Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
W&M ScholarWorks W&M ScholarWorks
Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects
1974
The Treatment of Servants and Slaves in Colonial Virginia The Treatment of Servants and Slaves in Colonial Virginia
Betty Wade Wyatt Coyle College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd
Part of the African American Studies Commons, African History Commons, and the United States
History Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Coyle, Betty Wade Wyatt, "The Treatment of Servants and Slaves in Colonial Virginia" (1974). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539624883. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-4y35-7105
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].
THE TREATMENT OF SERVANTS AND SLAVES M
IN COLONIAL VIRGINIA
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Department of Sociology
The College of William and Mary in Virginia
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
by
Betty Wade Wyatt Coyle
1974
ProQuest Num ber: 10625366
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The qua lity o f this re p ro d u c tio n is d e p e n d e n t upon th e qua lity o f th e c o p y subm itted .
In th e unlikely e v e n t th a t th e au tho r d id n o t send a c o m p le te m anuscrip t and the re are missing pages, these will be no te d . Also, if m ate ria l had to be rem oved ,
a n o te will in d ica te th e de le tion .
uest,ProQuest 10625366
Published by ProQuest LLC (2017). C opyrigh t o f th e Dissertation is he ld by th e Author.
All rights reserved.This work is p ro te c te d aga ins t unauthorized co p y in g under Title 17, United States C o d e
M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Approved, August 1974
Edwin H. Rhy:
Satoshi Ito
Richard Maxwell Brown
TABLE OF CONTENTSP age
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............... iv
LIST OF TABLES. . . . .................... v
ABSTRACT. ......................... vi ..
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. ......................... . . . 2
CHAPTER II. THE LAW AND WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT S O C I E T Y ................ 14
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
'CHAPTER IV. THE HISTORICAL AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENT OF INDENTUREDSERVITUDE. . . . ....................................... 25
The Historical Background The Legal Background
CHAPTER V. THE HISTORICAL AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENT. OF SLAVERY . . . . 39
The Historical Background The Legal Background
CHAPTER VI. SERVITUDE AND SLAVERY AS DEFINED BY LAW. ........... 49
CHAPTER VII. THE LANCASTER COURT ......................... 35
Lancaster County and Its RecordsThe Historical Background of the County CourtWhat the Local Records Reveal About the Legislation
CHAPTER VIII. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE LANCASTER COURT:SERVANT AND SLAVE - ADJUDICATION AND PUNISHMENT. . . 66
CHAPTER IX. CIVIL ACTIONS IN THE LANCASTER C O U R T ............. 79
CHAPTER X. ACCESSIBILITY AND DUE PROCESS IN THE LANCASTER COURT. . 86
CHAPTER XI. CONCLUSION......................... 95
APPENDIX I. COMPARISON OF SERVANT AND SLAVE LEGISLATION. . . . . . 100
APPENDIX II. SERVANT AND SLAVE - CRIMES AND SUITS (1660-1730). . . 109
,/APPENDIX III. SERVANT RIGHTS ............... 110
APPENDIX IV. SLAVE RIGHTS. .................. . . . . . . . . . . . Ill
BIBLIOGRAPHY. ............. 112
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express appreciation to Dr. Edwin H. Rhyne
for his guidance, criticism, and encouragement in directing this thesis
and to Timothy A. Coyle for his careful reading and criticism of the
manuscript.
Note on the Dating
The Old Style Julian Calender, which prevailed in the English-speaking
world until 1752, was used in compiling the statistics for this paper.
Thus, the dated year begins on March 25th rather than January 1st.
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Definitional L a w s ................ 50
2. Examples of Legislation Preceding Enforcement........... 64
3. Examples of Enforcement Preceding Legislation. ........... 65
4. Slave Oyer and Terminer Trials . .............. 71
5. Suits for Freedom.................... ......................... 80
6. Servant Cases in the Lancaster Court V ...................... . . 81
7. Voluntary Servant Contracts........... .. ............. .. 83
8. Number of Servants and Slaves Adjudged in Lancaster Court. . . 87
v
ABSTRACT
There has been some debate over the exact nature of treatment accorded servants and slaves in colonial Virginia. There is no doubt that both blacks and white indentured servants, as members of laboring classes were the victims of some discriminator}?1 treatment. Whether the nature of the discrimination practiced upon each group was similar, however, remains a controverted issue. Many historians feel that since neither the institution of servitude nor slavery existed in formallegislation during the early days of settlement, both black and whitelaborers were treated in a similar fashion. Others argue that during the seventeenth j,century slaves, a permanent investment, received treatment superior to that of the servants who labored only for a specified number of years. Still others suggest that blacks were, from the beginning, subjects of a more harsh form of discrimination than servants. Most recent historical research, it is suggested, tends to support this latter theory, as does this thesis.
To clarify this controversy somewhat the laws of colonialVirginia from 1619 to 1730, pertinent to servitude and slavery, were examined. Supplementing this material, the court records of a typical tidewater Virginia county, Lancaster, were read for a period of years, 1660 to 1730, and all of the cases involving servants and slaves were extracted. This material was then analysed and comparisons between the treatment of servants and slaves drawn. This study applies sociological methods of analysis to the historical data, thus adding to it a new perspective. The historian tends to emphasize specific incidents and individuals, whereas the sociologist takes a more gene-v ralized point of view studying trends and groups. Hopefully, by incorporating the best of each discipline, this thesis adds dimension to the existing studies.
The primary sources examined for this paper, court records and statute books support the proposition that from the outset servants were treated in a manner superior to that accorded slaves. Furthermore, at no time during the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries did this pattern change.
THE TREATMENT OF SERVANTS AND SLAVES
IN COLONIAL VIRGINIA:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The precise nature of the treatment of servants and slaves in
colonial America has long been a topic of controversy among historians.
The problem stems in large part from the dearth of primary sources still
extant concerning the two classes of laborers. Moreover, many of the
varying interpretations.
The purpose of this thesis is, through comparative analysis,
spans a period of seventy years, focusing primarily upon the experience
in the colony of Virginia, where both systems flourished very early. j
Contrary to the views of many historians, but not all, analysis over
time demonstrates that black servants (or slaves) occupied a lower
social position than white indentured servants from the outset.
its unique approach. By applying methods of sociological analysis to
historical data, a more complete picture has been constructed. Many
historians have limited their research to individual, albeit significant
incidents - failing to provide, an adequate background for their illus
trations. Recent historians, more aware of the need to place the
various incidents in broader perspective, have begun to utilize
methods from other academic fields to broaden the spectrum, of historical
analysis. For example, several current biographical studies, borrowing
sources which have survived are vaghe and, therefore, subject to
both servant and slave. The study
This study adds a new dimension to the argument because of
3
from the realm of psychology, have incorporated elements of personality
theory. Sociological analysis is also being used more frequently to
add depth to historical events.
The sociological approach differs from one strictly historical
in its emphasis upon the total rather than the specific. Whereas
history, for the most part, records important events and the activities
of individuals, sociology is more concerned with typical events and
all of the people. In fact much of the conflict among historians
regarding the treatment of servants and slaves derives from the fact
that some theories are based upon isolated occurrences rather than a
comprehensive overview of the period. Accuracy demands a combination
of the historical and sociological methods - each complementing and
enhancing the other.<^By examining historical fact and its sociological
import, this thesis portrays a more accurate picture of the attitudes
in and experience of colonial Virginia with respect to the comparative'”'. _ ‘ ._______
statuses of servants and slaves from 1659 until 1730.
Servitude and slavery have much in common, each having been.
adapted to meet the unique labor needs of colonial America. Neither
slavery nor servitude began as a fully developed institution, and
although there was some precedent involved in their developments, the
social role of servant and slave was initially undefined, both in
custom and in law (Handlins, 1950: 203). In addition, both slavery
and servitude were subject to the expansionist economic pressures of
colonial America (Noel, 1968: 166-68). In fact, some scholars suggest
that had not the blacks been brought to the New World, certain classes
of whites would have been enslaved.
