USA > North Carolina > Toward freedom for all : North Carolina Quakers and slavery > Part 4
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16
Since the state legislature had acted so consistently to support the actions of the county courts, it now became evident that if Friends were to fulfill the obligation they felt to look after their former slaves they would have to deal directly with the legislature. Legalists that they were, they prepared in October, 1779, the first of a long series of petitions to the legislature. Like all the rest, it was designed for the two-fold purpose of enlarging the freedom of the blacks and permitting themselves to live under the law in good conscience.
Loyal subjects of the King in the beginning of the Revolution, by 1779 they seemed to find little difficulty in accepting the de facto existence of the
27
QUAKERS/SLAVERY IN COLONIAL NORTH CAROLINA
Republic. Indeed, they found the idealism of the Declaration of Independence much to their liking and made free use of it in their arguments. Yet, despite the declaration of intent on the part of the Republic, Friends found themselves frustrated and injured. When they tried to make freedom a reality for their slaves, those unhappy creatures were promptly picked up and sold at public auction by the county courts, unless reclaimed by their former owners.
In substance, the Quaker petition of 1779 is an eloquent answer to the charge that Friends had deliberately disrupted the peace and fomented domestic insur- rection. Rather, they held, they had acted on the principles that "freedom is the natural right of all mankind," and that holding people in bondage is a viola- tion of the injunction of Christ to "(do) to others as we would be done by." Furthermore, they argued, the North Carolina Legislature had violated the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The law of 1779 was ex post facto, being applied after the fact to acts committed before the law was enacted. In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and other states, they declared, manu- mission was frequent, and even in neighboring Virginia many slaves had been freed since 1775. "Wherefore," concluded the petition, "we earnestly interest you to take the whole matter under your Serious consideration and relieve the oppressed."55
This petition was signed by Caleb White, Matthew White, Joseph Henley, Zach. Nixon, Benj. Albertson, Thomas Nicholson, Wm. Albertson, Thos. Newby, Chalkley Albertson, George Walton and Thos. White. These were the same eleven men who had freed their slaves in 1777, and they were instructed to sign in behalf of the yearly meeting. In keeping with the established practice of the yearly meeting, these same Friends were appointed guardians of their former slaves, to "protect them from Suffering by the Hands of evil and design- ing Men." However, feeling was running so high on the matter at that time that some friendly legislators advised the Quakers not to present their petition in 1779.56 It was consequently withheld, but it is preserved in the yearly meeting records and reflects admirably the views and moods of Friends in North Carolina at that time.
The year 1779 provides something of a watershed in the history of North Carolina and of Quakers in the state. The final defeat of the British at Yorktown was only two years away, and even the Quakers were recognizing and doing business with the North Carolina State Legislature. The lines were drawn in a long struggle between the Quakers, who had at last committed themselves to a policy of manumission-with-responsibility, and the state legislature, which seemed strongly committed to the prevention of manumission on any significant scale. For the short run, it was an unequal struggle weighted heavily in favor of the legislature, but in the long run, the moral judgment of the Quakers would be vindicated by the national conscience and the course of American history.
Slaves Given Freedom
Internal life of the Society of Friends continued along traditional lines during the final decades of the eighteenth century. As Friends gathered in the yearly meeting each year, there was a monotonous sameness to the reports from the quarterly meetings. In general, it was said, Friends were "tolerable faithful" in living by the required norms stated in the queries, although there were always reports of some who went to taverns "more than necessary" and engaged in other questionable activities. On the positive side, there was a growing interest in education, and Friends were admonished to provide schools for their children and the black children under their care. As for the latter, the quarterly meet- ings always freely admitted that they had been woefully negligent.1 Indian affairs received some attention as population pressed westward. A minute from the yearly meeting to the quarterly meetings in 1791 directed Friends to be careful not to settle on unpurchased Indian lands.2
For the first time, there was talk about looking after the needs of the poor, no doubt reflecting the economic distress of the young republic. On the local level, the minutes of the monthly meetings recorded a generous number of private sins: a man fathered a child out of wedlock; a woman gave birth to a "base born" baby; a young man was keeping an attractive young widow in his home as a housekeeper; Friends married non-Friends; some were given to foul language; some got involved in fights. At Cane Creek Monthly Meeting, one Thomas Branson sat in meeting and frowned at another Friend, or as the minutes say, showed "public dislike of a friend in time of Prayer."3 Such acts brought admonishment and probation while an effort was made to reconcile the offender, but if he remained unrepentant, as did Thomas Branson, he was finally disowned.
