imposing  duties  upon 
negroes  imported  into  this  Province,  payable  by  the  importer ;  or  upon  any 
slaves  exported,  that  have  not  been  sold  in  the  Province,  and  continued 
there  for  the  space  of  twelve  months"  (Assem.  Jour.,  Dec.  4,  1761). 

3  N.  J.  A.,  IX,  345.     Letter  from  Gov.  Hardy  to  the  Lords  of  Trade. 
Assem.  Jour.,  Nov.  30  to  Dec.  8,  1761. 

4  Sept.  25,  1762.    The  act  laid  a  duty  of  forty  shillings  in  the  Eastern 
and  six  pounds  in  the  Western  division  of  the  Province.     The  reason  for 
the  discrimination  was  that  Pennsylvania  had  a  duty  of  ten  pounds,  while 
New  York  charged  only  two  pounds.     Allinson,  p.  253 ;  N.  J.  A.,  IX,  383 
(Letter  from  Gov.  Hardy  to  the  Lords  of  Trade).     XVII,  333,  338-385, 
(Jour,  of  Council)  ;  Assem.  Jour.,  Sept.  23-25,  1762. 

5JV.  J.  A.,  IX,  447  (Letter  from  Lords  of  Trade  to  Gov.  Franklin). 
XVII,  385;  see  also  IX,  444. 


427  J  The  Increase  and  Decline  of  Slavery.  17 

Finally,  in  1767,  an  act  limited  to  two  years  was  passed;1 
and  at  its  expiration  a  more  comprehensive  law  followed  which 
was  in  force  during  the  remainder  of  the  Colonial  period.2 
The  preamble  to  the  law  of  1769  states  that  the  act  was 
passed  because  several  of  the  neighboring  Colonies  had  found 
duties  upon  the  importation  of  negroes  to  be  beneficial  in  the 
introduction  of  sober,  industrious  foreigners  as  settlers  and 
in  promoting  a  spirit  of  industry  among  the  inhabitants  in 
general,  and  in  order  that  those  persons  who  chose  to  purchase 
slaves  might  "contribute  some  equitable  proportion  of  the 
public  burdens."  It  was  enacted  that  the  purchaser  of  a  slave 
which  had  not  been  in  the  Colony  a  year,  or  for  which  the 
duty  had  not  yet  been  paid,  should  pay  to  the  county  collector 
the  sum  of  fifteen  pounds.3 

In  1773,  several  petitions  were  presented  to  the  Assembly 
praying  that  the  further  importation  of  slaves  might  be  pro 
hibited  and  that  manumission  might  be  made  more  easy.  In 
response,  two  bills  were  introduced  for  the  above  purposes, 
respectively.  The  bill  regarding  manumission,  however,  seems 
to  have  aroused  such  interest  as  to  have  overshadowed  entirely 
the  bill  for  laying  a  further  duty  on  the  purchasers  of  slaves ; 
for  nothing  is  heard  of  the  latter  beyond  its  second  reading 
and  recommitment.4 

In  the  early  years  of  the  royal  Colony,  the  home  govern 
ment  is  inclined  to  encourage  the  importation  of  slaves.  The 
Assembly  favors  restriction  of  importation,  apparently  on 
purely  economic  grounds,  and  succeeds  in  passing  a  law  to 
that  end.  For  nearly  fifty  years  the  attempts  of  the  Assembly 
to  carry  out  its  policy  are  defeated,  at  first  by  the  Council, 


1(This  law  abandoned  the  awkward  discrimination  between  East  and 
West  Jersey  of  the  bill  of  1762,  and  imposed  a  uniform  duty  for  the  whole 
Colony.  Allinson,  pp.  300  and  353.  Whitehead,  Perth  Amboy,  p.  320. 

2  This  act  was  to  be  in  force  for  ten  years. 

3  Any  purchase  made  upon  the  waters  surrounding  the  Province  was  con 
sidered  a  purchase  within  the  Province  (Allinson,  p.  315). 

'Assam.  Jour.,  Nov.  30  to  Dec.  13,  1773. 

2 


18  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [428 

then  by  the  opposition  of  the  Governor  in  accordance  with  his 
official  instructions,  then  by  legal  technicality.  Finally,  the 
resistance  is  overcome,  and  a  law  laying  a  duty  is  passed. 
Economic  motives  are  again  given  as  the  cause  of  the  legisla 
tion  ;  but  it  is  probable  that  the  persistence  of  the  Assembly 
was  due  to  the  influence  of  the  Friends,1  among  whom  a  strong 
abolition  movement  had  been  going  on. 

Late  in  the  year  1785,  a  petition  from  a  great  number  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  State  was  presented  to  the  Assembly, 
praying  for  legislation  to  secure  the  gradual  abolition  of 
slavery  and  to  prevent  the  importation  of  slaves.  In  response 
to  this  petition,  an  act  was  passed  early  in  1786 2  inflicting  a 
penalty  of  fifty  pounds  for  bringing  slaves  into  New  Jersey 
that  had  been  imported  from  Africa  since  1776,  and  a  penalty 
of  twenty  pounds  for  all  others  imported.3  Foreigners,  and 
others  having  only  a  temporary  residence,  might  bring  in  their 
slaves  without  duty ;  but  might  not  dispose  of  them  in  the 
State.  The  legislation  against  the  slave  trade  met  with  in 
the  Colonial  period  was  entered  upon  from  considerations  of 
economic  expediency,  if  we  are  to  judge  from  the  explana 
tions  of  the  legislators.  In  the  act  of  1786  we  find  legal 
recognition  of  the  ethical  side  of  the  question.  The  pream 
ble  declares  that  the  "  principles  of  justice  and  humanity  re 
quire  that  the  barbarous  custom  of  bringing  the  unoffending 
Africans  from  their  native  country  and  connections  into  a 
state  of  slavery"  be  discountenanced.4  Further  petitions5  for 
the  suppression  of  the  negro  trade  and  the  gradual  abolition  of 

1  See  N.  J.  A.,  IX,  346.    Note  by  W.  Nelson  (editor). 
Mr.  Nelson  thinks  that  the  law  of  1769  was  caused  by  the  anti-slavery 
movement  among  the  Friends. 

2Assem.  Jour.,  Nov.  1,  1785,  to  March  2,  1786.    Acts  of  Assem. 

3  Persons  coming  to  settle  in  New  Jersey  must  pay  duty  on  such  of  their 
slaves  as  had  been  imported  from  Africa  since  1776 ;  but  were  not  charged 
for  the  others. 

4  Even  this  act  continues,  "  and  sound  policy  also  requires,"  that  importa 
tion  be  prohibited,  in  order  that  white  labor  may  be  protected. 

5  Assem.  Jour.,  Nov.  6-10,  1788. 


429]  The  Increase  and  Decline  of  Slavery.  19 

slavery,  one  from  the  Society  of  Friends  and  another  from 
certain  inhabitants  of  the  town  of  Princeton,  led  the  legisla 
ture  in  1788  to  pass  a  supplement  to  the  law  of  1786.  This 
supplement1  carried  the  non-importation  principle  still  farther 
and  inflicted  a  forfeiture  of  vessels,  appurtenances  and  cargo 
upon  those  who  fitted  out  ships  for  the  slave  trade.  Masters 
of  vessels  who  resisted  the  persons  attempting  to  seize  were 
fined  fifty  pounds.  Not  only  was  the  import  trade  in  slaves 
forbidden,  but  the  export  trade  also.  No  slave  that  had 
resided  within  the  State  for  the  year  past  could  be  removed 
out  of  the  State  with  the  intention  of  changing  his  legal  resi 
dence,  without  his  consent,  or  that  of  his  parents.  The  pro 
hibition  did  not  apply  to  persons  emigrating  to  settle  in  a 
neighboring  State  and  taking  their  slaves  with  them.2 

The  abolition  law  of  1804  and  the  increasing  strength  of 
the  public  sentiment  against  slavery  inclined  masters  to  send 
their  negroes  out  of  the  State,  and  a  further  law  forbidding 
exportation  was  passed  in  18 12.3  Again,  in  1818,4  in  answer 
to  a  memorial  from  a  number  of  the  inhabitants  of  Middlesex 
County,  praying  for  a  more  efficient  law  to  prevent  the  kid 
napping  of  blacks  and  carrying  them  out  of  the  State,  an  act 
was  passed  inflicting  heavy  penalties,  both  of  fine  and  imprison 
ment  for  exporting,  contrary  to  law,  slaves  or  servants  of 


'Acts  of  13th  Gen.  Assem.,  Assem.  Jour.,  Nov.  6-25,  1788. 

2  These  several  provisions  were  virtually  re-enacted  ten  years  later  in  the 
comprehensive  slave  law  of  1798,  excepting  that  the  money  penalties  in 
flicted  were,  on  the  whole,  made  lighter.     Paterson,  W.,  Laws  of  N.  J., 
revised  1800,  p.  307. 

The  law  was  not  so  construed  by  the  courts  as  to  prevent  an  immigrant, 
bringing  in  slaves  among  his  dependents,  from  ever  and  under  all  circum 
stances  disposing  of  such  slaves.  An  instance  in  1807  is  recorded,  when  a 
slave  imported  conformably  to  law  was  sold  from  prison  after  two  years 
residence  within  the  State.  The  State  vs.  Quick,  1st  Pennington,  p.  393. 

3  36  Ses.,  2  sit,  Statutes,  15.     Assem.  Jour.,  Jan.  10-29,  1812 ;  also  Nov.  8, 
1809. 

4 Assem.  Jour.,  Oct.  28  to  Nov.  4,  1818.  43  Ses.,  Statutes,  3;  also  Assem. 
Jour.,  Jan.  19-30,  1818. 


20  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [430 

color  for  life  or  years.1  Any  person  who  had  resided  within 
the  State  for  five  years,  desiring  to  remove  from  it  perma 
nently  might  take  with  him  any  slave  that  had  been  his  prop 
erty  for  the  five  years  preceding  the  time  of  removal,  pro 
viding  that  the  slave  was  of  full  age  and  had  consented  to  the 
removal.  These  facts  must  be  proven  before  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas,  and  a  license  to  carry  the  slave  out  of  the 
State  be  given  by  the  court.  Any  master  of  a  vessel  receiving 
and  carrying  out  of  the  State  any  slave  for  whose  exportation 
a  license  had  not  been  obtained  was  liable  to  a  heavy  fine 
and  imprisonment.  An  inhabitant  of  New  Jersey  going  on 
a  journey  to  any  part  of  the  United  States  might  take  his 
slave  with  him ;  but  if  the  slave  was  not  brought  back  the 
master  became  liable  to  a  heavy  penalty  unless  he  could  prove 
that  it  had  been  impossible  for  the  slave  to  return.  These 
provisions  mark  the  final  suppression  of  the  slave  trade  in 
New  Jersey. 

The  Anti-Slavery  Movement. 

We  find  during  the  latter  part  of  the  Colonial  period  grow 
ing  recognition  of  the  iniquity  of  human  slavery.  It  is  among 
the  Quaker  inhabitants  that  this  moral  development  is  observed. 
As  early  as  1696,2  the  Quakers  of  New  Jersey  and  Pennsyl 
vania  voted  in  their  Yearly  Meeting  to  recommend  to  Friends 
to  cease  from  further  importation  of  slaves.  A  cautious  dis 
approval  of  slavery  is  again  seen  in  the  action  of  the  Yearly 
Meeting  in  1716.  Out  of  consideration  for  those  Friends 
whose  consciences  made  them  opposed  to  slavery,  "it  is  de 
sired,"  the  minutes  read,  "  that  Friends  generally  do  as  much 
as  may  be  to  avoid  buying  such  negroes  as  shall  be  hereafter 
brought  in,  rather  than  offend  any  Friends  who  are  against 


1  All  the  legislation  on  this  subject  reached  its  final  and  permanent  form 
in'the  compiled  Statute  of  1820  (44  Ses.,  Statutes,  74). 

2  Gordon,  History  of  N.  J.,  p.  57. 


431]  The  Increase  and  Decline  of  Slavery.  21 

it,"  ..."  yet,  this  is  only  caution,  not  censure." l  These  sug 
gestions  seem  to  have  been  received  favorably  and  to  have 
been  put  into  practice.  At  a  monthly  meeting  held  at  Wood- 
bridge  in  1738,  it  was  stated  that,  not  for  several  years  had 
any  slaves  been  imported  by  a  Friend,  or  had  any  Friend 
bought  negroes  that  had  been  imported.2 

This  is  the  period  of  the  life  and  work  of  John  Woolman 
(1720-1772),  one  of  the  earliest  and  noblest  of  those  who 
in  this  country  labored  for  the  abolition  of  human  slavery. 
But  a  poor,  unlearned  tailor  of  West-Jersey,  his  simplicity 
and  pure,  universal  charity  gave  him  far-reaching  influence 
among  the  Friends.  These  qualities,  as  shown  in  his  "  Jour 
nal/'  together  with  the  exquisite  style  of  his  writing,  have 
called  forth  the  admiration  of  literary  circles.  He  travelled 
about  as  a  minister  among  the  Friends  North  and  South, 
preaching  and  urging  his  associates  to  do  away  with  slavery. 
In  1754,  he  published  "Some  Considerations  on  the  Keep 
ing  of  Negroes,"  in  which  he  contends  that  slaveholding  is 
contrary  to  Scripture.3 

In  1758,  the  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting,  largely  as  the 
result  of  a  moving  appeal  by  Woolman,  voted  that  the  Chris 
tian  injunction  to  do  to  others  as  we  would  that  others  should 
do  to  us,  "  should  induce  Friends  who  held  slaves  '  to  set 
them  at  liberty,  making  a  Christian  provision  for  them.7 " 4  In 
succeeding  years  this  Meeting  expressed  itself  more  and  more 
resolutely  as  opposed  to  slavery.  At  one  stage  in  the  move 
ment,  New  Jersey  Friends  who  inclined  to  free  their  slaves, 
were  deterred  from  so  doing  because  of  the  law  requiring 
masters  manumitting  slaves  to  enter  into  security  to  maintain 
the  negroes  in  case  they  have  need  of  relief.  These  masters 
compromised  the  matter  by  retaining  in  their  possession  young 

1  Extract  given  by  Mr.  J.  W.  Dally  in  his  Woodbridge  and  Vicinity,  p.  73. 
•JfWA 

3  Whittier,  J.  G.,  John  Woolman's  Journal,  Introduction;  also  N.  J.  Ar., 
IX,  346.     Note  by  W.  Nelson  (ed.). 