The facts of life in the New World were such . . . that Negroes, being the most defenseless of all the immigrant
4
groups, were discriminated against and exploited more than any others. . . . Judging from the very nasty treatment suffered by white indentured servants, it was obviously not sentiment which prevented the Virginia planters from enslaving their fellow Englishmen. They undoubtedly would have done so had they been able to get away with it. But such a policy was out of the question as long as there was a King and a Parliament in England (Noel, 1968: 169).
While this view seems a bit extreme, it is clear that the social
pressures faced by black and white servants in early America were1
similar in many ways.
On the other hand, even though the early laws of the colonies
did not differentiate between servants and slaves, and in fact, did
not define the status of slave until 1660, it is tenuous at best to
conclude that society treated each group similarly. The colonists
brought to the New World an English tradition which included discrimina
tion against blacks (Jordan, 1969: 3-44). Recently arrived African
Negroes, moreover, must have seemed heathen and very strange to the
early settlers. It is therefore improbable that they were accorded
the same treatment as the white, Christian, English-speaking servants
(Jordan, 1969: 85-92). Indeed, Jordan and Degler suggest that prejudice
and discrimination were present from the outset, playing a major role
in the consequent subjugation of the black (Degler, 1959: 52; Jordan,
1962: 23).
Many historians, drawing conclusions solely from the statutes
of the period, argue that the first blacks brought to Jamestown, Virginia
in 1619 were sold as indentured servants rather than as slaves (Ballagh,
1902: 9-10, 27-31). The Handlins argue that because the institution
Compare Chapter IV, "The Historical and Legal Development of Indentured Servitude," with Chapter V, "The Historical and Legal Development of Slavery."
5
of slavery had no written legal framework in Virginia prior to 1660,
blacks and whites served in the same manner and were accorded similar
treatment until that time (Handlins, 1950: 203). Although others
dispute the validity of these findings (Degler, 1959 and 1970; Jordan,
1962 and 1969; Noel, 1969; Vaughan, 1972), the.fact that there is
minimal recorded evidence concerning blacks prior to 1660 makes the
formulation of definitive conclusions concerning the early status of
the black extremely difficult. Two ideas, however, do clearly emerge
from the records of that time. First, whites, although the terms
"servant” and "slave” were often used interchangeably, neither served
for life nor conveyed such a status to their children. Second, as
early as 1640 many blacks were enslaved for their lifetimes and, in
fact, passed this position to their offspring (Tate, 1972: 4-5). It
should be noted, however, that during this early period not all blacks
weire enslaved (Noel, 1968: 165)."^
The differences of opinion with respect to the treatment of the
laboring classes extend beyond the initial developmental stages of
each system. Some historians, including Richard Morris (1946: 484),
suggest that the conditions of the indentured servant did not improve
substantially during the colonial period. Due primarily to the large
scale transportation of convict servants to the colonies particular ly
during the eighteenth century, Morris concludes that servants generally
remained under constant suspicion, subject to the strictest discipline.
Although this conclusion seems logical, most evidence, as will be
^In other words, there is evidence that some blacks were servingunder indenture and, in fact, some were freemen.
shown, indicates that notwithstanding the influx of undesirables, the
social condition under which the indentured servant lived steadily
improved throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Thomas Wertenbaker (1969: 226-27) pursues a different tack to
reach a similar conclusion, suggesting that in most cases slaves were
treated better than servants. A slave represented a more permanent
investment for a planter, and consequently, he suggests that the master
was compelled by self-interest to maintain the health and strength of
his slaves. The servant was bound for only a few years, and therefore,
any harm to a servant would not be as costly to a master. He further
states that many masters were especially cruel to their servants
shortly before the period of indenture expired in hopes that they might
leave hastily, thus relinquishing their freedom dues of money, clothing,
or food. Wertenbaker1s point is no doubt true in individual instances
but, as a general statement of servant conditions, it seems, from a
review of historical evidence, somewhat exaggerated.
Another line of reasoning suggests that servant conditions
improved as the economic importance of slavery increased. Jackson
Turner Main (1965: 156) states that immediately prior to the American
Revolution the societal position of the servant was far superior to that,
of the slave. Although servants and slaves often performed similar
work, the servant generally had better housing, clothing, and food than
the slave. The diaries of Philip Fithian (1945) and Landon Carter (1965
two eighteenth century sources, support this view. The Handlins (1950:
214) state that as societal pressures upon slavery intensified, those
See Chapter IV, "The Historical and Legal Development of Indentured Servitude," for a detailed examination of the treatment afforded the indentured servant.
7
affecting servants eased. Jordan (1969: 48), in addition, believes
that servant conditions were improved in order to attract more immi
grants, especially those with skills vital to the development of the
fledging colonies. Furthermore, as the number of slaves in Virginia
increased, fear of slave insurrections and economic disruption resulted
in increasingly more repressive control of slaves. The laws were
calculated to create, along racial lines, a real division of interests
between black and white. As "black" became synonymous with slave,
regulation of the system was simplified. In the interest of control
and the prevention of slave insurrection, therefore, it was necessary
that all whites, including servants, were committed to maintaining
the established social order.
f Recognizing the possible validity of- each conflicting historical
view, concerning the treatment of servants and slaves in colonial Virginia,
this thesis, through a detailed and comprehensive examination of selected
period documents, hopes to clarify the issue. The legislative annals
of the Virginia colony have been examined for the period 1619 to
1730 to obtain jl general overview of -the nature of treatment sanctioned
by the Virginia society. To determine how those in bondage were dealt
with in a local context, the court records of a typical county (Lancaster
County, Virginia) were read from their beginning (1657) until 1.7.30,,
each case involving servants and slaves having been extracted. This
material when analysed, compared, and supplemented by other relevant
data supports the proposition that black servants (or slaves) were
socially inferior to the white indentured servants from the time that
blacks arrived in Virginia in 1619.
The thesis begins with a discussion of the theoretical relation
ship between law and society. Law and law enforcement as institutions
8
created, adjusted, and maintained by society, reflect the beliefs,
attitudes, and concerns of those who control and are affected by such
institutions. The general relationship between law and society, once
established, is concretized by specific reference to the Virginia
experience.
After demonstrating the theoretical validity of using laws and
judicial records as valid social indicators, the methodology of the
thesis is explained, not only describing the records relied upon but
the reasons for their importance as well. because of the scarcity
of available primary source material, the structure of the study is
necessarily limited by the nature and quality of surviving material.
was then structured to obtain optimum use from those materials.
To place the data and its subsequent analysis in perspective,
the historical background of slavery and servitude is dealt with at
some length. Existing historical works were gleaned for both factual
made of the legal development of each system. In this chapter, the
evidence is clear that blacks were discriminated against by statute at
a very early date. Although legislative records make no mention of
slavery until 1660, it is quite evident, from the first enactments that
colonial Virginia and drawn the conclusion, on this basis alone, that
because slavery was not mentioned in the statute books until 1660,
forty-one years after the establishment of the colony, that the first
blacks brought to Virginia must have served as indentured servants
Much research time was devoted to locating sources, and the methodology
and analytical data, and compiled into chapters outlining the historical
and legal developments of servitude and slavery. omparison is then
slaves held a status separate from and lower than that of servants. ]
Previous researchers have simply examined the legislation in
9
as that status was recognized by law and slavery was not (Ballagh,
1902: 27-31; Handlins, 1950: 203). As recent research (Jordan, 1969;
Vaughan, 1972) seems to indicate, the above conclusion, although at
first blush valid, is contradicted by evidence from other sources.