An integral part of the earnest concern for living upright lives was the growing desire to be rid of the moral taint of slavery. When Thomas Newby and his friends freed their slaves in 1777, they were far from wanting to incite slaves to insurrection, as the legislature supposed. The act came, rather, from a
29
SLAVES GIVEN FREEDOM
conviction of sin. If others differed from this view, they were not under the same obligation. George Fox, himself a pacifist, had advised William Penn to wear his sword as long as he could, and Thomas Newby, in the same spirit, had kept his slaves until his conscience no longer allowed him to keep men in bondage. To save his soul, he had to free his slaves. This was the starting point, and to a considerable extent continued to be the primary motive of Quaker antislavery activity in North Carolina. It did not exclude warm feelings of sympathy for the slave, which were clearly present, but it did prevent a militant abolitionism at that period.
The growing anxiety about slavery was reinforced by the founders of the republic. Those champions of liberty and independence were, themselves, quite aware of the contradiction in the existence of slavery in a society dedicated to the ideal of human freedom. Thomas Jefferson was one of those who saw this problem quite clearly. Like the Friends, he was concerned about the degrading influence on the master and society as a whole, as well as the denial of freedom to the slave. "The whole commerce between master and slave," he wrote, "is a perpetual exercise in the boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part and degrading submission on the other."4 In his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, he included a condemnation of the British govern- ment for foisting slavery on the colonies, and his soul-searching on the question of slavery is well-known to Jefferson scholars.5 U.B. Phillips has pointed out that "the liberal philosophy of the Revolution, persisting thereafter in spite of reaction, not only wrought disestablishment of slavery in the North, but prompted private manumissions far and wide."6 Even in France, the Abbé Grégoire, noting that the American Constitution did not abolish slavery, declared: "Blush, ye revolted colonies for having apostasized your own principles."7
THE GREAT MANUMISSION EFFORT
The liberation of forty slaves in Perquimans County in 1777 was only the beginning of a continuing effort. In 1797, Albert Gallatin, of Pennsylvania, presented a petition to Congress in behalf of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends concerning the "134 Negroes" that had been liberated by North Carolina Friends "and again reduced into cruel bondage, under the authority of existing or retrospective laws, husbands and wives and children separated from one another, which we apprehend to be an abominable tragedy." To this charge, Congressmen Thomas Blount and Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, retorted that the North Carolina Quakers were Tories and troublemakers, and that they had only begun to free their slaves after the law was passed prohibit- ing it.8
In any case, it is clear that there were many Quaker manumissions in eastern North Carolina, for the courts of Perquimans and Pasquotank were kept busy with them for years. Prior to the law of 1741, it had been possible in North
30
TOWARD FREEDOM FOR ALL
Carolina to liberate a slave without a written document or court action, although approval of the county court was required after that date. Yet, it seems doubtful that the law was strictly enforced, for Congressmen Blount and Macon charged that Friends only began freeing their slaves after a law was passed prohibiting it. This makes the 1741 law appear to have been a dead letter. Nevertheless, after the law of 1779, Friends did often appear before the courts and request freedom for their slaves.
Thomas Newby, already so well known to us, requested freedom for a girl named "Nacy" (Nancy) of Perquimans County Court on July 9, 1787. He declared that she was:
as orderly as any that I have been acquainted with & hath the character of being very trusty, and one that I should be willing to Imploy in my Service as a hired Servant, but being clearly con- vinced in my mind that it is wrong for me to hold her as a Slave. Therefore beg that the Court be pleased to Tolerate & Confirm her freedom which favour would be gratefully acknowledged.
By Thos. Newby. 9th day 7th, 1787.9
This request was denied, perhaps because in the judgment of the court it did not establish meritorious service, but more likely because Newby's frank avowal of antislavery sentiments recalled the feud between the Quakers and the Perquimans County Court. Furthermore, Thomas Newby had been the prime mover of the original manumissions in 1777.