4  Whittier's  Introduction  to  Woolman's  Journal,  p.  19. 


22  ,  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [432 

negroes  and  forcing  them  to  work  without  wages  until  they 
reached  the  age  of  thirty,  while  at  the  same  time  declining  to 
hold  any  slaves  for  life.1  The  movement  proceeded  by  moder 
ate  advances.  Mr.  Dally  states  that  a  report  was  made  to 
the  Monthly  Meeting  at  Plainfield  in  August,  1774,  showing 
"  that  at  this  time  only  one  negro,  '  fit  for  freedom '  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Society,  remained  a  slave."2  Finally,  in 
1776,  the  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting  directed  the  subordi 
nate  meetings  to  "  deny  the  right  of  membership  to  such  as 
persisted  in  holding  their  fellowrnen  as  property." 3 

The  persistent  effort  for  the  restriction  of  slave  importation 
culminating  in  the  law  of  1769  was,  no  doubt,  largely  due 
to  the  growing  anti-slavery  sentiment  among  the  Friends.4 
Again,  in  the  fall  of  1773,  no  less  than  eight  petitions  were 
presented  to  the  Assembly  from  inhabitants  of  six  different 
counties,5  all  setting  forth  the  evils  arising  from  human  slavery, 
and  praying  for  an  alteration  of  the  laws  on  the  subject.  The 
reforms  desired  were  chiefly  the  prohibition  of  importation 
and  increased  freedom  of  manumission.  Of  the  two  bills 
introduced  for  these  purposes,  the  one  regulating  manumission 
alone  excited  much  interest ;  the  other  was  soon  dropped.  A 
counter-petition  against  the  manumission  bill  was  presented, 
and,  in  view  of  the  attention  called  forth,  it  was  decided  to 
have  the  bill  printed  for  the  information  of  the  public  and 
defer  action  until  the  next  session ;  after  which  nothing  fur 
ther  was  done.6 

A  petition  of  strong  anti-slavery  character,  praying  the 
Legislature  to  "  pass  an  act  to  set  free  all  the  slaves  now  in 
the  Colony,"  was  presented  to  the  House  in  1775  by  fifty-two 


1  Woolman's  Journal,  p.  224.  2  Dally,  Woodbridge,  p.  218. 

3  Whittier's  Introduction,  p.  23.  4  Supra,  p.  20. 

5  The  counties  were  Burlington,  Monmouth,  Cumberland,  Essex,  Mid 
dlesex  and  Hunterdon. 

Mssero.  Jour.,  Nov.  19,  1773,  to  Feb.  16,  1774;  also  Jan.  28  to  Feb.  7, 
1775. 


433]  The  Increase  and  Decline  of  Slavery.  23 

inhabitants  of  Chesterfield  in  Burlington  County.1  In  1778, 
Governor  Livingston  asked  the  Assembly  to  make  provision 
for  the  manumision  of  the  slaves.  The  House  thought  that 
the  times  were  too  critical  for  the  discussion  of  such  a  measure, 
and  requested  that  the  message  be  withdrawn.  The  Governor 
reluctantly  consented,  yet  at  the  same  time  stating  that  he  was 
determined,  as  far  as  his  influence  extended,  "to  push  the 
matter  till  it  is  effected,  being  convinced  that  the  practice  is 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  Christianity  and 
humanity ;  and  in  Americans  who  have  almost  idolized  liberty, 
peculiarly  odious  and  disgraceful." ' 

The  New  Jersey  State  Constitution,  adopted  in  1776,3  con 
tained  no  Bill  of  Rights.  There  was  no  provision  ascribing 
natural  rights  to  all  persons.  Although  there  is  little  doubt 
that  the  New  Jersey  courts  would  have  been  wholly  opposed 
to  construing  such  a  provision  as  abolishing  slavery  ;  yet  even 
if  the  courts  had  been  so  inclined,  as  happened  in  Massachu 
setts,4  there  was  no  opportunity  for  such  a  decision.  The 
common  law  of  England  and  the  former  statute  law  of  the 
Colony  were  declared  in  force. 

A  society  for  promoting  the  abolition  of  slavery  was  formed 
in  New  Jersey  as  early  as  1786.5  A  constitution  adopted  at 
Burlington  in  1793 6  provides  for  an  annual  meeting  of  mem 
bers  from  the  whole  State  and  for  county  meetings  half-yearly. 
The  preamble,  after  mentioning  "  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness"  as  "universal  rights  of  men,"  concludes  with 
the  statement,  "  we  abhor  that  inconsiderate,  illiberal,  and 


1  Assem.  Jour.,  Nov.  20,  1775. 

2  Bancroft,  Hist,  of  U.  &,  Vol.  V.,  p.  411. 

s  Wilson,  Acts  of  Slate  of  N.  J.  (1776-1783) ;  also  Poore's  Collection. 

4  Winchendon  vs.  Hatfield,  4th  Mass.  Eep.,  123. 

"  Williams,  Hist,  of  Negro  Mace  in  America,  p.  20. 

6  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Pamphlets,  Vol.  VI. 

The  constitution  adopted  at  Trenton  in  1786  was  frequently  amended  in 
succeeding  years.  The  one  agreed  upon  at  Burlington  in  1793  must  have 
had  some  permanence,  as  it  was  printed  and  is  now  accessible. 


24  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [434 

interested  policy  which  withholds  those  rights  from  an  unfor 
tunate  and  degraded  class  of  our  fellow  creatures."  The 
society  was  active  and  contained  many  able  men.  It  was 
influential  in  obtaining  the  passage  of  laws  for  the  gradual 
abolition  of  slavery,1  and  in  securing  before  the  courts  the 
protection  to  slaves  provided  for  in  the  statutes.2  Its  mem 
bership,  however,  in  the  early  part  of  the  present  century,  was 
not  large.  The  president  stated  in  1804  that  probably  not 
more  than  150  persons  throughout  the  State  were  in  active 
association  with  the  society.  The  aims  of  the  society  at  this 
period  were  moderate.  The  president,  in  an  address  in  1804, 
declared  that  it  was  not  "  to  be  wished,  much  less  expected, 
that  sudden  and  general  emancipation  should  take  place."  He 
thought  that  the  true  policy  was  to  "  steadily  pursue  the  best 
means  of  lessening,  and  by  temperate  steps,  of  finally  extin 
guishing  the  evil." 3 


lAssem.  Jour.,  Jan.  28,  1794,  records  a  "Petition  from  Joseph  Bloornfield, 
styling  himself  President  of  a  Society  for  promoting  the  Abolition  of 
Slavery,"  praying  that  some  measures  may  be  established  by  law  to  pro 
mote  the  abolition  of  slavery."  See  also  Nov.  22,  1802. 

2  The  supreme  court  would  not  require  persons  acting  with  this  end,  to 
pay  costs.  In  The  State  vs.  Frees,  the  court  refused  to  compel  the  Salem 
Abolition  Society,  the  prosecutor  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  for  the  negroes 
in  the  case,  to  pay  costs.  The  Chief  Justice  said  that  in  no  case  would 
such  prosecutors  be  compelled  to  pay  costs ;  that  "  it  was  a  laudable  and 
humane  thing  in  any  man  or  set  of  men  to  bring  up  the  claims  of  those 
unfortunate  people  before  the  court  for  consideration."  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  I, 
299  (Coxe). 

3 There  were  local  societies  also.  In  1802  the  "Trenton  Association  for 
promoting  the  Abolition  of  Slavery  "  published  its  constitution,  in  order  to 
evince  to  the  public  "that  no  improper  or  impertinent  motives  produced 
our  association;  and  that  no  illegal,  unjust  or  dishonorable  means  will  be 
employed  to  accomplish  our  objects." 

The  members,  convinced  of  the  iniquity  of  personal  slavery,  had  asso 
ciated  themselves  together  to  endeavor  by  all  constitutional  and  lawful 
means  to  ameliorate,  as  far  as  lay  within  their  power,  the  situation  of  slaves, 
"  to  encourage  and  promote  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery,"  "  and  to  im 
prove  the  condition  of  and  afford  all  reasonable  protection  and  assistance 
to  the  blacks,  and  other  people  of  color,  who  may  be  among  us." 


435]  The  Increase  and  Decline  of  Slavery.  25 

A  petition  in  1785,  praying  for  the  gradual  abolition  of 
slavery  and  the  suppression  of  further  importation  of  slaves, 
from  a  great  number  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  State,  resulted 
in  the  law  of  1786  against  importation  and  providing  for  manu 
mission  without  security.  This  law  is  the  first  that  recog 
nizes  that  any  question  of  ethics  is  involved  in  the  holding  of 
slaves.1  Similar  petitions  to  the  above,  from  the  Society  of 
Friends  and  from  citizens  of  Princeton,  led  two  years  later  to 
the  supplementary  law  of  1788  enacting  very  stringent  meas 
ures  for  the  overthrow  of  the  slave  trade.2  A  petition  praying 
for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  from  certain  inhabitants  of  Essex 
and  Morris  counties,  was  received  in  the  Assembly  in  1790, 
and  referred  to  a  committee.  The  committee  reported  to  the 
effect  that  the  position  of  the  slaves  under  the  existing  laws 
was  very  satisfactory ;  that,  although  it  might  be  thought  de 
sirable  to  pass  a  law  making  slaves  born  in  the  future  free  at 
a  certain  age,  for  example,  twenty-eight  years,  yet  that,  "  from 
the  state  of  society  among  us,  the  prevalence  and  progress  of 
the  principles  of  universal  liberty,  there  is  little  reason  to 
think  there  will  be  any  slaves  at  all  among  us  twenty-eight 
years  hence,  and  that  experience  seems  to  show  that  precipita 
tion  in  the  matter  may  do  more  hurt  than  good,  not  only  to 
the  citizens  of  the  State  in  general,  but  the  slaves  themselves."3 

It  was  the  "  duty  of  the  Acting  Committee  to  carry  into  effect  the  resolves 
of  the  Association,"  "  to  give  attention  to  all  objects  entitled  to  relief  by  the 
laws  of  the  land,"  "  to  state  their  cases,  by  themselves  or  counsel,  before  the 
proper  judicatures,"  etc. 

Further,  a  Standing  Committee  of  the  Association  had  the  following  duties: 

1.  To  superintend  the  morals  and  general  conduct  of  the  free  blacks,  and 
to  give  advice,  instruction,  protection  and  other  friendly  offices. 

2.  To  superintend  the  instruction  of  children,  and  encourage  them  to 
good  morals  and  habits  of  temperance  and  industry. 

3.  To  place  out  children  as  apprentices. 

4.  To  procure  employment  for  men  and  women  who  are  able  to  work, 
and  to  encourage  them  to  bind  themselves  out  to  a  trade.    ("True  American," 
March  2,  1802.) 

1  Supra,  p.  18.  *  Supra,  pp.  18  and  19. 

3Assem.  Jour.,  May  24  and  26,  1790. 


26  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [436 

Notwithstanding  the  alluring  optimism  of  the  Assembly's 
committee  anti-slavery  petitions *  continued  to  be  presented  to 
the  House,  and  provisions  to  establish  a  system  of  gradual 
abolition  were  frequently  before  that  body  in  the  following 
years.2  In  the  passage  of  the  general  slave  law  of  1798,  a 
provision  ordaining  that  all  children  born  to  slaves  in  the 
future  should  be  free  on  attaining  the  age  of  twenty-eight 
years  failed  only  by  a  very  narrow  majority. 

In  the  year  1804,  an  act  for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery 
within  the  State  was  passed  after  the  bill  had  run  through  two 
sessions  of  the  legislature.3  Every  child  born  of  a  slave  after 
the  fourth  of  July  of  that  year  was  to  be  free,  but  should 
remain  the  servant  of  the  owner  of  the  mother,  as  if  bound 
out  by  the  overseers  of  the  poor,  until  the  age  of  twenty-five 
years,  if  a  male,  and  twenty-one  years,  if  a  female.  The  right 
to  the  services  of  such  negro  child  was  perfectly  clear  and  free. 
It  was  assignable  or  transferable.4  One  person  might  be  the 
owner  of  the  mother  and  another  have  gained  the  right  to  the 
services  of  the  child.  Masters  were  compelled  to  file  with  the 
county  clerk  a  certificate  of  the  birth  of  every  child  of  a  slave.5 
This  certificate  was  kept  for  future  evidence  of  the  age  of  the 
child.  The  owner  of  the  mother  must  maintain  the  child  for 
one  year;  after  that  period  he  might,  by  giving  due  notice, 

lAssem.  Jour.,  Oct.  24,  Nov.  21,  1792;  Jan.  28,  Nov.  10,  1794. 
*Assem.  Jour.,  Oct.  25, 1792 ;  May  21,  1793;  Feb.  4,  1794;  Feb.  14, 1797  ; 
Jan.  19,  March  8,  1798. 

3  28  Ses.,  2  sit.,  Statutes  251.    Here,  again,  the  bill  was  introduced  in  an 
swer  to  a  memorial  from  the  New  Jersey  Abolition  Society.    The  bill  was 
published  for  the  general  information  of  the  people  before  it  was  finally 
acted  upon.    Assem.  Jour.,  Nov.  22,  1802  to  Feb.  15,  1804. 

4  This  point  was  established  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  1827.    The  Chief 
Justice  declared  that  services  of  this  character  were  a  "  species  of  property," 
and  were  "transferred  from  one  citizen  to  another  like  other  personal 
property."    Ogden  vs.  Price,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  IX,  211-217  (4th  Halsted). 

6  The  book  Black  Births  of  Bergen  County,  contains  the  certificates  for 
that  county.  The  descriptions  are  generally  very  brief,  frequently  giving 
nothing  more  than  the  name  of  the  child.  It  seems  remarkable  that  such 
records  should  have  been  sufficient  to  prove  a  man's  freedom. 


437]  The  Increase  and  Decline  of  Slavery.  27 

abandon  it.  Every  negro  child  thus  abandoned,  like  other 
poor  children,  was  to  be  regarded  as  a  pauper  of  the  township 
or  county,  and  be  bound  out  to  service  by  the  overseers  of  the 
poor.  This  provision,  allowing  masters  to  refuse  to  maintain 
children  born  to  their  slaves,  was  the  source  of  considerable 
fraud  upon  the  treasury,  and  was  the  cause  of  many  supple 
ments  and  amendments  l  to  the  law  of  1804  in  succeeding 
years.  Finally,  seven  years  later  the  provision  was  repealed,2 
the  reason  given  being  "  it  appears  that  large  sums  of  money 
have  been  drawn  from  the  treasury  by  citizens  of  the  State  for 
maintaining  abandoned  black  children,  and  that  in  some  in 
stances  the  money  drawn  for  their  maintenance  amounts  to 
more  than  they  would  have  brought  if  sold  for  life."3 

In  1844,  a  new  constitution  was  adopted  in  New  Jersey.4 
The  first  article  was  in  the  nature  of  a  Bill  of  Rights,  and  the 
first  section  read  as  follows  :  "  All  men  are  by  nature  free  and 
independent,  and  have  certain  natural  and  inalienable  rights, 
among  which  are  those  of  enjoying  and  defending  life  and 
liberty,  acquiring,  possessing,  and  protecting  property,  and  of 
pursuing  and  obtaining  safety  and  happiness."  Some  believed 
that  this  section  abolished  both  slavery  and  that  form  of  invol 
untary  servitude  in  which  children  of  slaves  were  held  by  the 


G,  1808,  1809.  30  Ses.,  2  sit.,  Statutes,  668;  33  Ses.,  1  sit,  Statutes, 
112  ;  34  Ses.,  1  sit.,  Statutes,  200. 