Written laws, as will be seen, while important, are not an
exclusive indicator of societal attitudes and trends. Laws written by
the governing institutions of a society reflect to a certain extent the
overall attitudes of that society at a particular time. However, it is
necessary to keep in mind that most of the law makers of colonial Virginia
were representative of a special interest group (the planters), and
therefore, the legislation of the time cannot be accepted, without
scrutiny, as indicating representative attitudes of all colonists.
Consequently, this thesis supplements the legislative evidence withAthat extracted from local court records. \ It is suggested that an
overview of the treatment of servants and slaves in Virginia is estab
lished by examination of the laws passed over an extended period of
time but that the local records better demonstrate the everyday,
application of the laws and must be taken into account if valid
conclusions with respect to representative attitudes of the citizenry
are to be formulated.
The laws themselves, when taken at face value, seem quite
severe, but their application, as indicated by the court records,
many times changes the final attitudinal analysis. To illustrate this
point, a reading of the laws of the Virginia colony demonstrates an
overriding concern with the threat of conspiracy and rebellion by
servants and slaves. The prescribed punishment for such conduct is
most severe and it seems logical to conclude that there was, in
10
colonial Virginia, a grave threat of servant and slave rebellion.
However, historical records reveal to the contrary, that there were
very few attempts at rebellion by either group during the colonial 1period.
Conversely, if the court records alone were examined, it seems
that the colonists had little, if any, actual concern over rebellion.
The reality lies somewhere in between - the threat of rebellion no« 2doubt existed - but was more perceived than real.
The county court records when read together with the legislation
of the period become increasingly meaningful, demonstrating the extent
to which discrimination existed on the local level. The colonists
were not nearly as fearful of many forms of deviation as the laws
indicated. The laws, moreover, seem to have been enforced on the local
level only when conduct, although unlawful, actually disrupted the
normal operation of that social group. This selective enforcement
revealed in the court records demonstrates that many of the laws
enacted by the legislature were directed at anticipated rather than
actual problems of social control. In addition, the records indicate
that certain practices were judicially recognized and enforced prior to
as well as after the enactment of a particular statute. Whereas
legislation formally established and defined the systems of servitude
and slavery, many aspects of the systems were socially operative and
generally accepted throughout the colony prior to cognizance by the
^The court records examined for this thesis contain only one case during a seventy year period involving conspiracy and the two slaves accused, were acquitted.
2See Chapter VI, "Servitude and Slavery as Defined and Differentiated by Law," for a discussion of rebellion in Virginia during the colonial period.
11
legislature. Local court records reveal, for example, that persons
were serving lifetime terms long before such status was sanctioned in
the legislative records.
The local records do indicate, as would be expected, that
discrimination did occur on the local level. In criminal proceedings,
not only did the methods of punishment applicable to the servants
and slaves differ, but after 1692, while the servant was tried by
the same process as freemen, blacks were tried by special slave courts.
Differential treatment also occurred in the civil proceedings of the
county court. This is revealed by the fact that although few blacks
were allowed access to the court, throughout the period studied, the
records are replete with cases brought by servants - a majority
challenging violations of their civil rights. Moreover, it is signifi
cant that the servants who brought cases before the Lancaster court
were, with few exceptions, successful litigants. This attention to the
civil rights of servants appears throughout the court records. If
servants were held in low esteem during this time, as some historians
suggest, such seemingly easy access and favorable treatment before the
Lancaster court from its inception would not be expected.
The county court records, therefore, dispute the views of the
various scholars who contend that servants were, on the whole, during
the seventeenth century, accorded worse treatment than slaves. Their
conclusions have been drawn from specific cases evidencing particularly
harsh or outrageous treatment of servants. The Lancaster County
records demonstrate, however, that these cases are the exception rather
than the rule. If the historians who conclude that servants were
generally mistreated had expanded the scope of their research to
12
encompass all court cases brought at that time, their conclusions
perhaps would not have been so broad. Many also failed to take into
consideration the fact that frequently slaves were not permitted
access to the courts of record so that their mistreatment cannot be
discerned from examination of court records alone. It is, therefore,
unreasonable to conclude that the dearth of recorded judicial examples
of slave mistreatment in the seventeenth century indicates conclusively
the absence of ill treatment.
Nevertheless, although there was, as revealed by the laws
and court records of the period, a certain amount of discrimination
against both servants and slaves - the court itself seems to have
processed cases involving these individuals quite equitably. This
is particularly significant since the justices of the court came from
the class of landowners who benefited from the cheap labor provided
by servants and slaves.j Moreover, it seems that during the period
between 1660 and 1730 slaves were not treated with the same harsh
discrimination characteristic of slavery in its later stages.^/ Although
it is undeniable that the law itself discriminated against "blacks" and
"slaves," the treatment afforded the individual "black" or "slave"
during this period was probably as good or better than at any other
time during the existence of the American system of slavery.
Although the foregoing conclusion is open to debate, the
records relied upon in this thesis clearly support the proposition that,
from the beginning, servants were, as a general rule, accorded better
treatment than slaves. Some mistreatment of servants no doubt occurred,
but the historical, legislative, and judicial evidence, when examined
in its totality, persuasively indicates that blacks not only were
mistreated more often but were discriminated against from their very
arrival in Virginia. When legislative and court records each demon
strate discriminatory treatment of blacks over a sustained period of
time, it seems unreasonable to conclude that the majority of individuals
comprising the society, which sanctioned such treatment through its
institutions, were actually acting in a contrary manner.
CHAPTER II
THE LAW AND WHAT IT SAYS' ABOUT SOCIETY
With or without jurisprudences codes of law can be extremely useful in telling us what a society has thought about a subject over time. . . . As for daily practice, we may be certain that a fairly dependable relationship is discernible between laws and court cases (Elkins, 1963: 244).
Law is formalized social control, characterized by explicit
rules of conduct, sanctions for their maintenance and specialists to
interpret and enforce them (Davis, 1962: 43). Colonial Virginia,
although ultimately responsible to the English King or Parliament,
developed its own institutions for enacting, interpreting, and
enforcing laws. By 1640 these institutions had assumed the form they1
were to maintain until the time of the Revolution.
Every society defines its legal boundaries differently, and
these boundries continually shift (Erikson, 1966: 19). Nevertheless,
it is clear that what matters most to a particular society at a specific
time and place will generally be reflected in the laws of that society
Initially, legislative and judicial powers were the sole responsibility of the Governor’s Council. Soon after the colony became established, legislative responsibilities were assigned to a bicameral assembly comprised of the Governor’s Council (an appointive body) and the House of Burgesses (an elected body). The Governor’s Council acting as the General Court continued to maintain judicial authority. In 1643 the county court system was established to administer justice on the local level, and thus relieve the General Court of the burden of trying less important cases. The General Court remained the highest court in the colony, trying appeals from the county courts and those crimes punishable by loss of life or limb (Chumbley, 1938: 55, 63),
14
15
(Davis, 1962: 55). The formulation of laws is greatly influenced by
social and economic conditions and, reflecting its culture, law
concurrently influences the areas of life it seeks to control (Davis,
1962: 55). These statements are especially accurate with respect to
the development of servitude and slavery in colonial Virginia, both1systems evolving first through usage, then through codification.
Therefore, the laws and court records of colonial Virginia have been
examined systematically over a specified period of time for indications
of societal attitudes towards servants and slaves, and the consequent
development of these two systems of labor.
To succeed, the agricultural economy in Virginia required a
large supply of cheap labor, and servants and slaves filled this need.