The precarious position of the many slaves freed in 1777-1778 prompted the petition of twenty-three Quakers for the unmolested freedom of a black man named Peter in 1782. This group, headed by one John Smith and including Joseph and Gideon Newby, addressed the Perquimans County Court as follows:
To the County Court about to Sit in Perquimans The Petition of Several Subscribers Humbly Sheweth that whereas Samuel Smith a few years ago Manumitted a Servant Man named Peter (whose Mother was an Indian and Father a Negro) which said Servant Man hath not been taken up or sold by the Court; and as he has hitherto Always been an Orderly Servant & never that we know of been accused of any Villany, But on the Contrary hath done Several Meritorious Actions in Destroying Vermin such as Bears, Wolves and wild Cats and Foxes. Therefore, we Pray that the Court may take into Consideration and order and Adjudge that he may remain Free and Unmolested as long as he behaves himself well. And your petitioners the Several Subscribers, as in Duty Bound shall ever Pray.
April 6, 178210
Since the courts regarded the manumissions of 1777-1778 to be illegal, this was one of many actions taken by Friends to protect their former slaves from
31
SLAVES GIVEN FREEDOM
"evil and designing men." Many, unlike Peter, were indeed "taken up" by the courts. The fragmentary records of the Perquimans County Court, now in the Department of Archives and History in Raleigh, North Carolina, contain forty- nine receipts for Black persons who were picked up and delivered to the court between 1783 and 1793, but the references in the yearly meeting minutes show clearly that many were apprehended before 1783.
Some of the slips of paper issued as receipts by the Perquimans County Court contain scraps of interesting information. For example, on April 16, 1783, Sheriff (illegible) Williams, of Hertford, issued such a receipt for "Two Negroes said to be set free Contrary to Law and Taken up in order to have their tryall before Court to Wil Himmie (illegible) formerly the Property of Joseph Harchett, Candice, formerly the Property of Thos. White." On October 13, 1788, Sheriff Richard Skinner, of Perquimans County, gave a receipt to Thomas Creecy and William Arrington for the delivery of Ned, a black man "Supposed to have been manumitted or Set Free by Josiah White." So frequently are the names of Thomas Creecy and William Arrington mentioned that it looks as if there had been a running battle between the Quakers who freed their slaves and these two men who picked them up and delivered them to the local jail.
The law specified that the owners of the slaves who had been picked up be notified to come and claim their property, or failing to do so, appear in court and answer for the crime of freeing their slaves illegally. Such summonses were issued to the owners when Quakers began to free their slaves. Copies surviving are those issued to Joseph Hatchett and Thomas White in 1783, Elihu Albertson, John Anderson and Joshua Moore in 1785, Thomas Newby, Exum Newby, Josiah White, Zachariah Nixon, Benjamin Albertson, Jacob White, Hurlbesun (illegible), Miles Elliott, Joseph Henley and Caleb Wilson in 1788. In 1793, Caleb White, Pretlow Bond, Leah Smith, Robert Newby and Hannah Moore were so summoned, and in 1794, Caleb Winslow was called before the County Court to answer for the crime of freeing slaves.11
From the beginning, the yearly meeting took an interest in these cases and provided lawyers to probe every possibility of insuring the freedom of the slaves. During 1776-1777, the standing committee, which had taken charge of slave matters for the yearly meeting, reported that:
They had interfered in behalf of the distressed Negroes and made use of every Expedient that Occurred in their favour, having Employed Lawyers to exert their Abilities in pleading much to the satisfaction of friends, and for their Extraordinary Care and pains, tho' to little purpose at present.12
An undated paper in the records of the Perquimans County Court, entitled "Reasons in Support of Error," gives some insight into the approach used by the defense. It was argued that the court acted arbitrarily and ex post facto with relation to the sale of a black person named Jude, who was freed "under the
32
TOWARD FREEDOM FOR ALL
law of 1777." The paper avers that the law was made to prevent actual disturb- ance in time of war "to deprive men of their chartered rights." It contends that "the owners of the Negroes have not incited to Insurrection in this case or any other - that they are peaceable well meaning Citizens, not having any evil mind against the State or its inhabitants." The paper is signed by W.A. Milton and endorsed by John Hamilton, attorney at law.13
On cases such as this, the standing committee expended sixty-four pounds for lawyer's fees in 1776-1777, and for the ensuing year it requested six-hundred.14 However, judging from the continuous complaints in the annual reports to the yearly meeting, it long continued to be "to little purpose." Slaves manumitted by Quakers were in a precarious position and might be picked up, although how many escaped it like Peter must remain a matter of conjecture.