'  1811.  35  Ses.,  2  sit.,  Statutes,  313.  This  legislation  also  reaches  its  final 
form  in  the  compiled  law  of  1820.  44  Ses.,  Statutes,  74. 

3  In  1806,  the  State  Treasurer  requested  the  "orders  of  the  legislature 
with  respect  to  payments  demanded  of  him  for  supporting  black  children." 
His  report  the  next  year  shows  disbursements  "for  abandoned  blacks" 
amounting  to  half  as  much  as  all  other  disbursements  whatever.  In  1809, 
the  expenditure  for  abandoned  blacks  amounted  to  two-thirds  of  all  other 
expenditure  ;  the  drafts  upon  the  treasury  for  the  support  of  blacks  from 
the  County  of  Bergeu  alone  amounting  to  $7,033,  out  of  a  total  State  ex 
penditure  for  blacks  of  $12,570.  The  Treasurer  called  the  attention  of  the 
Assembly  to  these  latter  facts,  and  the  House  directed  him  "  to  suspend  all 
further  payments  in  all  doubtful  cases  for  the  support  of  abandoned  blacks." 
Asaem.  Jour.,  Nov.  5,  1806  ;  Nov.  2-21,  1809  ;  also  Treas.  Rep.,  Assem.  Jour., 
Nov.  13,  1807  ;  Nov.  14,  1808  ;  Nov.  8,  1809. 

"Poore's  Collection,  p.  1314. 


28  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [438 

law  of  1820.  The  ground  for  this  belief  was,  doubtless,  that 
remarkably  liberal  interpretation  of  a  similar  provision  in  the 
Massachusetts  constitution  of  1780,  by  which  the  Massachu 
setts  courts  decided  slavery  to  have  been  abolished  by  that 
constitution.1  The  matter  came  up  for  adjudication  before  the 
New  Jersey  supreme  court  in  1845;2  but  that  court  did  not 
follow  the  Massachusetts  precedent.  The  court  declared  the 
section  in  question  was  a  "  general  proposition,  that  men  in 
their  social  state  are  free  to  adopt  their  own  form  of  govern 
ment  and  enact  their  own  laws,"  "  that  in  framing  their  laws, 
they  have  a  right  to  consult  their  safety  and  happiness,  whether 
in  the  protection  of  life  and  liberty,  or  the  acquisition  of 
property.''  The  provision  was  not  designed,  the  Justice  said, 
to  apply  to  "  man  in  his  private,  individual  or  domestic  capac 
ity;  or  to  define  his  individual  rights  or  interfere  with  his 
domestic  relations,  or  his  individual  condition."  The  court  then 
held  that  the  constitution  of  1 844  had  not  abolished  slavery 
or  affected  the  slave  laws  existing  at  the  time  of  its  adoption.3 
Slavery  was  abolished  by  statute  in  New  Jersey  in  the  year 
1846.4  This  action  did  not  result  in  complete  emancipation  of 
the  slaves.  The  abolition  law  simply  substituted  apprentice 
ship  in  place  of  slavery.  By  virtue  of  the  act,  and  without 
the  execution  of  any  instrument  of  manumission,  every  slave 
became  an  apprentice,  bound  to  service  to  his  present  owner, 
executors,  or  administrators,  until  discharged  therefrom.  How 
similar  were  the  two  conditions 5  is  shown  when  we  find  many 

1  Mr.  Moore  says  that  this  provision  of  the  constitution  of  1780  was  "  only 
a  new  edition  of  the  '  glittering  and  sounding  generalities '  which  prefaced 
the  Body  of  Liberties  in  1641 ; "  yet  the  earlier  instrument  was  never  held 
to  have  abolished  slavery.     Moore,  G.  H.,  Notes  on  the  History  and  Slavery 
in  Massachusetts,  p.  12. 

2  The  State  vs.  Post.     The  State  vs.  Van  Buren.    N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  XX. 
368-386  (Spencer). 

3  The  case  was  carried  up  into  the  Court  of  Errors  and  Appeals,  and  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  confirmed.     N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  XXI,  699. 

4  Revised  Statutes,  382. 

5TheU.  S.  Census  of  1850  reports  236  slaves  in  New  Jersey,  and  the 
Census  of  1860  reports  18  slaves.  Evidently  these  must  have  been  legally 
apprentices  for  life. 


439]  The  Increase  and  Decline  of  Slavery.  29 

old  provisions  regarding  slaves  reproduced  and  reenacted  for 
the  government  of  the  new  apprentices  created  by  the  statute. 
Forms  are  established  according  to  which  apprentices  may  be 
legally  discharged.1  Penalties  for  enticing  apprentices  away 
or  harboring  them,  or  for  misusing  them,  are  provided.  Ap 
prentices  are  not  to  be  carried  out  of  the  State,  or  sold  to  a 
non-resident.  Yet  this  change  of  status  represented  a  real 
improvement  in  the  condition  of  the  negro  servant  for  life  or 
years.  The  sale  of  an  apprentice  must  be  in  writing  and  with 
the  consent  of  the  apprentice,  expressed  by  his  signature.  An 
apprentice  having  a  complaint  against  his  master  was  granted 
the  same  remedy  as  that  previously  provided  by  law  for 
apprentices  and  servants.  Children  born  to  negro  apprentices 
were  to  be  absolutely  free  from  birth,  and  not  subject  to  any 
manner  of  service  whatsoever.  They  must  be  supported  by  the 
master  until  they  attained  the  age  of  six  years,  after  which  they 
were  to  be  bound  out  to  service  by  the  overseers  of  the  poor. 
New  Jersey,  as  a  State,  showed  also  at  times  considerable 
interest  in  slavery  in  its  larger  aspect,  as  it  affected  general 
conditions  in  the  United  States.  In  January,  1820,  the  legis 
lature  passed  resolutions  against  the  admission  of  Missouri  as 
a  slave  state.2  Four  years  later  resolutions  were  passed  affirm 
ing,  first,  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  legislature,  "  a  system  of 
foreign  colonization"  represented  a  feasible  plan  by  which 
might  be  effected  "  the  entire  emancipation  of  the  slaves  in 
our  country ; "  second,  that  such  an  arrangement  made  con 
venient  provision  for  the  free  blacks ;  third,  that  the  evil  of 
slavery  being  a  national  one  athe  duties  and  burdens  of 
removing  it "  ought  to  be  borne  by  the  people  and  States  of 
the  Union.  Copies  of  these  resolutions  were  forwarded  to 
the  Governors  of  the  several  States,  with  the  request  that 
they  lay  the  same  before  their  respective  legislatures,  and  to 
the  New  Jersey  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress 

*A  new  and  interesting  provision  is  that  the  apprentice  shall  not  be 
discharged  unless  he  desires  to  be. 
*Assem.  Jour.,  Jan.  13  to  19,  1820. 


30  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [440 

asking  their  cooperation.1  In  1847,  the  legislature  resolved2 
that  the  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  from  New 
Jersey  be  requested  to  use  their  best  efforts  to  secure  the  exclu 
sion  forever  of  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  from  any 
territory  thereafter  to  be  annexed  to  the  United  States,  except 
as  a  punishment  for  crime.  Two  years  later  similar  resolu 
tions  3  were  passed  condemning  the  further  extension  of  slavery, 
and  urging  the  speedy  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  within  the 
District  of  Columbia. 

The  Extent  of  Slavery. 

The  use  of  slave  labor  was  quite  general  in  New  Jersey 
during  the  period  of  the  royal  governors.  From  quotations 
from  the  census  reports,  given  by  Mr.  Gordon,4  we  learn  that 
there  were  3,981  slaves  in  the  Province  in  1737,  4,606  slaves 
in  1745,  and  11,423  in  1790.5  Though  the  number  of  slaves 
was  increasing  constantly  during  this  period,  that  increase  did 
not  keep  pace  with  the  growth  of  population.  Slaves  con 
stituted  8.4  per  cent,  of  the  population  in  1737,  7.5  per  cent, 
in  1745,  and  6.2  per  cent,  in  1790.  In  Perth  Amboy,  the 
port  of  entry  for  the  eastern  division  of  the  Province,  slaves 
were  especially  numerous.  According  to  Mr.  Whitehead,  it 


lAssem.  Jour.,  Nov.  23  to  Dec.  29,  1824,  and  49  Ses.,  Statutes,  191. 

2 71  Leg.,  3  Ses.,  Statutes,  188.  373  Leg.,  5  Ses.,  Statutes,  334. 

4  Gordon,  T.  F.,  Gazetteer  of  N.  J.,  p.  29. 

*  Blake,  Ancient  and  Modern  Slavery,  p.  388,  says  that  in  1776  New  Jersey 
contained  7,600  slaves.  No  authority  for  the  statement  is  given.  As  the 
U.  S.  Census  of  1790  reports  11,423  slaves  in  New  Jersey,  if  Mr.  Blake's 
figures  are  correct,  there  must  have  been  an  increase  of  3,823  slaves  between 
1776  and  1790.  That  there  was  such  a  large  increase  seems  to  me  very 
improbable,  when  we  consider,  first,  that  such  an  increase  would  be  at  a 
rate  double  that  observed  in  the  next  decade;  second,  that  the  years  of 
the  war  presumably  were  not  y«ars  when  the  number  of  slaves  increased 
rapidly.  If  the  slave  population  increased  at  a  uniform  rate  from  1745  to 
1790  there  would  have  been  more  than  nine  thousand  slaves  in  the  Colony 
in  1776. 


441]  The  Increase  and  Decline  of  Slavery.  31 

was  reported  that  in  1776  there  was  in  the  town  only  one 
house  whose  inmates  were  "  served  by  hired  free  white  domes 
tics."  *  In  other  places  the  labor  of  families  was  also  very  com 
monly  performed  by  slaves. 

The  maximum  slave  population  in  New  Jersey  given  by 
the  U»  S.  Census  Reports  is  12,422  in  the  year  1800.  The 
next  census  shows  a  decrease  to  10,851,  in  consequence  of  the 
abolition  law  of  1804.  The  number  of  slaves  reported  rapidly 
diminishes  with  each  succeeding  census  until  the  last  record  in 
1860  shows  but  eighteen  slaves2 in  the  State.  At  the  begin- 
ing  of  the  present  century  New  Jersey  had  a  larger  slave 
population  than  any  other  State  north  of  Maryland,  except 
New  York.3  The  coast  counties  from  Sandy  Hook  to  the 
northern  boundary,  and  the  Raritan  Valley,  were  the  regions 
containing  the  great  majority  of  the  slaves.  The  three  great 
Quaker  counties  of  Burlington,  Gloucester,  and  Salem,  con 
taining  23  per  cent,  of  the  total  State  population,  contained 
less  than  3  per  cent,  of  the  slave  population.  The  effect  of 
the  eighteenth  century  abolition  agitation  among  the  Friends 
is  here  clearly  shown.4 

1  Whitehead,  Perth  Amboy,  p.  318. 

2  These  must  have  been  legally  "  apprentices." 

3  U.  S.  Census,  1800.     Mr.  Mellick  notices  this  fact,  and  thinks  that  it 
was  due  to  the  large  Dutch  and  German  population.     He  says  that  the 
greatest  number  of  slaves  were  to  be  found  in  the  counties  where  the  Dutch 
and  Germans  predominated.     Story  of  an  Old  Farm,  pp.  220-228. 

4  Population  of  New  Jersey  : 

Vanv  Total  e;  Per  Cent. 

^eai'  Population.  Slaves'  ofSlaves. 

1737  47,402  3,981  8.4                  (Gordon.) 

1745  61,383  4,606  7.5                         " 

1790  184,139  11,423  6.2               (U.  S.  Census.) 

1800  211,949  12,422  5.8                         « 

1810  245,555  *  10,851  4.4                         " 

1820  277,575  7,557  2.7 

1830  320,823  2,254  .7                         " 

1840  373,306  674           .18                       " 

1850  489,555  236*         .048 

1860  672,035  18*        .0026 
*  Legally  "  apprentices  "  for  life. 


CHAPTER  II. 
THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SLAVES. 

Regulations  bearing  upon  the  faults  and  misdemeanors  to 
which  slaves  are  peculiarly  liable  first  appear  in  New  Jersey 
legislation  in  laws  for  the  correction  of  truancy  on  the  part  of 
slaves  and  servants.  As  early  as  1675,1  under  the  Proprietary 
government,  it  was  enacted  that  persons  who  assist  in  the 
transportation  of  a  slave  shall  be  liable  to  a  penalty  of  five 
pounds  and  must  make  good  to  the  owner  any  costs  that  he 
may  have  sustained.  Those  who  entertain  or  harbor  any  slave 
known  to  be  absent  from  his  master  without  permission  must 
pay  to  the  owner  "  ten  shillings  for  every  day's  entertainment 
and  concealment." 2  The  Indians  by  their  reception  of  negroes 
appear  to  have  caused  the  settlers  some  annoyance.  We  read 
in  the  Journal  of  the  Governor  and  Council  that,  in  1682,  it 
was  "  agreed  and  ordered  that  a  message  be  sent  to  the  Indian 
sachems  to  confer  with  them  about  their  entertainment  of 
negro  servants."3  Again,  in  1694,  the  "countenance,  harbor 
ing  and  entertaining  of  slaves  by  many  of  the  inhabitants  " 

1  Learning  and  Spicer,  p.  109. 

2  These  provisions  were  virtually  reenacted  in  a  law  for  East  Jersey, 
"against  fugitive  servants  and  entertainers  of  them,"  in  1682,  just  after 
that  Province  came  under  the  government  of  the  twenty-four  Proprietors. 
L.  and  S.,  p.  238 ;  N.  J.  Ar.,  XIII,  31,  33  and  157.    In  1683,  in  West  Jersey, 
in  order  to  prevent  servants  from  running  away  from  their  masters,  magis 
trates  and  other  inhabitants  were  directed  to  require  from  all  suspicious 
travellers,  a  certificate  showing  that  they  were  not  fugitives,     L.  and  S.,  p. 
477. 