As these forms of labor became indispensable to the colony's economy,
and hence its survival, it became imperative to ensure their continuance,
and this was achieved primarily through the legal institutions. As
man has an inherent tendency to value his fellows on various levels,
each man serves as a means to another man’s ends. In other words kings
need carpenters, and carpenters need kings. Objectively, men necessarily
must assume different roles if a society is to function. Social
stratification, therefore, is an important element in any larger
society, providing the instruments and rewards to ensure that the
valued activities of that society are performed. Moreover, it pre
scribes deprivations and punishments when those activities are not
^Whether there is a causal connection between custom and legislative enactment is beyond the scope of this thesis. The records indicate both instances of legislation preceding and following enforcement. What is important is that laws are valid social indicators. The existence of laws reflects recognization by society and its institutions of certain attitudes and behaviors.
16
performed (Barber, 1957: 2-7). The law is often used to solidify and
maintain a system of stratification; in colonial Virginia the systems
of servitude and slavery were outlined by the law and enforced by its
agents.^
Changes in the existing balance of power in a society can
sometimes establish the dominance of one group. Since power tends to
beget power, once a group becomes dominant its tendency is to enhance,
indeed, to perpetuate its position. Once dominance is established, the
controlling group typically subordinates those less powerful, thereby
hampering their effectiveness as competitors. The emerging distribu
tion of opportunities and rewards are then institutionalized, and a
stable inegalitarian system is developed (Noel, 1968: 163). The law
is a primary means through which the group in power can restrict the
political and economic efficacy of other groups, and, in effect, mold
the society in its best interests. Not only do controlling persons
have primary decisional input in the formulation of laws in their
favor, but they can ensure that the administration of these laws is
1stratification also occurred within the ranks of servants and slaves. Skilled laborers were valued over, and on many occasions given better treatment than unskilled laborers, who generally worked in the fields. Also household workers, although not necessarily skilled, were considered of a higher status than field hands. In the case of blacks, color was another basis for social differentiation - lighter Negroes, holding better positions than darker ones.
This "internal"- stratification was sanctioned informally rather than by the formal institutions of society, and consequently, does not appear as a tangible in the records of the legislature and the courts. Even though it is impossible to quantify the value of this stratification - a servant’s or slave's position before the law and the courts was in all probability influenced to some extent by the position he held within his social group. It would be expected that the status of a servant or slave would affect to some degree his likelihood in criminal cases to be brought before the court and in civil cases his ease of accessibility to the court, and moreover, his treatment once in the courtroom.
17
also favorable to them (Quinney, 1970: 35, 115). The foregoing statements
aptly describe the planter class of early Virginia, men of wealth and
power who, for the most part, held the positions of authority in the
legislature, the courts, and the church vestries, using them effectively
in their own self-interest.
It is not surprising, moreover, that the sanctions and controls
of seventeenth century Virginia society were designed to perpetuate
the existence of servitude and slavery as sources of labor. As the
relationship between the masters and their bondsmen became more
subservient and parasitic, more control became necessary (Ross, 1969:
101). When slavery proved to be the more profitable of the two labor
systems, the measures taken to control the blacks became increasingly
restrictive while, at the same time, controls on servants lessened.
As the numbers of Negroes increased in Virginia, a threat to
the safety of the white man’s person and favored position was perceived;
consequently, laws and controls affecting slaves were made increasingly
harsh. The empowered class needed the cooperation of all their fellow
whites in order to exert more control over the slave class. Conse
quently, in an effort to differentiate more clearly between status and
color, the colonial authorities began to ease the controls on white
indentured servants. Significantly, controls on the servants were
being lessened at the same time there was a major influx of criminal
servants into the colony. Under normal circumstances, it would be
expected that the controlling social agents would have imposed more1
severe sanctions on that servant element of society.
1 ,Relaxation of controls on servants appears in the legislative annals in 1705 and in the court records around 1720. This phenomenon coincides with an increase of slave importation rather than a decrease
18
As a general proposition, behavior which exhibits extreme
departure from the existing social norms, especially that which might
involve personal injury to others or serious disruption of the societal
organizations is defined in the law as deviant (Jessor, 1968: 25).
Stated differently, if a society feels particularly jeopardized by a
kind of behavior, the severity of the legal sanctions for such behavior
will be increased, with more time and energy being devoted to the
task of preventing it (Erikson, 1966: 19). Court records are valuable
because they indicate the amount of attention being devoted to the
enforcement of particular laws. By showing which laws were enforced
and to what extent, the court records enable us to distinguish the
real from imagined threats to society. As enforcement on occasion
preceded legislation, the local court records add to the information
gained from the laws regarding threats Of societal disruption.
( Throughout the history of the colony both the laws and
records of their enforcement support the thesis of this paper that
differential treatment was accorded members of the laboring classes -
servants were not treated as well as freemen, and slaves, not as well
as servants. Moreover, the differentiation between servants and slaves
became more pronounced as the numbers of slaves increased. In the
criminal laws and their enforcement, slaves were accorded not only
different and more severe sorts of punishment, but after 1692, they
were also tried by a special "slave" court. Discrimination also
appeared in the civil laws. Throughout this period not only were many
of servant importation. The evidence found in the legislative and court records, therefore, demonstrates an increasing concern with the welfare of servants beginning early in the eighteenth cent.ury. For a more detailed treatment of these points see Chapter X, "Accessibility and Due Process in the Lancaster Court."
19
laws passed guaranteeing and protecting the civil rights of servants,
but the courts ensured that these rights were enforced as well. In
contrast, very little legislative or judicial effort was devoted to
the protection of the rights of slaves. In fact, for all practical
purposes, the slave, under law, had no civil rights at all.
Servitude and slavery appeared in Virginia customs prior to
their legislative formalization. Most historical evidence indicates
that the institutions of servitude and slavery were viable long
before their legal existence was formalized (Jordan, 1969: 75). Once,
however, written laws governing the two institutions began to appear,
it did not take long for the legislators to create two systems of labor
sanctioned and perpetuated by the formal institutions of social control.
In fact, slavery was well established in law by 1680, long before there
were enough slaves in Virginia to constitute any substantial threat to
the economy or welfare of the citizens of the colony. Obviously, the
Virginia planters envisioned an increasing influx of slaves into the
colony. The final legal solidification of slavery was seemingly due to
anticipated problems of social control rather than past and present
threats of physical harm or social disruption.
The chronological comparison of the enactment of slave legis
lation and its actual implementation on the local level also demon
strated that chattel slavery in colonial Virginia was set out well in
advance of the time that slaves constituted a large and threatening
element of the society. Violators are chosen not solely on the basis
of legal proscription, but also in accordance with the expectations of
^"The legal development of servitude and slavery is outlined in Appendix II, "Comparison of Servant and Slave Legislation."
20
the community (Quinney, 1970: 117). Consequently, the records of the
county court provide insight into the values and attitudes of a specific
locality. When the annals of Lancaster County were examined, it
became evident that the extreme concern over slave control, exhibited in
the laws of the colony, was not actualized on the local level until a
much later time.
Nevertheless, both the laws and court records reveal that slaves
.in colonial Virginia consistently were confronted with treatment of a
more discriminatory nature than servants. Obviously, the colonists
considered the problems of controlling the behavior of servants
subordinate to the regulation of slaves. Slaves were seen as a threat,
both real and imagined, not only to the existing economic and social
structures, but to the very person of the white colonist.
The historical study of law and enforcement and their rela
tionship to a particular society at a particular time is of necessity
limited by the type and amount of available information. Prior to the
legal comparison of servitude and slavery, it is useful to examine
the nature of the existing sources and to discuss a systematic method
for their s tudy.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Each of the thirteen colonies had different labor needs.
Although servitude and slavery existed in all of the colonies, Virginia
and Maryland were the only two in which both systems developed con-1currently as important forms of labor.