Having made up their minds to free their slaves, Friends sought to do so legally, but they were determined not to be deterred by laws which they regarded as unjust. Actually, they reached the position which they took in 1776-1778 by a very long and gradual process. We recall that the first glimmer- ing of concern for the slave came at the Perquimans Meeting when Friends there were asked to cease working their slaves on Sundays in 1738, followed in 1740 by approval of the Virginia Yearly Meeting's admonition to "use Negroes well." Again in 1755 there was friendly reception of the caution received from Philadelphia Friends against "buying and keeping Negroes," although the 1758 revision of the Slave Query (number Seven) went only so far as to recommend considerate use of slaves and to encourage them to attend meetings for worship. The same year had seen the establishment of special meetings for worship for slaves.
It was ten years later, in 1768, that the Western Quarterly meeting sought clarification on Query Seven, resulting in the advice to refrain from trafficking in slaves altogether if it could be "reasonably avoided." The yearly meeting rejected the effort to prohibit Friends absolutely from purchasing slaves in 1770, but in 1772 it came one step closer by allowing purchase only from other Friends. In 1773, no slave purchase of any kind could be made without monthly meeting consent, and two years later selling a slave was placed under the same restriction. In 1776, the committee was appointed to assist Friends in manumit- ting their slaves, and in 1778 monthly meetings were forbidden to allow buying and selling slaves under any circumstances.
It is clear, then, that the legislature was mistaken in regarding the 1777 manumissions as capricious, although ill-timed they may have been. In a matter so grave, Friends always move slowly and with caution. In spite of the discipline to which Friends committed themselves, and the frequent disownment of members for infraction of the strict moral code, some Friends continued to hold slaves in the face of the disapproval of the Society. In 1776, the Eastern Quarter had reported to the yearly meeting that applying the 1775 order prohibiting the buying and selling of slaves without the permission of the monthly meeting "(appeared) too difficult for them to determine," and requested advice and
33
SLAVES GIVEN FREEDOM
assistance from the yearly meeting. The response of the yearly meeting at that time had been to reaffirm its opposition to slavery and to direct that "the meeting shall testify against" (that is, disown) those who refused to take steps to free themselves of slavery.15 Thus, the order was not intended to demand immediate emancipation of all slaves, but to bring at least a declaration of intent. The thing was to be done, to borrow a phrase from a latter day Supreme Court decision, with "all deliberate speed."
Accordingly, manumissions continued under the weight of individual consciences and from encouragement by the representatives of the yearly meeting. After the Revolution, the Perquimans and Pasquotank county courts seemed to have relaxed, to some degree, the rigid position they took under the stress of war. A simple formula was used by the courts to grant slaves their freedom, as follows:
(James Williams) hath been this day by the Worshipful County Court liberated and set free from slavery in as full and ample manner, as the laws of the said state (North Carolina) will admit . . . 16
When one wished to free a slave after 1791, he was required to post bond in the amount of two hundred pounds.17 In 1801, the bond stipulated was one thousand dollars,18 but in actuality the amount was set by the county court in each case and varied greatly. In the Perquimans records, the amount ranged from one thousand pounds for a certain Dolley James, for whom Miles Turner and others went bond in 1799,19 down to a mere one hundred pounds for a run- of-the-mill fellow like Job, whom Samuel White freed in 1814.20 Five hundred pounds seems to have been a common bond, but the courts accepted securities instead of cash. If the slave left the state in ninety days, the bondsmen were released from the obligation.