3JV.  J.  Ar.,  XIII,  22. 
32 


443]  The  Government  of  Slaves.  33 

calls  for  heavier  penalties.  By  a  law  of  that  year  such  enter 
tainment,  if  it  extends  to  as  much  as  two  hours,  renders  the 
offender  liable  to  a  penalty  of  twenty  shillings,  and  a  propor 
tional  sum  for  a  longer  time.1  Furthermore,  any  person  may 
apprehend  as  a  runaway  any  slave  found  "  five  miles  from  his 
owner's  habitation  "  without  a  certificate  of  his  owner's  per 
mission  ;  and  for  this  service  the  master  must  give  recompense 
in  money  at  a  prescribed  rate.2 

During  the  period  of  the  royal  governors  there  were  two 
new  regulations  bearing  on  the  recovery  of  fugitives.  Any 
slave  from  another  Province  travelling  without  a  license,  or 
not  known  to  be  on  his  master's  business,  was  to  be  taken  up 
and  whipped ;  and  should  remain  in  prison  until  the  costs  of 
apprehending  him  had  been  paid  by  his  owner.3  Persons  from 
a  neighboring  Colony  suspected  of  being  fugitives  must  produce 
a  pass  from  a  justice,  "  signifying  that  they  are  free  persons," 
otherwise  to  be  imprisoned  until  demanded.4 

Under  the  State  laws  more  stringent  regulations  referring 
to  fugitives  are  found.  By  the  law  of  1786  the  freedom  of 
movement  of  negroes  was  very  closely  restricted.  Negroes 
manumitted  in  other  States  were  not  allowed  to  travel  in 
New  Jersey.  Any  person  who  employed  them,  concealed 
them,  or  suffered  them  to  reside  or  land  within  the  State  was 
liable  to  a  penalty  of  five  pounds  per  week.  Free  negroes  of 
New  Jersey  were  not  to  travel  beyond  their  township  or  county 
without  an  official  certificate  of  their  freedom.5  This  severity 
was  modified  somewhat  by  the  law  of  1798.  A  free  negro 
from  another  State  might  now  travel  in  New  Jersey  provided 
that  he  produced  a  certificate  signed  by  two  Justices  of  the 


1  That  this  entertainment  of  negroes  was  a  real  evil  in  the  later  Colonial 
period  is  shown  by  an  advertisement  for  a  fugitive  slave  in  1750,  which 
reads :  "  and  whereas  he  has  been  harboured  once  before,  whoever  informs 
who  harbours  him  shall  have  ten  pounds  reward."     N.  J.  Ar.,  XII,  644. 

2  L.  and  S.,  p.  340;  N.  J.  Ar.,  XIII,  205. 

3  Act  for  regulating  of  slaves,  1714;  Nevill,  I,  18. 

4  1714.    Nevill,  I,  24.  6  Acts  of  General  Assembly. 

3 


34  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [444 

Peace  of  his  State  showing  his  freedom.1  That  all  black  men 
should  be  regarded  as  slaves  until  evidence  appeared  to  the 
contrary,  was  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  even  as  late  as  1826.2 
Yet  by  the  U.  S.  Census  of  1820,  New  Jersey  contained  nearly 
twice  as  many  free  negroes  as  slaves.  The  court  receded  from 
this  position  ten  years  later,  the  injustice  of  the  ruling  having 
become  very  obvious  owing  to  the  small  proportion  which 
slaves  bore  to  the  colored  population.3 

The  ferries  from  New  Jersey  to  New  York  constituted 
routes  by  which  fugitive  slaves  occasionally  escaped.  On  July 
4,  1818,  a  slave  mingling  in  the  holiday  crowd  gained  a  pas 
sage  on  the  ferry-boat  running  from  Elizabeth-Town  to  New 
York,  and,  after  reaching  the  latter  place,  escaped.  The 
master  of  the  slave  sued  the  owner  of  the  ferry-boat  and 
obtained  damages  for  the  loss  of  the  slave.4  Seven  years  later 
there  is  recorded  a  similar  escape  on  a  steamboat  running 
from  Perth  Amboy  to  New  York.5 

The  apprehension  of  fugitive  slaves  from  other  States  was 
provided  for  with  great  care  by  a  law  of  1826.6  On  the  proper 
application 7  by  the  master,  a  fugitive  might  be  arrested  by  the 
sheriff  and  brought  before  a  judge  of  the  inferior  Court  of 
Common  Pleas.  If  the  judge  deemed  that  there  was  enough 
proof  he  was  to  give  the  claimant  a  certificate,  which  should 
be  sufficient  warrant  for  the  removal  of  the  fugitive  from  the 


1  Any  person  harboring,  concealing  or  employing  any  negro  without  such 
a  certificate  was  liable  to  a  fine  of  $12  for  every  week  of  such  action. 
Paterson,  p.  307. 

2  Fox  vs.  Lambson,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  VIII,  339-349  (3rd  Halsted).     This 
principle  was  authoritatively  established,  in  1821,  by  the  case  of  Gibbons 
vs.  Morse  carried  up  to  the  court  of  errors  and  appeals,  N.  J.  Law  Rep., 
VII,  305-327  (2nd  Halsted) ;  and  reaffirmed  in  Fox  vs.  Lambson. 

3  Stoutenborough  vs.  Haviland,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  XV,  266-269  (3rd  Green). 

4  Gibbons  vs.  Morse. 

6  Cutter  vs.  Moore,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  VIII,  270-278  (3rd  Halsted). 

6  51  Ses.,  Statutes,  90. 

7  Application  by  the  master,  personally  or  by  attorney,  to  any  judge  of 
any  inferior  Court  of  Common  Pleas  or  Justice  of  the  Peace. 


445]  The  Government  of  Slaves.  35 

State.  A  case  falling  under  this  law,  and  carried  up  to  the 
Supreme  Court  in  1826,  led  to  a  debate  in  that  court  which 
called  in  question  the  justice  of  the  law.  The  judges  con 
curred  in  discharging  the  prisoner,  a  negro  claimed  as  a 
runaway  slave  from  Maryland;  but  showed  great  disagree 
ment  in  the  discussion^  of  the  merits  of  the  case.  Chief 
Justice  Hornblower  held  that  questions  of  fact  were  involved, 
such  as,  was  the  negro  lawfully  held  to  service  in  the  State 
from  which  he  came?  has  he  fled  into  this  State?  has  the 
claimant  any  right  to  his  services  ?  Here  were  facts  which 
must  be  judicially  determined,  "facts  which  involve  the 
dearest  rights  of  a  human  being."  These  facts  the  Justice 
believed  should  not  "  be  tried  and  definitely  sealed  in  a  sum 
mary  manner,  and  without  the  verdict  of  a  jury." ]  The  next 
year,  probably  as  the  result  of  the  discussion  in  the  Supreme 
Court,  the  fugitive  slave  law  was  amended.2  A  judge  having 
a  fugitive  brought  before  him  must  appoint  a  certain  time 
and  place  for  the  trial  of  the  case,  and  associate  with  him  two 
other  judges.  Either  party  might  demand  trial  by  jury.3 

Other  Police  Regulations. 

Besides  the  provisions  for  the  correction  of  truancy,  various 
other  police  regulations  were  established  from  time  to  time. 
The  early  inhabitants  of  East  Jersey  appear  to  have  been 
much  troubled  by  the  thievishness  of  their  slaves.  The  com 
plaint  was  that  slaves  stole  from  their  masters  and  others  and 
then  sold  the  stolen  goods  at  some  distance  away.  In  the 
belief  that  a  market  was  necessary  to  make  pilfering  worth 
while,  all  traffic  whatever  with  slaves  was  forbidden  in  1682, 


1  The  State  vs.  Sheriff  of  Burlington.    Hurd,  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage, 
II,  64-67.    Owing  to  disagreement  among  the  judges  as  to  the  proper  extent 
of  the  discussion,  the  case  was  not  given  in  the  State  Reports. 

2  61  Ses.,  2  sit.,  Statutes,  134. 

3  In  the  revision  of  1847  virtually  the  same  law  was  approved  and  so 
stood  as  the  fugitive  slave  act  of  the  State.    Revision  of  1847,  p.  567. 


36  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [446 

under  heavy  penalties.1  If  any  slave  were  found  offering 
goods  for  sale  without  the  permission  of  his  master  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  person  to  whom  the  article  was  offered  to  take  up 
and  whip  the  slave,  for  which  service  the  master  must  pay  a 
reward  of  half  a  crown.2  Later,  in  the  same  Province,  we 
read  that  slaves  allowed  to  hunt  with  dog  and  gun  killed 
swine  under  pretence  of  hunting.  In  1694,  slaves  were  pro 
hibited  from  carrying  any  "  gun  or  pistol/'  and  from  taking 
any  dog  with  them  into  the  "  woods  or  plantations,"  unless 
accompanied  by  the  master  or  his  representative.3  If  any 
person  "lend,  give  or  hire  out"  a  pistol  or  gun  to  a  slave, 
that  person  must  forfeit  the  gun  or  twenty  shillings  to  the 
owner  of  the  slave.4  In  West  Jersey,  in  the  Proprietary 
period,  the  selling  of  rum  to  negroes  was  found  to  be  produc 
tive  of  disorder.  Any  person  "  convicted  of  selling  or  giving 
of  rum,  or  any  manner  of  strong  liquor,  either  to  negro  or 
Indian,"  except  the  stimulant  be  given  in  relief  of  real  physical 
distress,  becomes  liable  to  a  penalty  of  five  pounds  by  a  law  of 
1685.  As  the  offense  was  one  difficult  of  detection,  "one 
creditable  witness  or  a  probable  circumstance  "  was  accounted 
"  sufficient  evidence,"  unless  the  accused  gave  his  "  oath  or 
solemn  declaration  that  he  has  not  transgressed  the  law.'7  5 

Kegulations  against  harboring,  trading  with,  or  selling  rum 
to  slaves  were  reenacted  during  the  period  of  the  royal  Gov 
ernors,  and  in  the  State  legislation.6  Others  were  added,  such 
as :  the  prohibition  of  large  or  disorderly  meetings  of  slaves,7 

Similar  penalties  are  found  in  the  slave  law  of  1714,  and  thus  held 
throughout  the  Colonial  period. 

2  L.  and  S.,  254 ;  N.  J.  Ar.,  XIII,  82.    Law  passed  at  Elizabeth-Town. 

3  Act  passed  at  Perth  Amboy.     L.  and  S.,  340 ;  N.  J.  Ar.,  XIII,  205. 

4  By  the  same  law,  no  inhabitant  should  allow  his  slave  to  keep  swine 
marked  with  another  brand  than  the  owner's.    This  provision  was  probably 
intended  to  prevent  dishonesty  on  the  part  of  masters. 

s  Act  passed  at  Burlington.    L.  and  S.,  512. 

6  Laws  of  1714, 1738, 1751  and  1798.    Nevill,  I,  242 ;  Allison,  191 ;  Pater- 
son,  307. 

7  Laws  of  1751  and  1798. 


447]  The  Government  of  Slaves.  37 

the  rule  that  all  slaves  must  be  at  home  after  a  certain  hour 
at  night,1  that  slaves  shall  not  go  hunting  or  carry  a  gun  on 
Sunday,2  that  slaves  shall  not  set  a  steel  trap  above  a  specified 
weight,3  that  slaves  shall  not  be  permitted  to  beg.4  For  the 
correction  of  the  smaller  faults  and  misdeeds  there  was  the 
workhouse.  A  law  of  1754  provided  that  in  the  borough  of 
Elizabeth,  servants  and  slaves  accused  of  "  any  misdemeanor 
or  rude  or  disorderly  behavior/7  being  brought  before  the 
Mayor,  may  be  "  committed  to  the  workhouse  to  hard  labor  " 
and  receive  corporal  punishment  not  exceeding  thirty  stripes.5 
In  1799  the  system  was  established  throughout  the  State. 
"  Any  stubborn,  disobedient,  rude  or  intemperate  slave  or  male 
servant "  might  be  committed  to  the  workhouse  to  endure 
confinement  and  labor  at  the  discretion  of  a  Justice  of  the 
Peace.  The  master  paid  the  cost  of  maintenance  of  the  slave 
while  so  confined.6 

The  Criminal  Law  for  Slaves. 

During  nearly  the  whole  period  of  the  Proprietary  Colony 
the  same  general  criminal  laws  governed  both  slaves  and  free 
men.  The  bond  as  well  as  the  free  were  tried  in  the  ordinary 
courts,  for  crimes  and  misdemeanors.  In  1*695  a  change  was 
made.  Special  courts  were  provided  for  the  trial  of  slaves 


1  Nine  o'clock  by  law  of  1751,  ten  o'clock  by  law  of  1798. 

2  Laws  of  1751  and  1798.    These  laws,  however,  did  not  prevent  a  negro 
or  slave  from  going  to  any  place  of  worship,  or  from  burying  the  dead,  or 
from  doing  any  other  reasonable  act,  with  his  master's  consent. 

3  In  1760  an  "  Act  to  regulate  the  size  of  traps  to  be  hereafter  set  in  this 
Colony  "  directed  that  any  slave  setting  a  steel  trap  above  a  specified  weight 
"  shall  be  whipped  with  thirty  lashes  and  committed  until  the  cost  is  paid." 
N.  J.  Statutes,  p.  61. 

4  The  law  of  1798  imposed  a  penalty  of  $8  for  permitting  slaves  to  beg, 
one-half  to  be  paid  to  the  overseers  of  the  poor  and  one-half  to  the  person 
who  prosecuted. 

5Nevill,  II,  25,  29. 

6  An  act  for  the  establishment  of  workhouses  in  the  several  counties  of 
this  State.    Paterson,  379. 


38  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [448 

and  an  exceptional  form  of  punishment  was  prescribed  for 
slave  offenders.1  Slaves  accused  of  a  felony  or  murder  were 
to  have  trial  by  jury  before  three  Justices2  of  the  Peace  of  the 
county,  and  on  conviction  were  to  receive,  in  general,  the 
punishments  t(  appointed  for  such  crimes." 3  Under  the  royal 
governors,  the  law  of  1714  adhered  to  the  principle  of  special 
courts  for  slaves.  Ordinarily  the  trials  of  slaves  for  capital 
offences  were  to  be  before  three  or  more  Justices  of  the  Peace 
and  five  principal  freeholders  of  the  county ;  but  the  master 
might  demand  trial  by  jury.4  In  1768  the  use  of  special 
courts  was  discontinued,  and  slaves  accused  of  capital  offences 
were  once  more  tried  in  the  ordinary  courts 5  as  freemen  were. 
The  reason  given  for  this  return  to  earlier  practice  was  that 
the  method  by  special  courts  had  "  on  experience  been  found 
inconvenient."6  Throughout  the  period  of  the  royal  gov 
ernors  special  forms  of  punishment  were  provided  for  slaves. 
Not  until  1788,  under  the  State  government,  was  it  enacted 
that  all  criminal  offences  of  negroes  should  be  punished  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  criminal  offences  of  other  inhabitants 
of  the  State  were.7  Even  under  the  State  legislation  the  pro 
visions  allowing  corporal  punishment  or  transportation  to  be 
substituted  in  some  cases  for  the  usual  punishment,  at  the 
discretion  of  the  court,  violated  somewhat  the  principle  of 
uniformity  of  procedure. 