^•The use of indentured labor was the exception rather than the rule in the New England colonies ( W e r t e n b a k e r 1927: 67) . The property laws in the north provided that land could be divided among several heirs, whereas in the south (as in England) the laws of primogeniture insured that land would pass intact from father to the eldest son. In New England, therefore, large landed estates like those of the south, were uncommon (Faulkner, 1954: 65). Moreover, the climate and rocky soil of the northeastern colonies were ill suited for agriculture and therefore, a profitable agrarian econoly was impossible (Main, 1965: 27). The small farms which did exist in New England neither needed nor could afford substantial numbers of servants or slaves to harvest the crops or till the soil.
The land holdings in most of the middle colonies, like those in the New England colonies, were small, and large numbers of laborers were unnecessary (Faulkner, 1954: 66). Because of better soil conditions, farming did prove profitable in Pennsylvania, and with large scale farming came the need for additional sources of labor. Slavery was introduced, rather unsuccessfully. In a much colder climate than they were accustomed, the blacks did not labor as effectively as in the southern colonies; and in fact many died. Moreover, there was a strong anti-slavery sentiment fostered by the large numbers of Quakers in that colony. Consequently, in Pennsylvania servants filled the need for extra labor (Herrick, 1926: 23-24).
The southern colonies had large areas of fertile land and a geography that favored transportation. Consequently, that area developed into a region of large plantations (Main, 1965:24). The one exception was North Carolina xdiere inaccessibility to trade routes hindered the development of large scale agricultural enterprises.North Carolina, therefore, had no great demand for laborers (Main, 1965: 44). In South Carolina, the benefits of slavery were evident as early as 1670, and as a result, servants never comprised a major part of the labor force (Smith, 1961: 21, 93). Georgia was not colonized until 1732, but soon thereafter slavery had entrenched itself as the major
21
Because servitude and slavery developed very early in the Virginia
colony, thus preceding and, in some cases, influencing their deve
lopment in other colonies, a comparative study of the two labor
systems suggests the use of the Virginia model.
Any historical study faces the initial problem that much
original material has been lost or destroyed, and that which does
survive is not as inclusive or informative as one would wish. ^Infer
ences necessarily must be drawn from sketchy material and in some
cases in the absence of recorded data, j Obviously, trends observed in
such records are tentative and lack somewhat the statistical solida
rity sought by the m o d e m sociologist. Nevertheless, recognizing
these deficiencies, valid conclusions can still be drawn from the
existing material.
A study of this sort necessarily is structured around the
existing sources.*' The most useful primary sources covering an
source of labor (Blum, 1963: 72). All southern colonies developed an agriculturally based economy which required a large supply of cheap labor, a need filled most often by slaves rather than indentured servants simply because slavery proved more profitable.
^Considering the importance of servitude in colonial America, there has been very little academic work on the subject. A major obstacle is the absence of original sources; few servants wrote diaries of any merit, and they are given little mention in works of their contemporaries. The local court records are one of the most useful sources of primary data yet even these have serious limitations (Elkins, 1963: 244). Moreover, academically, the question of slavery seems to have greatly overshadowed its early counterpart. Servitude was a temporary form of labor, important only during the colonial period, whereas slavery lasted almost a century longer and had a greater social impact than servitude.
The developments of slavery and servitude have, in the past, been studied separately with most of the materials relating to the former institution. Jordan (1969) seems to have tied together most of the work concerning the historical development of slavery in his book, White Over Black. An excellent source on Virginia is- Thad Tate1 The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg (1972). Of the few works
23
extended length of time are the legislative records of the Virginia
Assembly and local Court Order Books. The laws of the Assembly
reflect the views of the colony as a whole; the local court records,
those of a particular locality. Thus, this study jxmip ares servitude
and slavery on two levels.
The Virginia statutes of the colonial period have been com
piled by William W. Hening (1823). Using Mr. Hening's work, all
legislation involving servants and slaves from 1619 until 1730 has
been surveyed, compiled, and analyzed comparatively. The legislative
records demonstrate the formal development of the two systems of labor,
institutions formed by the needs of a new society and formalized by
its laws.
The court records of Lancaster County on the Northern Neck
of Virginia were selected for several reasons. The ravages of war and
fire have taken their toll in Virginia and, as a result, a large
number of county records, from the time of colonization until the
Civil War, have been destroyed. The Lancaster County records are one
of few sets that have survived intact. The transcripts are fairly
legible and quite descriptive. The county, moreover, was settled
early and has been described as "fairly typical . . . of any colonial
county in those regions" (Smith, 1947: 277).
that have any significant references to servitude, Colonists in Bondage (1947) by Abbot E. Smith, is by far the most thorough. Another useful general reference source concerning servants is found in the section on bound labor in Richard Morris's Government and Labor in Early America (1946). The only significant study on servitude which directly ad- dresses the Virginia experience, however, is James C. Ballagh's 1895 work, White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia - A Study of the System of Indentured Labor in the American Colonies. Other information with respect to servitude must be pieced together from scattered sources, and these works contain only cursory treatment of the comparison of the development of the two labor systems.
24
On a formal level, the institutions of a society are defined
in its laws. On the local level these definitions are molded, altered
if necessary, and enforced according to local standards and needs.
Of course, many laws are strictly and uniformly enforced in all
localities, but clearly, not every law is enforced in every locality,
and in many cases even those which are enforced are subject to varying
local interpretations. Consequently, if the laws themselves reveal
much about the society which created them, then the way in which laws
are used reveals even more. When laws passed to correct existing
problems are frequently enforced in a locality it is obvious that the
problem addressed by the legislation in fact existed in that locality.
The interplay between statutes and their local enforcement
serves to indicate both the formal views of colonial Virginia society
with respect to the status and treatment of servants and slaves and the
actual experience of a given locality. A systematic examination of the
colonial Virginia laws and the court records of Lancaster County
demonstrates conclusively that, from the outset black laborers
encountered more intense discrimination than white servants.
The following two chapters summarize the historical and legal
development of indentured servitude and slavery providing an overview
of each system from which perspective a meaningful comparative analysis
can proceed.
CHAPTER IV
THE HISTORICAL AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENT OF INDENTURED SERVITUDE
The Historical Background
Indentured servitude existed as a form of labor in England
even before the English began to settle the New World. Whenever the
binding was made by a written contracts the terms of the agreement
were prepared in duplicate on a single sheet of paper. The copies
were then separated leaving a jagged or indented edge with each party
to the contract receiving half of the indenture agreement (Morris,
1946: 310).
For centuries forms of bondage had existed in England. For
example, villeinage, a status of limited freedom, was found there very
early. It restricted the right of the servant to hold property or
make contracts; he could be bought and sold at will and had to obey
at all times the commands of his master or face the wrath of the master
who could beat and chastise the villein at will. The condition of
villeinage, moreover, was passed on from father to son (Handlins,
1950: 200). This type of bondage was prevalent during manorial times,
but, by 1600, it had virtually disappeared in England (Jordan, 1969: 49).
Nevertheless, in some parts of Scotland it existed well into the
eighteenth century (Handlins, 1950; 200). Several important English
legal, treatises, Lord Coke's Institutes of the Laws of England (1628)
and John Crowell's Hie Interpreter (1607 and later editions), contained
25
26
descriptions of villeinage. Although villeinage as a labor system no
longer existed in seventeenth century England, the population remained
aware of the various aspects of the system, and it undoubtedly had some
influence on the development of colonial American servitude and slavery.
There were other forms of involuntary bondage in England in
the seventeenth century. A person could be sold as a servant because
of poverty, crime, or mere mischance, or to pay off his debts. Freedom
could also be lost if a person were convicted of vagrancy, vagabondage,
or merely being unemployed. His labor would be sold for a set term
to the highest bidder. Orphans, bastards, and the offspring of ser
vants could be sold at the discretion of local officials. In fact,
the head of a household was entitled to sell members of his family
as servants if he so desired.