Surviving records of the Perquimans County Court show that court granted manumission to one slave in 1805, bond of five hundred pounds being required. Again in 1806, the court received bond of five hundred pounds each for four slaves freed. In 1807, there was one, in 1809, one, in 1810, two, in 1811, and in 1812, 1814 and 1819, one each year. The petitioners, who also became the bondsmen, included such Quakers as Josiah White, Benjamin Bundy, Caleb Winslow, Samuel White and Cortney Newby.21
A larger number of manumissions are attested in the surviving records of Pasquotank County, but, due to the fragmentary nature of the records from both counties, may bear little relationship to the actual numbers freed. Manumis- sions were definitely granted by Pasquotank County Court for five slaves belonging to Caleb White in 1801, and over the period from 1799 to 1818, a total of sixty- four such freedom documents were issued in that county. Again, the petitioner- bondsmen were mostly, if not all, Quakers.22
When a slave was officially manumitted by the court, a deed of emancipation was then issued to the former owner. The yearly meeting instructed its special
34
TOWARD FREEDOM FOR ALL
committee in 1776 to help Friends draw up emancipation papers when they decided to free their slaves, and the evidence is that some of them were drawn up even without benefit of court action when it could not be obtained. Such would appear to have been the case with a manumission paper issued by Joseph Jordan, a Quaker of Northampton County in 1784. The paper was lost for many years, but when it was discovered in 1826 it was deemed insufficient for the descendants of the slaves freed therein.23 This interesting document is preserved in the archives of Guilford College and reads as follows:
1 Joseph Jordan of Northampton County in North Carolina From Mature Deliberate Consideration of the Conviction of my own mind being fully persuaded that freedom is the Natural Right of all mankind, and that no Law moral or Divine, has given me a just Right of Property in the persons of any of my fellow Creatures, and being desirous to fulfill the Injunction of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by doing to Others as I would be done by, do therefore declare that having under my care a Number of Negroes Named and aged as followeth, Moses aged near forty one years, Sarah aged near thirty seven, Sam aged near twenty nine years, Cuts (illegible) aged near twenty five years, Rachel aged seventeen years and her Child, George aged eleven years, Patience aged near eight years, Charles aged five years, David aged two years, Silas aged near four months, I do myself my heirs exd. and Administrators, hereby Releas unto as many of them as are come of age of Twenty one, women Eighteen, all my Right Interest and Claim or pertensions of Claim whatsoever as to their persons or to any Estate they may hereafter acquire, and those now under age to partake of the same Privilege Liberty and Estate as they come to the ages above written, without any Interruption from me or any person Claiming for, by from, or, under me, in witness whereof I have hereunto Set my hand and Seal this tenth day of the Eight Month in the year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and Eighty four.
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Samuel Parker, Aaron Lancaster. (Signature and seal, Joseph Jordan)24
The Joseph Jordan paper is a prototype of the manumission instruments used by Quakers in North Carolina at that time. In 1786, Reston Lamb issued a similar document for a black girl named Hagar. The wording is identical: "I Reston Lamb of the County of Perquimans and State of North Carolina from Convictions of my own mind being fully persuaded that freedom is the Natural Right of all mankind, etc."25 Since Hagar was a minor at that time, the manu- mission was to take place when she reached the age of eighteen. Two persons named Hagar were picked up by the Perquimans County Court in 1788, one owned by Joseph White and one by William Robinson, thus apparently neither one was the person freed by Reston Lamb.26 In 1825, however, this same Hagar
35
SLAVES GIVEN FREEDOM
was desirous of emigrating to Africa with her husband, and when the Friends committee in charge finally discovered the instrument issued by Reston Lamb, it felt free to proceed with her as a free person.27
Manumissions such as those given by Joseph Jordan and Reston Lamb may have resulted from intensified efforts on the part of the monthly and quarterly meetings to which these Friends belonged. In 1781, the yearly meeting instructed that a monthly meeting should labor with a Friend who persisted in holding slaves, but if he refused, it should apply to the quarterly meeting com- mittee appointed for that purpose to come and assist it. If the slaveholder still remained adamant, "the monthly meeting may, with the consent of said com- mittee, testify their disunion with them."28
Disownments did occur. We have noted that Pharoah Elliott was disowned by Wells-Perquimans Monthly Meeting for "selling a Negro contrary to the order of m.m." on May 11, 1777. Other disownments in that monthly meeting during the years following were:
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.