As  might  be  expected  from  the  grade  of  civilization  devel 
oped  in  the  various  Colonies  and  the  accompanying  stringent 


1  Act  passed  at  Perth  Amboy,  1695.     L.  and  S.,  357. 

2  One  being  of  the  quorum. 

3  The  special  punishment  provided  was,  that  slaves  convicted  of  stealing 
should  receive  corporal  punishment,  not  exceeding  forty  stripes,  the  master 
making  good  the  amount  stolen. 

*Allinson,  18. 

5  The  courts  mentioned  were  the  Supreme  Court,  Court  of  Oyer  and 
Terminer  and  General  Gaol  Delivery,  and  Court  of  General  Quarter  Ses 
sions  of  the  Peace. 

6  Allinson,  307.  7  Acts  of  1 3th  General  Assembly. 


449]  The  Government  of  Slaves.  39 

criminal  code,  the  punishments  provided  for  slaves  in  New 
Jersey  throughout  the  Colonial  period  were  severe  and  often 
cruel.1  As  early  as  1704  the  Lords  of  Trade  recommended  to 
the  Queen  the  repeal  of  an  act  lately  passed  by  the  Assembly 
because  one  clause  inflicted  inhuman  penalties  upon  negroes.2 
By  the  slave  law  of  1714 3  any  "negro,  Indian  or  mulatto 
slave"  murdering  or  attempting  the  death  of  any  freeman, 
wilfully  murdering  any  slave,  committing  arson,  "rape  on 
any  free  subject,"  or  mutilation  of  any  free  person,  is  to  suffer 
the  penalty  of  death.4  The  manner  of  death,  however,  is  not 
specified,  but  is  to  be  such  as  the  "aggravation  or  enormity  of 
their  crimes"  (in  the  judgment  of  the  justices  and  freeholders 
trying  the  case)  "shall  merit  and  require."  The  testimony  of 
slaves  was  admitted  in  the  trials.5  When  a  slave  was  executed, 
the  owner  received  for  a  negro  man  thirty  pounds  and  for  a 


1  That  in  the  rough,  frontier  conditions  of  the  Proprietary  Colony  the 
punishments  were  sometimes  cruel,  although  slaves  were  tried  in  the  ordi 
nary  courts,  is  evident  from  an  instance  given  by  Mr.  Mellick.  He  says 
that  in  1694  a  Justice  presiding  at  the  Monmouth  court  of  sessions,  sen 
tenced  a  negro  convicted  of  murder  to  suffer  as  follows :  "  Thy  hand  shall 
be  cut  off  and  burned  before  thine  eyes.  Then  thou  shalt  be  hanged  up  by 
the  neck  until  thou  art  dead,  dead,  dead ;  then  thy  body  shall  be  cut  down 
and  burned  to  ashes  in  a  fire,  and  so  the  Lord  have  mercy  on  thy  soul, 
Csesar"  (Story  of  an  Old  Farm,  p.  225). 

*N.  J.  Ar.,  Ill,  473,  Eepresentation  of  Lords  of  Trade  to  the  Queen. 
Allinson,  p.  5. 

3Nevill,  I,  18;  Allinson,  18. 

In  the  Journal  of  the  Governor  and  Council,  N.  J.  Ar.,  XIII,  439,  440, 
448,  we  find  record  that  the  Council  in  1710  passed  "An  Act  for  deterring 
negroes  and  other  slaves  from  committing  murder  and  other  notorious 
offenses  within  this  Colony."  The  provisions  are  not  given. 

4  Poisoning  was  sometimes  practiced  by  slaves  in  the  Colonial  period.  In 
1738  two  negroes,  found  guilty  of  destroying  sundry  persons  by  poison,  were 
executed  at  Burlington.  At  Hackensack,  in  1744,  a  negro  was  executed  for 
poisoning  three  negro  women  and  a  horse.  N.  J.  Ar.,  XI,  523, 537 ;  XII,  223. 

5 At  the  trial  of  the  negro  man  "Harry"  in  Bergen  County,  1731,  who 
was  hung  for  threatening  the  life  of  his  master  and  poisoning  the  slave 
"  Sepio,"  many  negroes  were  summoned  as  witnesses.  Bergen  Co.,  "  Liber 
A,"  p.  24. 


40  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [450 

woman  twenty  pounds,  the  money  being  raised  by  a  poll  tax 
upon  all  the  slaves  in  the  county  above  fourteen  years  of  age 
and  under  fifty.1  This  payment  made  good  to  the  master  a 
loss  of  property  due  to  no  fault  of  his.  Further,  it  left  him 
no  inducement  to  transport  the  slave  out  of  the  Province  and 
thus  encourage  other  negroes  to  crime  by  allowing  the  hope 
that  punishment  might  be  escaped.  In  the  case  of  slaves 
attempting  rape,  or  assaulting  a  free  Christian,  any  two  jus 
tices  of  the  peace  were  authorized  to  inflict  such  corporal 
punishment,  not  extending  to  life  or  limb,  as  they  might  see 
fit.  Slaves  stealing  under  the  value  of  five  shillings  were  to 
be  whipped  with  thirty  stripes ;  if  above  five  shillings,  with 
forty  stripes.2 

A  form  of  execution  frequently  chosen  was  burning  at  the 
stake.  At  Perth  Amboy,  in  1 730,  a  negro  was  burnt  for  the 
murder  of  an  itinerant  tailor.3  In  Bergen  County,  in  1735, 
the  slave  "Jack"  was  burnt.  He  had  beaten  his  master, 
several  times  had  threatened  to  murder  his  master  and  the 
son  of  his  master  and  to  burn  down  his  master's  house,  and 
when  arrested  tried  to  kill  himself.4  In  Somerset  County,  in 
1739,  a  negro  was  burnt  for  brutally  murdering  a  child, 
attempting  to  murder  the  wife  of  his  overseer,  and  setting  fire 
to  his  master's  barn.5  In  1741  two  negroes  were  burnt  for 

1  Bergen  County  Quarter  Sessions  in  1768  ordered  that  Hendrieck  Chris 
tian  Zabriskie  should  have  thirty  pounds  for  his  negro  named  Harry,  lately 
executed  for  the  murder  of  Claas  Toers.    The  money  was  collected  from  the 
slave-owners  of  the  county,  upon  the  basis  of  an  assessment  of  ten  pence  per 
head  upon  all  slaves  in  the  county.   Bergen  Co.  Quar.  Sess.,  January  27, 1768. 

2  In  Hackensack  in  1769,  a  slave  pleading  guilty  to  the  charge  of  steal 
ing,  was  whipped  at  the  public  whipping-post  and  before  the  houses  of  two 
prominent  citizens,  with  thirty-nine  lashes  on  each  of  three  days,  being 
taken  from  place  to  place  tied  to  a  cart's  tail.     Bergen  Co.  Quar.  Sess., 
October  24, 1769. 

3Am.  Wk.  Mercury,  Jan.  14-20,  1729  (1730) ;    (N.  J.  Ar.,  XI,  201). 

4  Bergen  County,  "  Liber  A,"  p.  36. 

*  Boston  Wk.  News-Letter,  Jan.  18-25,  1739  (N.  J.  Ar.,  XI,  558).  In  the 
same  county,  five  years  later,  a  negro  was  burnt  for  ravishing  a  white  child. 
Pa.  Gazette,  Dec.  14,  1744  (N.  J.  Ar.,  XII,  244). 


451]  The  Government  of  Slaves.  41 

setting  on  fire  several  barns  in  the  neighborhood  of  Hacken- 
sack.1  Mr.  Whitehead  says  that  the  New  York  "  Negro  Plot " 
of  1741  caused  many  executions  by  burning  as  well  as  by 
hanging  in  New  Jersey.  He  describes  a  case  ten  years  later, 
near  Perth  Amboy,  when  all  the  negroes  of  the  neighborhood 
were  compelled  to  witness  the  execution.2 

The  criminal  law  of  1768,  which  supplanted  the  provisions 
relating  to  capital  offences  in  the  act  of  1714,  represents  an 
increase  of  severity.  It  appointed  the  penalty  of  death  for 
the  crimes  made  capital  under  the  earlier  law,  and  for  others 
as  well.  A  slave  convicted  of  manslaughter,  or  of  stealing 
any  sum  of  money  above  the  value  of  five  pounds,  or  of  com 
mitting  any  other  felony  or  burglary,  was  to  suffer  death  or 
such  other  pains  and  penalties  as  the  justices  might  think 
proper  to  inflict.  In  this  law,  as  before,  there  was  no  specifi 
cation  as  to  the  manner  in  which  death  might  be  inflicted.3 

Under  the  early  State  legislation  the  severe  and  peculiar 
forms  of  punishment  provided  for  slaves  by  the  Colonial  laws 
disappeared.  In  1788,  it  was  enacted  that  all  criminal  offences 
of  negroes,  whether  slaves  or  freemen,  should  be  "  enquired 
of,  adjudged,  corrected  and  punished  in  like  manner  as  the 
criminal  offences  of  the  other  inhabitants  of  this  State  are." 4 
This  principle  was  firmly  established  by  the  passage  in  1796 
of  "  An  Act  for  the  punishment  of  Crimes,"  a  comprehensive 
and  fundamental  criminal  law,  which,  in  general,  prescribed 
one  punishment  for  all  persons  guilty  of  a  particular  crime, 
mentioning  no  distinction  between  bond  and  free.5  Slaves 
continued,  however,  to  be  to  some  extent  the  subject  of  special 
criminal  legislation.  By  the  law  of  1796  a  court  might 
impose  upon  any  slave,  in  place  of  the  usual  punishment, 


Bergen  County,  "Liber  A,"  p.  44. 

*  Whitehead,  W.  A.,  Contributions  to  the  Early  History  of  Perth  Amboy,  pp. 
318-320 ;  also  Wk.  Post  Boy,  July  2,  1750  (N.  J.  Ar.,  XII,  652). 

3  Allinson,  307 ;  N.  J.  Ar.,  XVII,  483,  485,  486  (Jour,  of  Prov.  Council). 

4  Acts  of  13th  Gen.  Assem.,  Nov.  26,  1788.  *  Paterson,  220. 


42  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [452 

corporal  punishment  at  its  discretion  and  not  extending  to 
life  or  limb,  for  any  offence  not  punishable  with  death.  By 
the  act  of  1801,  when  slaves  were  convicted  of  arson,  burglary, 
rape,  highway  robbery,  or  assault  with  intent  to  commit 
murder,  the  court  might  choose  to  order  them  to  be  sent  out 
of  the  United  States.1  In  this  case  the  owner  was  compelled 
to  give  bond  that  he  would  faithfully  execute  the  court's 
decree,  and  finally  file  a  certificate  that  the  sentence  has  been 
complied  with. 

Negro  Plots. 

We  have  seen  that  by  the  police  regulations  enacted  for  the 
government  of  slaves,  negroes  were  forbidden  to  assemble 
together  in  companies,  except  with  their  master's  consent  for 
some  reasonaBle  purpose,  such  as  to  attend  public  worship  or 
to  bury  their  dead.  Furthermore,  slaves  must  be  at  home 
after  nine  o'clock  at  night.2  These  provisions  were  probably 
called  forth  by  fear  of  slave  insurrections ;  but  it  is  difficult 
to  determine  to  what  extent  the  legislation  was  connected  with 
actual  experience  of  negro  plots. 

In  1734,  a  rising  in  East  Jersey,3  near  Somerville,4  was 
feared.  Certain  negro  quarters  some  miles  remote  from  the 
master's  dwelling-house  had  become  a  rendezvous  for  the 
negroes  of  the  neighborhood.  The  slaves  round  about  stole 
from  their  masters  provisions  of  various  sorts  which  they  car 
ried  to  their  place  of  meeting  and  feasted  upon,  sometimes  in 
large  companies.  It  was  claimed  that  at  one  of  these  meet 
ings  some  hundreds  had  entered  into  a  plot  to  gain  their 
freedom  by  a  massacre  of  the  whites.  A  belief  on  the  part 
of  the  negroes  that  they  were  held  in  slavery  contrary  to  the 

1 25  Ses.,  2  sit.,  Statutes,  77.  See  also  on  this  subject,  Revision  of  1821,  pp. 
738,  793,  and  44  Ses.,  Statutes,  74,  sec.  20. 

2  Supra,  p.  37. 

*N.  Y.  Gazette,  March  18-25, 1734,  gives  a  detailed  account  of  the  con 
spiracy. 

4  Mellick,  p.  226,  says  that  the  excitement  was  near  Somerville. 


453]  The  Government  of  Slaves.  43 

positive  orders  of  King  George  appears  to  have  been  an 
element  contributing  to  the  excitement.  According  to  the 
plan  of  the  conspirators,  as  soon  as  the  weather  became  mild 
enough  so  that  living  in  the  woods  might  be  possible,  at  some 
midnight  agreed  upon,  all  the  slaves  were  to  rise  and  slay  their 
masters.  The  buildings  were  to  be  set  on  fire  and  the  draught 
horses  killed.  Finally,  the  negroes,  having  secured  the  best 
saddle  horses,  were  to  fly  to  the  Indians  and  join  them  in  the 
French  interest.  Suspicion  of  a  negro  plot  was  first  aroused 
by  the  impudent  remarks  of  a  drunken  slave.  He  and  another 
negro  were  arrested,  and  at  their  trial  the  above  details  were 
brought  out.  The  insurrection  believed  to  be  threatening  was 
suppressed  with  considerable  severity.1 

That  delirium  of  the  New  York  people  in  1741,  known  as 
the  "Negro  Conspiracy,"  appears  to  have  spread  to  some 
extent  into  neighboring  New  Jersey  also.  Mr.  Whitehead 
thinks  that  this  panic  caused  many  executions  in  New  Jersey.2 
In  one  day  seven  barns  were  burned  at  Hackensack ;  an 
eighth  caught  fire  three  times,  but  fortunately  was  saved.  It 
was  believed  that  these  were  set  on  fire  by  a  combination  of 
slaves,  for  one  negro  was  taken  in  the  act.  The  people  of  the 
neighborhood  were  greatly  alarmed  and  kept  under  arms  every 
night.  Two  negroes  charged  with  committing  the  crime  were 
burned.3  Mr.  Hatfield  quotes  from  the  Account  Book  of  the 
Justices  and  Freeholders  of  Essex  County  the  following  items  : 
"June  4,  1741,  Daniel  Harrison  sent  in  his  account  of  wood 
carted  for  burning  two  negroes."  .  .  .  "February  25,  174J, 
Joseph  Heden  acct.  for  wood  to  burn  the  negroes  Mr.  Farrand 
paid  allowed  0.  7.  0.  Allowed  to  Isaac  Lyon  4/  Curry  for  a  load 
of  wood  to  burn  the  first  negro,  0.  4.  O."4  Mr.  Whitehead 


1  About  thirty  negroes  were  apprehended  ;   one  of  them  was    hanged, 
some  had  their  ears  cut  off,  and  others  were  whipped.     Poison  was  found 
on  several  of  them.    N.  J.  Ar.,  XI,  333,  340. 