Voluntary servitude existed as well. A person could enter
into a formal agreement or indenture on his own (Handlins, 1950: 200-01).
Youth could be contracted as apprentices, and learn a trade while in
service, indeed, apprenticeship was considered the highest form of
bound labor (Jordan, 1969: 52). Whether servitude was voluntary or
involuntary, however, it was a status of limited freedom, servants
being bought and sold at will like moveable goods or chattels. Rights
to hold property and make contracts were also limited, and masters
had extensive disciplinary authority over their servants.
The existing systems of bound labor adapted very well to the
situation of the American colonies (Jordan, 1969: 52). Servitude very
soon became the major source of labor for the early settlements, and
was not superseded by slavery until the eighteenth century. The influx
of indentured servants did not stop altogether until the nineteenth
27
century (Smith, 1947: 4). During the eighteenth century, although the
bulk of the labor force in the south was slave, indentured servants
still performed most of the skilled work (Main, 1965: 127; Ballagh,
1895: 348). Indentured servants continued to be brought into the
colonies throughout the colonial period (Smith, 1947: 6).
The forces surrounding the extensive use of servitude are
many. It served as a solution for two major problems - unemployment
in England and the need for labor in the New World. Servants, of
course, made a profitable cargo for English merchants who needed to
fill their ships while en route from England to the colonies to pick
up tobacco. In Virginia the development of a capitalistic economy,
based on tobacco, created an ever increasing need for labor. Land was
cheap, so the tobacco production was hindered only by the lack of a
large consistent supply of labor (Brown and Brown, 1964: 7). Indentured
labor was cheaper and less temporary than hired labor; consequently,
colonial planters quickly bought all of the servants brought to the
New World (Ballagh, 1895: 300). In Virginia from 1618 until the latter
part of the century, a grant of fifty acres, called a headright,
was given to every person who transported someone into the colony at
their expense (Smith, 1947: 15, 42). This reward understandably
increased the demand for indentured servants.
There were many reasons people came to the New World as
servants. Many contracted themselves as servants to escape economic
destitution in the mother country. The lot of the servant in the New
World was considerably better than life in England (Ballagh, 1895: 334;
Harrower, 1963), and the colonies were seen by many as a land of
opportunity. In the seventeenth century social and economic advancement
28
was available to all that had the ability and desire to work for it.^
This point is demonstrated by the fact that in 1663 thirteen of the
thirty members of the Virginia House of Burgesses, had come to the
colony with their passage paid by people other than themselves, and
therefore, presumably were former servants (Furnas, 1969: 108)*
A servant who bound himself voluntarily could do so in two
ways, indenture himself for the full fare of his passage prior to
leaving England or pay part of his fare and become a redemptioner for
the remainder. The length of servitude in the latter instances would
depend upon the size of the debt. Usually redemptioners were given
a period of fourteen days within which to make their own service
contract. If they were unable to do so within the specified time,
then they were indentured by the captain of their ship. Frequently,
whole families would travel over as redemptioners. Once sold to pay
for the remainder of his passage the status of the redemptioner was
the same as that of any indentured servant (Smith, 1947: 20-21).
A person could become a servant against his will, as well as
through his own initiative. Kidnapping or spiriting people to board
servant ships bound for the colonies became a very lucrative business
for many Englishmen. Ships were constantly leaving for the New World
and ships' captains, asking no questions, would pay a pound or two for
each prospective servant. In seaport towns, wandering children,
drunkards, or simple-minded adults frequently found themselves victims
of spirits and aboard a ship bound for the colonies to be sold as
iMore specifically, advancement was available for those whites with ability and desire. The records indicate that few blacks made any social or economic advancement.
29
servants. In 1645 Parliament passed an ordinance, which was the first
governmental attempt to impede the practice of spiriting. Nevertheless,
kidnapping and spiriting continued throughout the century. Although
both practices occurred in the following century, they were not nearly
as much a problem as they had been earlier. A large number of early
servants found themselves transported through the deceptions, wheed-
lings, and other efforts of the "spirits.” And a much smaller number
found themselves carried away entirely against their wills (Smith, 1947:
68- 86).1
Another form of involuntary servitude was that brought about
by legal authorities. Throughout the colonial period convicts com
prised a large part of the white servant population. Transportation
of convicts was started by a proclamation of James I in 1614. At
that time the death sentence was very frequently the punishment meted
out for crimes, even those which by today's standards seem insigni
ficant. However, to help balance out this rather harsh system, pardons
were relatively easy to obtain. Transportation of convicts to the
colonies was used in conjunction with the system of pardons to circum
vent the death penalty in cases of robbery and other felonies (except
willful murder, rape, or witchcraft). According to the Habeas Corpus
Act and common law, it was illegal to use exile or transportation as
a form of punishment. Consequently, a felon was pardoned under the
condition that he would export himself out of the country. In 1718
Parliament declared it legal to transport certain criminals since it
was felt that transportation gave convicts a chance to make a new
^Note in contrast to this almost all blacks were brought to the New World against their will.
30start while at the same time being of profitable service to the
homeland (Smith, 1947: 91-93).
The first convict sent to Virginia arrived in 1618. He was
a carpenter who had been reprieved of a manslaughter charge because
the colony needed someone with that skill. During the next four years,
a number of convicts came to Virginia but large scale transportation
did not begin in earnest until the latter half of the seventeenth
century (Ballagh, 1895: 294). Many colonists vigorously protested
convict transportation since the criminal was considered to have a
socially detrimental effect. In fact,ah' uprising in Gloucester County,
Virginia in 1663 was attributed to transported felons; and, as a
consequence, a law prohibiting further transportation of felons was
enacted in 1670 (Smith, 1947: 104). This law served to deter the
importation of criminals until 1718 when the English Parliament
decreed that transportation could be used as a punishment for criminal
activities. In 1722 Virginia passed an act imposing elaborate regu
lations on the business of trading in convict servants. The bill would
have severely curtailed the profits to be made, but it was disallowed
by the English King because it rendered an act of Parliament null and
void (Middleton, 1953: 73).
Despite the protests of the colonists against the transporta
tion of convicts, there was always a ready market for their services
among planters who wanted cheap labor.- Their demands were such that
the British government never had to force convicts on the colonies
(Smith, 1947: 102). In fact, so lucrative was the market for convict
labor that in 1772 several merchants offered to transport felons for
the English government free of charge, well recognizing that a handsome
31
profit awaited when delivery was made (Middleton, 1953: 151). During
the eighteenth century, of the estimated 30,000 felons transported,
20,000 were brought to Virginia and Maryland (Smith, 1947: 119).
Consequently, convicts constituted a very significant portion of the
indentured laborers in Virginia, especially after 1718.