2  Whitehead,  Perth  Amboy,  p.  318.  3 N.  J.  Ar.,  XII,  88,  91,  98. 
4  Hatfield,  History  of  Elizabeth,  N.  J.,  p.  364. 


44  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [454 

says  that,  in  1772,  "an  insurrection  was  anticipated,  but  was 
prevented  by  due  precautionary  measures." * 

Mr.  Hatfield  tells  of  a  panic  regarding  negroes  at  Elizabeth- 
Town  during  the  Revolution.2  In  June,  1779,  a  conspiracy 
of  the  negroes  to  rise  and  murder  the  people  of  the  town  was 
discovered.  The  Tories,  whose  plundering  expeditions  had 
been  very  exasperating,  were  held  responsible  for  this  new 
danger  also.  The  resentment  aroused  by  these  occurrences 
caused  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  to  enter  severe  judgments 
against  many  Tories.  Mr.  Atkinson  states  that  in  1796  there 
was,  among  the  whites,  great  fear  of  negro  violence,  and  a 
feeling  of  bitterness  toward  the  slaves  was  developed.3  The 
agitation  was  caused  by  the  attempts  of  certain  blacks  to  set 
fire  to  buildings  in  New  York,  Newark  and  other  places. 


iWhitehead,  Perth  Amboy,   pp.  318-320.  2  Hatfield,  p.  476. 

3  Atkinson,  J.,  History  of  Newark,  N.  /.,  pp.  170-172. 


CHAPTER  III. 
THE  LEGAL  AND  SOCIAL  POSITION  OF  THE  NEGRO. 

The  subject  of  manumission  began  to  demand  legislative 
action  at  the  time  of  the  royal  governors.  According  to  what 
forms  manumission  should  be  legal,  what  limitations  it  might 
be  expedient  to  place  on  the  power  to  manumit ;  these  were 
considerations  which  then  became  of  great  consequence  and 
retained  their  prominence  even  until  after  the  disappearance 
of  slavery  from  New  Jersey  life.  Furthermore,  the  interpre 
tation  given  by  the  courts  to  the  existing  law  of  manumission 
often  decided  for  the  colored  man  whether  his  position  was 
that  of  freeman  or  slave. 

Very  early  in  the  eighteenth  century  it  is  recorded  that 
experience  had  shown  "  that  free  negroes  are  an  idle,  slothful 
people  and  prove  very  often  a  charge  to  the  place  where  they 
are."1  Therefore,  the  law  of  1714  had  a  provision  designed 
to  prevent  freedmen  from  ever  coming  upon  the  township  as 
paupers.  It  enacted  that  any  master  manumitting  a  slave 
must  enter  into  "sufficient  security,"  "with  two  sureties  in 
the  sum  of  200  pounds/7  to  pay  to  the  negro  an  annuity  of 
20  pounds.  In  case  of  manumission  by  will  the  executors 
must  give  such  security.  Owners  or  their  heirs  were  obliged 
to  maintain  all  negroes  not  manumitted  according  to  law. 
The  desire  to  save  townships  the  expense  of  supporting  freed 
men  was  not  recognized  to  such  an  extent  as  to  allow  un 
fortunate  negroes  actually  to  suffer.  An  act  of  1769  states 

1  Law  of  1714.    Nevill,  I,  18. 

45 


46  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [456 

definitely  that  if  the  "  owner  becomes  insolvent  and  so  incapa 
ble  of  providing  for  his  slaves,  who  shall  by  sickness  or  other 
wise  be  rendered  incapable  of  maintaining  themselves,  they 
shall  be  relieved  by  the  township  the  same  as  white  servants."  * 
In  1773,  in  response  to  several  petitions,  a  bill  providing  for 
manumission  without  the  giving  of  security  was  introduced 
in  the  Assembly.  The  bill  stated  that  the  manumission  law 
of  the  Colony  had  on  experience  been  found  too  indiscrimi 
nate,  the  requirement  of  equal  security  in  all  cases  working, 
in  some  instances,  to  "  prevent  the  exercise  of  humanity  and 
tenderness  in  the  emancipation  of  those  who  may  deserve  it." 
In  view  of  the  great  opposition  as  well  as  favor  with  which 
the  bill  was  received,  the  House  ordered  that  the  bill  be 
printed  and  referred  to  the  next  session.2  At  the  next  session, 
in  1775,  the  various  petitions  presented  for  and  against  the 
bill  led  to  another  postponement  to  the  following  session  ; 3  by 
which  time  the  greater  interests  of  the  Revolution  crowded  out 
the  consideration  of  this  matter. 

Immediately  after  the  Revolution  we  find  a  peculiar  form 
of  manumission,  that  by  special  act  of  the  legislature.  On 
three  occasions  previous  to  the  year  1790,  slaves  that  had 
become  the  property  of  the  State,  through  the  confiscation  of 
Tory  estates,  were  set  free  by  act  of  the  legislature.4  The 
negroes  were  given  their  freedom  in  recognition  of  past  services 
to  the  State  or  to  the  Federal  cause.5 


1  Allinson,  315.  The  law  of  1679  reenacted  the  requirements  of  the  law 
of  1714. 

*Assem.  Jour.,  Nov.  30,  1773,  to  Feb.  16,  1774. 

3Assem.  Jour.,  Jan.  28  to  Feb.  7,  1775. 

4 1784,  1786  and  1789;  8  Ses.,  2  sit.,  Statutes,  110;  11  Ses.,  1  sit.,  Statutes, 
368  ;  14  Ses.,  1  sit.,  Statutes,  538. 

5  There  is  record  of  an  interesting  case  of  this  form  of  manumission  in 
1840.  Csesar  Jackson,  a  colored  man  of  Hackensack,  was  a  slave  in  law, 
having  been  born  previously  to  the  year  1804.  His  late  master,  Peter 
Bourdett,  had  inserted  in  his  will  a  request  that,  at  his  death,  the  slave 
Csesar  Jackson  should  be  set  free.  The  heirs  of  Peter  Bourdett  desired  to 
carry  out  his  request,  but  had  been  unable  to  do  so.  They  had  given 


457]      The  Legal  and  Social  Position  of  the  Negro.          47 

In  1786,  changes  were  made  in  the  law  of  manumission. 
Slaves  between  the  ages  of  twenty-one  and  thirty-five,  sound 
in  mind,  and  under  no  bodily  incapacity  of  obtaining  a  sup 
port,  might  now  be  emancipated  without  security  being  given 
for  their  support.  A  master  must  first  secure  a  certificate 
signed  by  two  overseers  of  the  poor  of  the  township  and  two 
Justices  of  the  Peace  of  the  county,  showing  that  the  slave 
met  the  requirements  as  to  age  and  health.  He  might  then 
manumit  the  slave  by  executing  a  certificate  under  his  hand 
and  seal  in  the  presence  of  two  witnesses.  A  similar  manu 
mission  by  will  was  valid.  In  all  other  cases  the  master  (or 
his  executors)  was  compelled  to  give  security  that  the  negro 
should  not  come  upon  any  township  for  support.1  These  pro 
visions  were  virtually  reenacted  in  the  slave  law  of  1798.2 
A  supplementary  law  in  1804  provides  for  registration  of 
instruments  of  manumission  by  the  county  clerk.3  Such 
record  by  the  clerk  was  receivable  as  evidence  in  the  courts.4 

The  New  Jersey  courts  interpreted  the  law  on  manumission 
in  a  liberal  spirit.  They  were  ready  to  presume  a  manumis 
sion,  if  an  actual,  formal  emancipation  according  to  law  could 
not  be  proven,  whenever  the  circumstances  seemed  to  warrant 
such  a  procedure.  In  1789,  a  negro  woman  who  had  lived 
and  worked  in  the  neighborhood  of  Shrewsbury  as  a  free 
woman  for  seventeen  years,  with  no  claim  upon  her  as  a  slave, 


Caesar  Jackson  a  lot  of  land  in  the  township,  and  he  had  erected  on  it  a 
dwelling-house  for  himself  and  his  family;  but  he  had  been  unable  to 
obtain  a  deed  for  the  land,  as  he  was  still  a  slave  at  law.  In  view  of  these 
circumstances  Csesar  Jackson  was  emancipated  by  act  of  the  legislature. 
64  Ses.,  2  sit..  Statutes,  19.  See  also  Assem.  Jour.,  Jan.  29  to  Feb.  17. 
xActs  of  Gen.  Assem.,  1786.  2Paterson,  307. 

3  29  Ses.,  1  sit.,  Statutes,  460.    The  registration  book  for  Bergen  County  is 
entitled  "Liber  A.     Manumition  of  Slavery."     It  records:  (1)  the  certifi 
cate  by  two  overseers  of  the  poor  and  two  Justices  of  the  Peace;  (2)  the 
deed  of  manumission ;   (3)  the  Justice's  certificate  that  the  deed  is  executed 
voluntarily. 

4  The  certificate  of  health  and  capacity  need  now  be  signed  by  only  one 
overseer  of  the  poor. 


48  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [458 

was  declared  free  by  the  Supreme  Court.  The  court  held  that 
the  above  facts  proven  were  prima  facie  evidence  of  freedom 
and  would  compel  the  defendant  to  prove  a  strict  legal  prop 
erty,  which  he  had  not  done.1  Similarly,  six  years  later,  the 
court  decided  that  a  certain  negro  woman,  who  had  been 
promised  her  freedom  by  her  mistress,  and  who  had  lived  for 
ten  years  as  a  free  woman  with  the  acquiescence  of  the  person 
claiming  her,  was  entitled  to  her  freedom.2  Verbal  declara 
tions  by  a  master  that  after  his  death  his  slave  should  be  free, 
as  a  reward  for  good  behavior,  entitled  the  slave  to  receive 
his  liberty.  In  the  opinion  of  the  court,  these  declarations 
amounted  to  an  actual  manumission  to  take  eifect  on  the  mas 
ter's  death ;  or,  if  they  were  regarded  as  proving  nothing 
more  than  a  promise,  it  was  still  a  promise  binding  upon  the 
master's  executors.3  A  case  in  1794 4  shows  the  limit  to  which 


1  The  State  vs.  Lyon,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  I,  462.  A  slave  woman  named  Flora 
had  been  the  property  of  a  certain  Dr.  Eaton,  of  Shrewsbury.  He  had 
frequently  declared  that  he  was  "  principled  against  slavery ;  that  he  never 
intended  Flora  to  belong  to  his  estate  ;  nor  should  any  of  his  children  be 
entitled  to  hold  her  as  their  property."  After  his  death  his  wife  had  stated 
that  she  had  set  Flora  free.  From  that  time  Flora  was  considered  in  the 
neighborhood  as  a  free  woman ;  and  lived  and  worked  as  such,  with  no 
claim  upon  her  as  a  slave,  for  seventeen  years.  During  this  time  she  had 
married  a  free  negro,  with  whom  she  had  since  lived.  They  had  two 
children  whom  they  had  supported  by  their  industry  and  kept  with  them 
until  one,  Margaret,  was  seized  and  forcibly  carried  away  as  a  slave.  The 
court  decided  that  this  Margaret  Eeap  must  be  set  at  liberty,  as  the  above 
facts  were  not  opposed  by  proof  of  strict  legal  property. 

2 1795.  The  State  vs.  M' Donald  and  Armstrong,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  I, 
382  (Coxe. )  A  slave  had  been  promised  her  freedom  upon  the  death  of 
her  mistress.  From  the  time  this  death  occurred  the  negro  had  lived  as  a 
free  woman  and  had  worked  for  herself  in  various  places.  She  had  mar 
ried  a  free  negro  and  had  three  children  by  him.  For  ten  years  the  hus 
band  of  her  late  mistress  acquiesced  in  the  arrangement,  but  at  the  end  of 
this  period  gave  to  a  man  a  bill  of  sale  for  the  negro.  The  court  held  that 
these  facts  were  sufficient  evidence  of  the  woman's  right  to  her  liberty. 

3 1790.  The  State  vs.  Administrators  of  Prall,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  I,  4 
(Coxe) ;  also  Halsted,  N.  J.  Digest,  pp.  831,  832,  sec,  23. 

4  The  State  vs.  Frees.    N.  J.  L.  R.,  I,  299  (Coxe.) 


459]      The  Legal  and  Social  Position  of  the  Negro.          49 

the  Supreme  Court  was  willing  to  go  on  this  subject.  It  was 
held  that  mere  general  declarations  of  an  intention  to  set 
negroes  free,  unaccompanied  by  any  express  promise  or  under 
standing,  were  insufficient  authority  for  the  court  to  declare 
the  negroes  free.1 

In  1793,  we  find  a  very  liberal  interpretation  of  the  law 
when  the  court  ignores  the  legal  requirement  of  security.  A 
certain  slave  owner  had,  by  will,  manumitted  all  his  slaves. 
One,  a  boy,  could  not  be  considered  as  manumitted  until  the 
administrators  had  given  the  security  required  by  law.  In 
stead  of  giving  security  they  united  with  the  heirs  in  selling 
the  boy.  The  court  decided  that  the  boy  was  entitled  to  his 
freedom  whether  the  administrators  had  given  the  security  or 
not.2 

Slaves  left  by  will  to  be  sold  for  a  term  of  years  and  then 
be  free,  were  held  to  be  free  from  the  time  of  sale.  As  soon 
as  sold  they  were  merely  servants  for  a  term  of  years  and  no 
longer  slaves.  Any  children  born  to  them  during  the  period 
of  service  were  free.3 

The  authority  of  the  act  of  1798  was  judicially  established 
in  1806.  The  supreme  court  declared  that  instruments  of 
manumission  must  be  executed  conformably  to  that  law.4 
Again  in  1842,  in  a  case  to  prove  legal  settlement,5  it  was 

1  If  a  master  had  made  a  contract  with  his  slave  for  his  freedom  and  the 
terms  had  been  fully  complied  with,  the  negro  was  entitled  to  his  freedom 
although  afterwards  sold  by  his  master.  Halsted,  N.  J.  Digest,  pp.  831, 
832,  sec.  26. 