Servants were the major source of labor in colonial Virginia
until 1700. Then, for a brief period around the turn of the century,
there was a decrease in the number of servants being transported. By
1720, the numbers transported began to increase and this trend con
tinued until the American Revolution. Much of this increase can be
attributed, as previously indicated, to large scale convict trans
portation, but unemployment in England contributed as well.^
The records, in most cases, do not give separate statistics for indentured servants. The earliest count seems to be found in the 1624-25 census of the colony. At that time the total population was 1,227, of which 487 were servants, and 23 were Negroes (Green and Harrington, 1932: 144). Then, in 1671 Sir William Berkeley reported6,000 servants in a total population of 40,000. Wertenbaker (1969: 25) computed that between 1635 and 1705, the number of servants coming into the colony annually was between 1,500 and 2,000. This would mean that during these seven decades between 100,000 and 140,000 persons entered the colony as indentured servants. By the turn of the century slave labor had become more popular and servant immigration temporarily slowed down. Colonel Jenings reported to the English Board of Trade in 1708 that "the number of white servants is so inconsiderable that they scarce deserve notice" (Smith, 1947: 330). Hugh Jones in his Present State of Virginia had stated that in 1724 "these servants are but an insignificant Number, when compared with the vast shoals of Negroes. . . ." (Jones, 1956: 130). In 1718 Parliament had passed legislation making transportation to the new world as a servant the punishment for various criminal activities. As expected, servant transportation greatly increased after this date. By 1730 the effect of this Act was being felt in Virginia as evidenced by the report of Governor Gooch to the Board of Trade concerning the population of the colony stating that the population increase was due largely to "the great numbers of negroes and white servants imported since 172.0" (Smith, 1947: 330). In 1765 a French traveller in the colonies wrote that "the number of convicts and Indented servants imported to Virginia (is) amazing" (Smith, 1947: 337). Between 1750 and 1775 the number of servants coming into Maryland averaged 1000 each year. Smith (1947: 337)
32
Indentured servitude served the dual purpose of giving England
an outlet for its unemployed and criminal element, while, at the same
time, providing the colonies a source of cheap labor. In addition, it
gave many people, who, otherwise did not have the means, passage to the
New World and the opportunity to improve themselves. Many indentured
servants, after serving their time, became successful citizens. Their
presence contributed substantially to the rise of the middle class, and
many, after completing their service, helped to establish frontier
settlements. The institution, nevertheless, did have its faults, but
the early years of settlement in the colonies were hard on all who
came. As an institution, servitude had its purpose and, for a while,
served it well. Unfortunately, in many ways servitude paved the way
for the system that was to replace it - slavery*
The Legal Background
In Virginia, the system of indentured servitude evolved
gradually, with practice generally preceding legal codification. The
first indication of colonial servitude is found on a broadside issued
by the Virginia Company in 1609. This notice, clearly an attempt to
attract settlers, offered passage to America, plus food, clothing and
shelter in return for seven years of service to the Company. As
additional incentive, after the expiration of their term of service
they were to be given a share of the profits and a division of land.
Life for the servant in the Mew World was not as sanguine, as the
Company had predicted, and in the very early years of the colony there
thinks that the number of servants entering Virginia during the same period was somewhat fewer. From these statistics it is apparent that servants comprised an important element of the population during various times of colonial development.
33
were few profits and many hardships. The Company, nevertheless,
continued to transport servants to Virginia at its own expense until
its dissolution in 1624. However, the adverse conditions during this
period did force the Company to modify its system of servitude. The
strict communal arrangements were relaxed and limited rights of
private property introduced (Smith, 1947: 9-10). The Company also
began to hire some servants out to private persons. Thus, early
servitude began to develop many of the traits which characterize
later indentured servitude (Ballagh, 1895: 284).
In 1620, the Company transported one hundred servants to be
hired out to Virginia planters. This is the first example of a lump
sum payment by a colonist in return for the extended services of an
immigrant. Although this is the first recorded incident of such a
sale, similar transactions in all probability had occurred prior to
that time. The colonists, with a continuing need for cheap labor,
heartily approved the Company's plan (Smith, 1947: 12-13). The census
of 1624-25 showed 487 servants in a total population of 1,227 (Smith,
1947: 16); by this early date, servants had become a significant
class in their own right.
The legal development, like the social development of servi
tude in colonial America, occurred gradually:
The 'custom of the country,1 by which the lives of white servants were governed in practically all matters, grew up gradually. At first it was no more than the common average of relationships between a thousand masters and servants; later it was more carefully defined, sometimes in written indentures, more generally in the decisions of colonial judges. Before long its more important particulars were embodied in Acts passed by the colonial legislatures. The mass of this legislation became very large, while the number of judicial decisions based upon it was truly imposing, and we have finally a legal, social, and economic institution
34
which is a monument to the peculiar necessities of the early Americans (Smith, 1947: 226).
In 1619, the first Assembly of Virginia, meeting at Jamestown,
enacted certain instructions that had been sent over by the Company.
Some of these rie r laws involved servants. One provided that all
contracts made by servants while in England be enforceable in
Virginia. Another provided that all servants1 contracts be registered;
others prohibited servants from trading with the Indians, and forbade
women servants to marry without the consent of their masters. Whipping
was established as the punishment for servants who committed crimes
such as swearing and Sabbath-breaking for which freemen were fined
(Smith, 1947: 227).
From 1619 to 1642 very few laws directly affecting servants
appeared. Nevertheless, throughout this period there grew up many
customs affecting the rights of servants which were recognized by the
early Virginia courts. Most important of these was the right of the
master to sell or assign a servant's contract, with or without the
servant's consent. In estate inventories, servants were listed as
personal property and they could be disposed of by will and deed.
Penal legislation regarding servants distinguished them from
the freemen by employing different forms of punishment for each. In
cases where a freeman would be fined, a servant would be corporally
punished. For the most serious crimes, however, both servant and
freeman were punished equally - by loss of life or limb. There was
one crime not applicable to freemen - running away, and to prevent
recurrence of the offense runaways were punished harshly.
35
The servants during this early colonial period, however, did
have various rights and shared many of the responsibilities of the
society. Courts recognized their right to a certificate of freedom,
to freedom dues (a certain amount of money, food, or clothing given
when the term of service expired), and to the possession of property.
Like a freeman, he was subject to the payment of a poll tax to support
the government and compensate the minister, and he was liable for
military service. Unless he was a convict, the servant could testify
in court and was a valid witness to contracts. He could sue, or be
sued, and enjoyed the right of appeal to the supreme judiciary of the
colony. Finally, he could vote but it is unlikely that he exercised
this right.
On the other hand, between 1619 and 1642 certain rights were
restricted. The Assembly of 1639 passed a law which made it necessary
for a servant to obtain the permission of his master to engage in
trade. Masters could assign servant contracts freely by deed or will.
For breaches of contract, a servant could be sentenced to serve an
additional amount of time. Moreover, corporal punishment was a commonly
accepted method for regulating the behavior of servants, and it was
used by masters, as well as the courts (Ballagh, 1895: 300-07).
Between 1642 and 1726 the statute books are replete with
legislation concerning servitude. Basically, these laws formalized
existing practices and established general uniformity for the system.
During this period, servants lost the right to vote. In 1643, the
term of service for a servant without an indenture was fixed according
to age; after 1657, these age judgments were made by the local courts.
The Assembly of 1643 also passed an act which forbade any servant to
36
marry without the consent of his or her master. Violators of this law
usually had one year added to their term of service. If a freeman was
involved, he was required to pay a fine to the servant's master. The
clear purpose of this law was to protect the master against loss of
work time.
In 1662, the law recognized the right of the master to
administer corporal punishment to his servant, a practice already
frequently employed. Statutory acceptance of the practice was meant
to serve as an additional deterrent to runaways. In the same year the
Assembly directed the clerks of county courts to issue certificates of
freedom to every servant upon expiration of his term., thus facilitating
the capture of runaway servants. Moreover, this law protected innocent
persons from arrest, and guaranteed the newly freed servant his rights
as a citizen.
During the entire colonial period in Virginia there was only
one servant uprising and that took place in Gloucester County in
1663.^ This incident caused great alarm throughout the colony and
precipitated further acts restricting the freedom of servants. Un
lawful meetings of servants were prohibited and masters could be fined
if their servants left home without permission.
The problem of controlling runaways persisted throughout the
colonial period. There was enough freedom, on plantations that getting
away was no problem, The back country was easily accessible and
servants often made their way to neighboring colonies like Maryland
^A general uprising of servants demanding to be released from a year's service or given their freedom was plotted, but it never materialized because one of the conspirators gave the plot away (Smith, 1947; 261).