*The  State  vs.  Pitney.    N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  I, 192  (Coxe.) 

3 1790.    The  State  vs.  Anderson.     N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  I,  41. 

*The  State  vs.  Emmons.  N.  J.  Law  Rep.  (1st  Pennington,  3rd  ed.,  pp. 
6-16).  The  counsel  for  the  State  endeavored  to  establish  a  distinction 
between  emancipation  as  it  respects  the  owner,  and  emancipation  as  it 
respects  the  State.  He  argued  that  so  far  as  the  master  was  concerned  any 
kind  of  manumission  might  be  valid,  but  at  the  same  time  be  void  so  far  as 
it  affected  the  government.  The  court  held  that  "slavery  was  an  entire 
thing ; "  that  a  negro  could  not  be  considered  as  at  once  slave  and  free. 

5  The  Overseers  of  the  Poor  of  Perth  Amboy  vs.  The  Overseers  of  the 
Poor  of  Piscataway.  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  XIX,  173-181  (4th  Harrison). 

4 


50  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [460 

held  that  "a  deed  of  manumission  although  acknowledged 
and  recorded,  was  not  valid  unless  executed  in  the  presence  of 
at  least  two  witnesses'7 1  as  the  act  of  1798  required.2 

Rights  and  Privileges  of  Slaves  and  Free  Negroes. 

The  protection  of  slaves  from  ill-treatment  by  their  masters 
received  some  attention  in  New  Jersey  legislation.  As  early 
as  1682,  in  the  Proprietary  Colony,  one  section  of  a  "  Bill  for 
the  general  laws  of  the  Province  of  East  New-Jersey  "  pro 
vides  "  that  all  masters  and  mistresses  having  negro  slaves,  or 
others,  shall  allow  them  sufficient  accommodation  of  victuals 
and  clothing." 3  Queen  Anne's  instructions  to  the  first  royal 
governor,  Lord  Cornbury,  required  him  to  endeavor  to  get  a 
law  passed  protecting  servants  and  slaves  from  "inhuman 
severity  "  on  the  part  of  their  masters.  The  "  Instructions  " 
directed  that  this  law  should  provide  capital  punishment  for 
the  "  willful  killing  of  Indians  and  negroes  "  and  a  suitable 
penalty  for  the  "  maiming  of  them." 4  Again,  in  the  early 
legislation  of  the  State,  one  of  the  reasons  given  for  the  enact 
ment  of  the  slave  law  of  1786  was  "that  such  [slaves]  as  are 
under  servitude  in  the  State  ought  to  be  protected  by  law  from 
those  exercises  of  wanton  cruelty  too  often  practiced  upon 
them."  Any  person  "  inhumanly  treating  and  abusing  "  his 
slave  might  be  indicted  by  the  grand  jury,  and  on  conviction 
might  be  fined.5 

1  There  had  been  many  instances  in  which  deeds  of  manumission  had 
been  executed  conformably  to  law  in  every  respect,  excepting  that  there 
had  been  but  one  witness.     These  manumissions  were  made  valid  by  a 
special  act  of  the  legislature  in  1844  (68  Ses.,  2  sit.,  Statutes,  138). 

2  In  a  case  of  postponement  of  a  trial  by  habeas  corpus  the  defendant  was 
ordered  to  enter  into  recognizance  to  produce  the  negro  at  the  future  trial 
and,  in  case  of  adverse  judgment,  to  pay  for  the  services  of  the  negro 
during  the  intervening  time.     Halsted's  Digest,  p.  831,  sec.  21.     In  another 
case  the  defendant  was  ordered  to  enter  into  recognizance  not  to  send  the 
negro  out  of  the  State  (Halsted's  Digest,  p.  831,  sec.  22). 

3  L.  and  S.,  237.  4  Ibid.,  640-642. 

5  Laws  of  N.  J.,  1786.    This  provision  was  repeated  in  the  law  of  1798. 


461]      The  Legal  and  Social  Position  of  the  Negro.          51 

The  owner1  of  a  slave  was  held  in  law  obliged  to  support 
the  slave  at  all  times,  provided  that  the  negro  had  not  been 
legally  manumitted.  If  the  master  became  insolvent  and  so 
unable  to  provide  for  his  slave,  the  negro,  if  unable  to  main 
tain  himself,  was  treated  as  a  pauper.  Any  person,  "  fraudu 
lently  selling  an  aged  or  decrepit  slave  to  a  poor  person  unable 
to  support  him/7  was  liable  to  punishment  by  a  fine  of  $40. 2 
A  master  who  had  disclaimed  all  responsibility  for  the  support 
of  his  slave  could  not  be  held  liable  to  a  third  person  for  the 
negro's  maintenance.3  Yet,  if  the  overseer  of  the  poor  had 
found  the  slave  in  actual  want,  it  would  have  been  his  duty 
to  give  immediate  relief,  and  then  recover  from  the  master. 

The  value  and  need  of  some  amount  of  education  for  slaves 
was  recognized  soon  after  the  establishment  of  the  State  gov 
ernment.  The  law  of  1788  provided  that  all  slaves  and 
colored  servants  for  life  or  years,  born  after  the  publication  of 
the  act,  should  be  taught  to  read  before  they  reached  the  age 
of  twenty-one  years.  Any  owner  failing  to  supply  this  in 
struction  was  to  forfeit  the  sum  of  five  pounds.4 


1  After  the  master's  death  the  heirs  were  held  responsible  for  the  slave's 
support.    Chatham  vs.  Canfield,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  VIII,  63-65,  decided  what 
circumstances  were  sufficient  proof  of  a  testator's  ownership  of  a  slave  to 
make  the  executors  liable  for  the  negro's  maintenance  (1824.) 

2  Law  of  1798.     Paterson,  307. 

3 1840.  Force  vs.  Haines,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  XVII,  385-414  (2nd  Harri 
son.)  Force  had  refused  to  support  his  slave,  an  infirm  and  helpless  crip 
ple.  Elizabeth  Haines,  having  maintained  the  negro  for  several  years, 
finally  sued  Force  for  the  cost  of  "  board,  clothing,  and  necessaries  furnished 
for  his  slave." 

4  Acts  of  13th.  Gen.  Assem.  The  provision  was  reenacted  in  the  law  of 
1798. 

At  first  sight  this  fine  might  seem  trifling ;  but  it  was  probably  quite 
sufficient  to  be  a  severe  penalty,  considering  the  small  charge  made  for 
teaching  at  the  time.  School  bills  given  by  Mr.  Mellick  show  how  low  the 
charges  were.  Christopher  Logan  had  a  bill  against  the  "  Estate  of  Aaron 
Melick  Dec'd,"  "  To  Schooling  Negro  boy  Joe  61  days  $1.39 ; "  later  "  Wm. 
Hambly,  teacher,"  charges  "  $4.16  for  159*  days  Schooling."  (Story  of  an  old 
Farm,  p.  608.) 


•jftr    Of  T 


52  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [462 

All  black  men  were  presumed  to  be  slaves  until  the  contrary 
appeared,  as  has  been  shown  earlier  in  this  paper.1  The  Su 
preme  Court  held  to  this  position  even  as  late  as  1826,  when 
the  free  negroes  numbered  twice  as  many  as  the  slaves,  and 
only  receded  from  it  ten  years  later  when  the  injustice  of  the 
ruling  had  become  very  evident.  Nevertheless,  the  court 
early  decided  that  any  person  claiming  a  particular  negro  as  a 
slave  must  prove  a  good  title  to  him.2  A  negro  thus  claimed 
need  not  prove  himself  absolutely  a  freeman  in  order  to  obtain 
his  liberty.  If  he  disproved  the  right  of  the  person  who 
claimed  him,  that  was  sufficient.  That  the  negro  had  been 
actually  held  as  property  and  had  acquiesced  in  the  arrange 
ment  was  no  proof  of  a  good  title. 

In  most  cases  at  law  no  slave  might  be  a  witness.  He  was 
allowed  to  testify  in  criminal  cases  when  his  evidence  was  for 
or  against  another  slave.3  The  presumption  of  slavery  arising 
from  color  must  be  overcome  before  a  negro  could  be  received 
as  a  witness.  A  slave  might  not  be  a  witness  even  to  show 
whether  he  were  bond  or  free.  His  declarations  on  that  point 
might  not  legally  be  accepted  as  evidence.4  That  a  negro  was 
reputed  free  from  childhood,  or  had  lived  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  as  a  freeman  for  more  than  twenty  years,  the  courts 
decided  was  sufficient  proof  to  overcome  the  presumption 
arising  from  color,  and  permit  the  negro  to  be  admitted  as  a 
witness.5  Free  negroes,  therefore,  were  commonly  received  as 
witnesses. 

In  1760 6  the  enlistment  of  slaves,  without  the  express  per 
mission  in  writing  of  their  masters,  was  forbidden.  This 
provision  evidently  was  caused,  not  by  prejudice  against  the 
negro,  but  by  unwillingness  to  deprive  masters  of  the  services 

1  Supra,  p.  34. 

S1795.     The  State  vs.  Heddon.    N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  I,  377. 

3  Acts  of  1714  and  1798. 

*  1826.    Fox  vs.  Lambson,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  VIII,  339-347. 

6  Ibid.,  and  Potts  vs.  Harper,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  Ill,  583. 

6Nevill,  II,  267. 


463]      The  Legal  and  Social  Position  of  the  Negro.          53 

of  their  slaves.  The  occasion  of  the  prohibition  was  the 
raising  of  one  thousand  volunteers  for  a  campaign  against 
Canada  in  the  French  and  Indian  War.  To  what  extent 
negroes  in  New  Jersey  took  part  or  aided  in  the  Revolution 
it  is  difficult  to  determine.  A  law  of  1780  for  the  recruiting 
of  the  remainder  of  New  Jersey's  quota  of  troops  for  the 
service  of  the  United  States  forbids  the  enlistment  of  slaves.1 
The  following  year  a  law  for  the  same  purpose  repeats  the 
prohibition.2  Yet  slaves  from  New  Jersey  served,  in  various 
capacities,  both  the  State  and  the  Federal  Government  during 
the  war.  Two  instances  are  recorded  when  a  slave  was  manu 
mitted  by  act  of  legislature  as  a  reward  for  faithful  service 
of  the  Revolutionary  cause.  Peter  Williams,  a  slave  who 
belonged  to  a  Tory  of  Woodbridge,  having  been  taken  within 
the  British  lines  by  his  master,  escaped  through  them  in  1780. 
He  served  for  some  time  with  the  State  troops  and  later 
enlisted  in  the  Continental  army,  serving  there  until  the  close 
of  the  war.  When  his  master's  estate  was  confiscated  he 
became  the  property  of  the  State,  and,  in  1784,  was  set  free 
by  an  act  of  the  legislature.3  Five  years  later  a  slave  named 
Cato,  part  of  the  confiscated  estate  of  another  Woodbridge 
Tory,  received  his  freedom  in  the  same  manner.  The  act 
declared  that  Cato  had  "  rendered  essential  service  both  to  this 
State  and  the  United  States  in  the  time  of  the  late  war." 4 

In  the  Colonial  period  freedmen  were  denied  the  right  to 
hold  real  estate.  The  law  of  1714  enacted  that  no  negro, 
Indian,  or  mulatto  thereafter  manumitted  should  hold  real 


1 5th  Assembly,  N.  J.  Laws.  s  Wilson,  209. 

3  8  Ses.,  2  sit.,  Statutes,  110 ;  Assam.  Jour.,  Aug.  30  to  Sept.  1,  1784. 

4 14  Ses ,  1  sit.,  Statutes,  538;  Assem.  Jour.,  Nov.  13-25,  1789.  In  1786 
another  negro,  named  Prime,  the  property  of  the  State,  was  emancipated  by 
special  statute.  He  had  formerly  been  the  slave  of  a  Tory  of  Princeton. 
No  specific  reason  was  given  for  this  action  other  than,  that  "  the  legislature 
was  desirous  of  extending  the  blessings  of  liberty  and  the  said  negro  Prime 
hath  shown  himself  entitled  to  their  favorable  notice."  11  Ses.,  1  sit., 
Statutes,  368. 


54  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [464 

estate  "  in  his  or  her  own  right,  in  fee  simple  or  fee  tail "  but 
the  same  should  a  escheat  to  her  Majesty,  her  heirs  and  succes 
sors."1  A  free  negro  was  entitled  to  vote  in  the  State  during 
the  early  years.  The  suffrage  was  not  confined  to  whites  by 
the  constitution  adopted  in  1776.2  Article  IV  states  that  "all 
inhabitants  of  this  Colony,  of  full  age,  who  are  worth  fifty 
pounds  .  .  .  and  have  resided  within  the  county  "  for  twelve 
months,  are  entitled  to  vote.3  A  new  constitution  in  1844 
limited  the  elective  franchise  to  whites.4 

The  provision  for  allowing  free  negroes  to  gain  a  legal  set 
tlement  is  of  interest,  because  upon  legal  settlement  depended 
the  responsibility  of  a  township  for  the  support  of  its  colored 
paupers.  A  manumitted  slave  had  a  legal  settlement  in  the 
place  where  his  master's  legal  settlement  was.5  The  children 
of  slaves  born  free  were  deemed  settled  in  the  township  in 
which  they  were  born ;  but  might  gain  a  new  settlement  in 
the  same  manner  as  whites,  or  in  any  township  where  they 
had  served  seven  years.6  No  slave  whose  master  had  not 
become  insolvent  could  gain  a  legal  settlement  in  any  town 
ship.7  This  inability  of  slaves  to  acquire  a  settlement  was 


l,  I,  18.  2Poore's  Collection.    Wilson,  Acts  (1776-1783). 

3  In  1793,  as  proof  of  the  illegality  of  an  election  for  fixing  on  a  site  for 
the  Middlesex  County  jail  and  court  house,  it  was  stated  that  "  a  negro 
man  was  admitted  to  vote,  who  had  no  legal  residence,  and  his  declaration 
that  he  had  been  manumitted  in  another  State  was  received  as  sufficient 
proof  of  his  being  entitled  to  vote.''     The  implication  here  is  that  a  negro 
able  to  show  clear  proof  of  his  freedom,  and  having  a  legal  residence,  was 
entitled  to  vote.     The  State  vs.  Justices,  etc.,  of  Middlesex,  JV.  J.  Law  Rep., 
I,  283,  284  (Coxe). 

4  Poore's  Collection,  1315.  5  Law  of  1798.     Paterson,  307. 
6 1820.     44  Ses. ;  Statutes,  166. 

7 1824.  South  Brunswick  vs.  East  Windsor,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  VIII,  78-83 
(3rd  Halsted). 

.As  has  been  shown,  Supra,  pp.  45  and  51,  a  helpless  slave  was  not  allowed 
to  suffer  because  his  master  was  able  to  maintain  him  and  yet  refused  to  do 
so.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  overseer  of  the  poor  of  the  township  where 
such  a  slave  happened  to  be,  to  give  relief  and  then  recover  from  the  owner 
if  possible. 


465]      The  Legal  and  Social  Position  of  the  Negro.          55 

established  in  several  cases  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court, 
where  one  township  endeavored  to  prove  the  legal  settlement 
of  a  destitute  negro  in  another  township,  and  then  to  shift  the 
burden  of  his  support.1  It  is  the  latest  form  in  which  I  have 
found  the  influence  of  slavery  traceable  in  New  Jersey  law. 


Social  Condition  of  Slaves. 

The  use  of  slave  labor  was,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  very 
general  in  the  eastern  portion  of  New  Jersey.  Interesting 
information  on  the  social  condition  of  slaves  is  afforded  by 
advertisements  in  newspapers 2  published  during  the  Colonial 
period  and  in  the  early  years  of  the  State.  Male  slaves  were 
employed  as  farm  laborers  of  all  sorts,  stablemen,  coachmen, 
stage  drivers,  sailors,  boatmen,  miners,  iron  workers,  saw-mill 
hands,  house  and  ship  carpenters,  wheel-wrights,  coopers, 
tanners,  shoemakers,  millers,  bakers,  cooks,  and  for  various 
kinds  of  service  within  the  house  or  about  the  master's  person. 
Slave  women  were  employed  at  all  kinds  of  household  service, 
including  cooking,  sewing,  spinning  and  knitting ;  and  as 
dressing  maid,  barber,  nurse,  farm  servants,  etc.  If  a  woman 
had  children  she  was  rendered  less  desirable  as  a  slave.  That 
the  laxness  of  morals  ordinarily  found  among  African  slaves 
was  present  in  New  Jersey  is  sufficiently  evident.3  Frequently 
slave  women  were  offered  for  sale  for  no  other  reason  than 
that  they  had  children.  They  were,  in  some  cases,  sold  with 
out  their  child. 


1 1824.     South  Brunswick  vs.  East  Windsor. 

1842.  Overseers  of  the  Poor  of  Perth  Amboy  vs.  Overseers  of  the  Poor 
of  Piscataway,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  XIX,  173-181  (4  Harrison). 

1857.  Overseers  of  Morris  vs.  Overseers  of  Warren,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.  (2 
Dutcher,  312). 

2  The  Newark  Centinel  of  Freedom,  the  Trenton  True  American  and  excerpts 
from  the  Colonial  journals  published  in  JV.  J.  Ar.,  XI  and  XII. 

3  See  The  State  vs.  Anderson,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  I,  41,  and  The  State  vs. 
Mount,  N.  J.  Law  Rep.,  I,  337. 


56  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [466 

The  newspapers  contained  many  notices  of  reward  for  the 
return  of  fugitive  slaves.  In  some  cases  the  returned  fugitive 
seems  to  have  been  treated  very  leniently.  One  instance  is 
recorded  in  which  he  received  no  punishment  whatever.1  In 
another  case  the  advertisement  promises  that  if  he  "shall 
return  voluntarily,  he  shall  be  forgiven,  and  have  a  new 
master.7' 2  Slaves  of  both  sexes  and  various  ages  were  among 
the  fugitives.  A  man  fled  and  left  behind  a  wife  and  child. 
A  woman  with  a  child  of  nine  mouths  ran  away.  Slaves 
occasionally  escaped  by  the  ferries  from  Elizabeth-Town  and 
Perth  Amboy  to  New  York.3  In  1734,  three  were  thought 
to  have  gone  off  in  a  canoe  toward  Connecticut  and  Rhode 
Island.  Others  attempted  to  get  on  board  some  vessel,  or 
sought  a  chance  to  go  privateering.  A  slave  sometimes  escaped 
on  the  back  of  his  master's  horse. 

Negroes  were  frequently  sold  for  a  term  of  years.  Slaves 
were  at  times  hired  out  by  their  masters  ; 4  occasionally  a  plan 
tation  together  with  the  negroes  to  cultivate  it  was  rented,  or  a 
mine  with  the  slaves  to  work  it.5  A  negro  indented  servant  is 
mentioned  in  1802.  In  1794,  a  slave  was  given  as  a  donation 
to  the  Newark  Academy  to  be  sold  for  as  much  as  he  would 
bring.6  The  Rev.  Moses  Ogden  bought  him  for  fourteen 
pounds.  Mr.  Atkinson  states  that  this  clergyman  owned  a 
number  of  slaves  whom  he  employed  to  work  his  farm  lands.7 
The  slave's  position  as  a  chattel  is  brought  out  clearly  in  many 
advertisements  of  sales  where  slaves  are  classed  with  horses, 
cattle,  farming  utensils  and  household  goods.8 

1  Cenlinel  of  Freedom,  VI,  No.  34.        2  Ibid.,  IV,  45.  3  Supra,  p.  34. 

4  Centinel  of  Freedom,  VI,  No.  14.  » N.  J.  Ar.,  XII,  186,  251. 

6  Atkinson,  History  of  Newark,  N.  J.,  170-172. 

7  Moses  Newell  Combs,  another  Newarker  of  the  same  period,  was  a  rep 
resentative  of  the  anti-slavery  sentiment.     He  was  noted  for  the  free  school 
which  he  established  for  his  apprentices,  but  also  advocated  zealously  the 
emancipation  of  slaves.     This  latter  principle  he  himself  put  into  practice 
by  manumitting  a  negro  that  he  owned  (Atkinson,  148). 

8  For  example,  the  notice  of  the  sale  of  a  farm  at  Elizabeth,  in  1801, 
reads :  "  On  the  above  farm  is  also  to  be  sold  a  negro  man  with  four  children, 
a  horse,  chair,  cows,  and  farming  utensils  "  (Centinel  of  Freedom,  VI,  11). 


467]      The  Legal  and  Social  Position  of  the  Negro.          57 

Slaves  were,  on  the  whole,  well  treated  in  New  Jersey.  In 
most  cases,  they  lived  in  close  personal  relations  with  the 
master's  family  and  were  regarded  by  him  as  proper  subjects 
for  his  care  and  protection.  As  early  as  1740  there  is  record 
of  a  slave  that  could  read  and  write.1  Frequently  slaves  spoke 
both  English  and  Dutch.2  Many  slaves  played  the  violin 
with  considerable  proficiency.  Under  the  Colonial  laws,  it  is 
true,  slaves  accused  of  crime  received  severe  treatment;  but 
this  severity  must  be  viewed  as  part  of  the  criminal  law  of  an 
eighteenth  century  Colonial  society,  stern  both  from  its  origin 
and  from  its  individual  development. 

Mr.  Mellick,  in  his  "  Story  of  an  old  Farm,"  gives  a  very 
entertaining  description  of  slavery  on  a  farm  at  Bed  minster 
in  Somerset  County.  The  first  negro  purchased  was  a  pic 
turesque  creature  of  somewhat  eccentric  habits.  He  was  a 
"master-hand  at  tanning,  currying  and  finishing  leather;" 
and,  indeed,  these  accomplishments  were  the  attractions  that 
overcame  the  scruples  of  the  family  against  slave-holding,  at 
a  time  when  there  was  great  need  of  help  in  the  tannery.  The 
slaves  of  the  farm  were  granted  their  holidays  and  enjoyments. 
In  the  week  following  Christmas  they  generally  gave  a  party 
to  which  the  respectable  colored  people  of  the  neighborhood 
were  invited.  The  whole  week  was  one  of  great  festivity,  and 
but  little  work  was  expected  of  the  blacks.  Again,  the  day 
of  "general  training"  (usually  in  June),  was  another  great 
holiday  for  these  slaves.  This  drill  of  the  militia  was  re 
garded  as  a  kind  of  fair  and  was  a  time  of  great  sociability. 
The  family  negroes  all  attended  in  a  large  wagon,  taking  with 
them  root  beer  and  ginger  cakes  to  offer  for  sale. 

Mr.  Mellick  gives  copies  of  bills  for  the  schooling3  of  the 
negro  children,  showing  that  in  this  family  the  law  that  slaves 
should  be  taught  to  read  was  well  observed.  When  the  farmer 
died,  his  will  disposed  of  the  negroes  so  that  those  who  did 

1 N.  J.  Ar.t  XII,  51.  8  N.  J.  Ar.,  XI,  209 ;  XII,  102,  306. 

3  tiupra,  p.  51,  note. 

5 


58  A  Study  of  Slavery  in  New  Jersey.  [468 

not  remain  on  the  old  farm  were  comfortably  placed  with 
friends  of  his.  The  boys  and  girls  were  sold  for  terms  of 
years  merely.  This  shows  a  considerate  interest  in  the  happi 
ness  of  slaves,  together  with  a  consistent  regard  for  the  welfare 
of  his  family.1 

Slavery  was  very  evidently  an  institution  in  New  Jersey  life. 
During  the  eighteenth  century  especially,  the  use  of  slave 
labor  became  very  common  in  many  sections.  Yet,  in  other 
parts,  during  the  same  period,  an  anti-slavery  sentiment  was 
growing,  the  strength  of  which  was  shown  when  the  Friends 
in  1776  denied  the  right  of  membership  in  their  Society  to 
slave  holders.  The  anti-slavery  movement  progressed  steadily, 
after  the  Revolution  largely  under  the  leadership  of  the  aboli 
tion  societies.  Its  influence  toward  practical  ends  is  seen  in 
the  extinction  of  the  slave  trade ;  in  the  activity  of  various 
philanthropic  men  in  securing  to  negroes  their  rights  before 
the  courts ;  and,  later,  in  the  gradual  emancipation  begun  in 
1804. 

After  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery  in  New  Jersey  had 
been  secured  by  law,  the  local  anti-slavery  movement  merged 
into  the  larger  agitation  going  on  throughout  the  nation.  The 
resolutions  of  the  legislature  in  1824,  1847,  and  1849  show 
that  the  people  of  New  Jersey  early  recognized  the  connection 
of  the  institution  of  slavery  with  national  interests. 


Mellick,  A.  D.,  Story  of  an  Old  Farm,  pp.  602-612. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


The  following  is  a  list  of  the  principal  works  used  in  the  preparation  of 
this  monograph : 

Allinson,  Samuel.  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Province  of  New 
Jersey  (1702-1776).  Burlington,  1776. 

Atkinson,  Joseph.     History  of  Newark,  N.  J.     Newark,  1878. 

Bancroft,  George.     History  of  the  United  States  of  America.     9th  ed. 

Bergen  County  Records.  "B.  C.  Liber  A,"  folio  May  29,  1715  to  1790. 
"  Black  Births,  1804,"  folio  July  28,  1804,  to  March  14, 1843.  "  Liber 
A  of  Manumition  of  Slavery,"  June  17,  1805,  to  July  26,  1841. 

Blake,  W.  O.     Ancient  and  Modern  Slavery. 

Brackett,  J.  R.    Status  of  the  Slave. 

Census  Reports  of  the  United  States. 

"Centinel  of  Freedom."     Newark,  N.  J. 

Dally,  J.  W.     Woodbridge  and  Vicinity.     New  Brunswick,  1873. 

Gordon,  Thomas.    History  of  New  Jersey.    Gazetteer  of  New  Jersey,  1834. 

Hatfield,  E.  F.    History  of  Elizabeth,  N.  J.     New  York,  1868. 

Laws  of  New  Jersey.    Yearly  edition.    Revision  of  1821 ;  Revision  of  1847. 

Learning  and  Spicer.  The  grants,  concessions  and  original  constitutions  of 
the  Province  of  New  Jersey.  The  acts  passed  during  the  Proprietary 
governments,  and  other  material  transactions  before  the  surrender 
thereof  to  Queen  Anne.  The  instrument  of  surrender  and  her  formal 
acceptance  thereof.  Lord  Cornbury's  commission  and  instructions  con 
sequent  thereon.  Philadelphia. 

Mellick,  A.  D.  The  Story  of  an  Old  Farm  or  Life  in  New  Jersey  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century.  Somerville,  N.  J.,  1889. 

Moore,  G.  H.    Notes  on  the  History  of  Slavery  in  Massachusetts. 

Kevill,  Samuel.  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Province  of  New 
Jersey  (1703-1761).  Woodbridge,  1761. 

New  Jersey  Archives.  Vols.  I-X.  Documents  relating  to  the  Colonial 
History  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey  (1631-1776),  Vols.  XI-XII.  Ex 
cerpts  from  various  Colonial  newspapers,  treating  of  New  Jersey 
History,  Vols.  XIII-XVIII.  Journal  of  the  Governor  and  Council 
(1682-1775).  Trenton,  1890-1893. 

59 


60  Bibliography.  [470 

New  Jersey  Law  Reports.    I-XXIX  (1790-1863). 

Paterson,  William.  Laws  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  revised  and  pub 
lished  under  the  authority  of  the  legislature.  Newark,  1800. 

Poore.    Charters  and  Constitutions. 

Proceedings  of  the  General  Assembly  of  New  Jersey. 

Smith,  Samuel.  The  History  of  the  Colony  of  Nova-Caesarea,  or  New 
Jersey.  Burlington,  1765. 

Snell,  J.  P.  History  of  Sussex  and  Warren  Counties,  N.  J.  Philadelphia, 
1881. 

"  True  American."    Trenton,  N.  J. 

Whitehead,  W.  A.  Contributions  to  the  early  History  of  Perth  Amboy. 
New  York,  1856.  East  Jersey  under  the  Proprietary  Governments. 
Newark,  1875. 

Whittier,  J.  G.  (editor),  John  Woolman's  Journal. 

Williams.    History  of  the  Negro  Race  in  America. 

Wilson,  Peter.  Acts  of  the  Council  and  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of 
New  Jersey  (1776-1783).  Trenton,  1784. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals    and    recharges    may    be    made    4    days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


6  1996 


20,000(4/94) 


LD21-35m-8,'72 
(Q4189S10)476 — A-32 


--TO-O,   (jy 

(J9096slO)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


Berkeley 


||  GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


80002^3531 


OP»-. 
3D>3> 


B^Hra