37
and North Carolina. Statute after statute was passed, each increasing
the severity of punishment to prevent servants from absconding. Punish
ments began with adding time to the term of service and later included
whipping and branding. As long as the system persisted, however, it
was impossible to totally prevent running away.
The legislature of 1705 enacted a comprehensive code which
reiterated existing servant rights and provided new ones. The law
restricted the immoderate use of corporal punishment by requiring
an order from a justice of the peace for 11 the whipping of a Christian
white servant naked." The act also confirmed the right to freedom
dues and established the amount: male servants were to receive "ten
bushels of indian corn, thirty shillings in money, or the value thereof
in goods and one well fixed musket or fuzee (fuse) of the value of
twenty shillings at least;" the women were to receive fifteen bushels
of Indian corn and forty shillings in money or value. To prevent
masters from taking advantage of servants, the Assembly required that
any agreement which altered a servant*s contract be made in the pre
sence, and with the approval, of the local court. The 1705 Act also
provided that a Christian servant could be held in servitude only by
other Christians. Thus, free Negroes, mulattoes, Indians, and other
infidels such as "Jews, Moors and Mohometans" were prevented from
holding white servants. A final right legislated at this time per
mitted the servant to bring a complaint into court by petition,
thereby avoiding the expense of formal process, which few servants could
afford.
Very few major pieces of legislation limiting the rights of
a servant were enacted after 1705. In 1711 an act of the Assembly
38
further defined a servant as personal property, stating that servants
of a person dying intestate should remain on the plantation to finish
the crop, after which they would fall under the control of the
executors (Ballagh, 1895: 306-23). Two years later the legislature
required a servant to be licenced to own a horse (Hening, 1823: Vol. IV
(1713), 49).1
Between 1726 and 1788 the institution of white servitude
gradually declined. Most legislative measures during this period
served to mitigate the position of the servant. Many laws such as
those punishing runaways and bastardy, were made less severe. Al
though the servant was still treated as property to some extent, his
position differed significantly from that of a slave. While servitude
was of limited duration, slavery was for life. The servant did net
pass his status on to his offspring as did a slave. At no time did a
master have as complete control over a servant as he did a slave. The
servant had many rights established by law, a slave had none. Every
law which improved the condition of the white servant made him less a
chattel and more an independent contractor. By contrast, the laws
enacted with respect to slaves strengthened the fundamental distinctions
between the two labor systems.2
^-Notations from Hening1 s Statutes-at-Large include the date that the particular law mentioned was passed in parentheses.
oFor a chronological outline of the legislation involving servants and slaves see Appendix I.
CHAPTER V
THE HISTORICAL AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENT OF SLAVERY
The Historical Background
The first Negroes to arrive in Virginia were transported to
Jamestown in 1619 by a Dutch trader. The debate among historians
with respect to the status of these early blacks continues over 350
years later, and the scarcity of surviving records from that 1620-40
period fuels the debate. Some historians maintain that these blacks
arrived at a time when the status of indentured servitude already
existed, and therefore conclude that Negroes were treated as were
servants, being released after serving a term of seven years (Banton,
1967: 102). Essentially, these scholars argue that because the status
of a slave did not exist in the laws, the system of slavery must have
developed gradually from servitude through usage and custom (Handlins,
1950: 199-222). There is, in fact, evidence that before 1640 many
blacks, like white servants, did become free. Perhaps the most notable
of these free blacks was Anthony Johnson of Northampton County who,
after gaining his freedom, acquired property and imported Negro
servants of his own (Tate, 1972: 3).
It does not seem reasonable, however, that strange black
"heathens" would be considered the equals of the white servants.
Alden Vaughan (1972: 469-78) concludes that the black always held a
debased position in the eyes of the whites, drawing most of his'
39
40
evidence from censuses taken in 1624 and 1625, and from the 1627 will
of George Yeardley, a governor of the colony. On all of these docu
ments "negars" are listed separate from and below the servants. More
over, in the two censuses the most impersonal entries were those with
respect to the Negroes. The 1624 census lists none of the blacks
by more than a first name, and almost half of the Negroes mentioned
are listed with no name at all. The record of the following year was
more complete; nevertheless, it too indicated that the black held
a status inferior to that of the white servant.
Most listings for white servants included age and date of
arrival, data which was essential to a determination of their length
of service. Very few blacks were listed with these statistics; and
furthermore, although most had been in Virginia at least six years, none
of them was listed as free. The overall impression suggested by the
documents used by Vaughan is that the Negro in Virginia held a
significantly inferior position in colonial society from the time of
his arrival. Although slavery is not mentioned in the laws of colonial
Virginia until 1660, it is certain that by 1640 some blacks were
serving for life, and that this status was hereditary (Jordan, 1969: 73).
The conflicting evidence, some of which proves that blacks
coming to Virginia between 1619 and 1640 became freemen and some of
which indicates that other blacks served for life, suggests that
slavery as a fully sanctioned and defined status developed gradually,
both socially and legally. The colonists did have the example of
slavery in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies to follow. Precedents
of English servitude were also influential in the formation of the
system (Handlins, 1950: 200-02). Moreover, colonial society itself,was
41
newly developing and very malleable; in fact, the institutions of
society, as brought from England, were weakened by the transition
and adapted to the new situation in colonial America:
The authority of all institutions was quickly undermined and extremely difficult to maintain during the early decades of the settlement as the settlers engrossed in the pell-mell rush for profits, dispersed themselves over the landscape, displayed little willingness to let the welfare of the whole society interfere with their own individual ambition, and tried to turn all institutions into vehicles for individual advancement (Garraty, 1970: 36).
The quoted passage seems somewhat to overstate the point, but the
ambitions of the people in power clearly played a significant role in
the creation of slavery. The existing institutions did nothing to
discourage the development of this system; rather they adapted them
selves to sustain and strengthen it.
Most recent historians agree that prejudice was an important
factor in the development of American chattel slavery (Degler, 1959;
Jordan, 1969; Vaughan, 1972). Negroes were "strange" and considered
inferior, and therefore were discriminated against from the start.
Color was an obvious characteristic that separated the black from the
other colonists. Their manners must have seemed quite rude, and the
fact that they spoke a different language must have made communication
rather difficult. Finally, religion was a factor which fostered
prejudice against blacks. Religion was a very important factor in
seventeenth century life, with prejudice and discrimination against
non-Christians and heathens widespread (Noel, 1968: 165-66).
The most significant factor, however, in the development of the
system of slavery was economics. Profit-hungry planters needed a
constant source of cheap labor and they began to use Negroes. Once
42
this informal system was created, the planters, as the most powerful
men in Virginia, made sure that the system was legalized and maintained
(Garraty, 1970: 41). As more blacks became enslaved, people began to
generalize color as a status. As the system became increasingly
rigid, there was less tolerance for such "marginal" individuals as
free Negroes and children of mixed parentage. They, too, were soon
subjugated. Color, the colonists found, served as a most effective
means of social control; slaves were distinguishable on appearance
alone. White supremacy developed, in part, because the slaveholders
needed the support of the non-slaveholding whites to maintain the
institution. This support was easily generated by elevating the
meanest white to a position in society above that of the worthiest
black (Banton, 1970: 17-18).
The blacks' ethnocentrism set them apart from the other
indentured servants, but also contributing to their enslavement was
their total lack of power. Negroes had no spokesman or organization
that could help influence their position. Moreover, the cultural
diversity of the blacks hindered their formation of a single identity;
once established, they had become too subjugated for it to matter. The
early lack of group solidarity made the blacks highly vulnerable to
exploitation. The system of slavery had become fixed before the blacks
had developed enough unity, identity, and sense of shared fate to
challenge it (Noel, 1968: 169-71).
Winthrop Jordan (1969: 73) has divided the development of
slavery into three distinct stages. The first began with the arrival
of the Negroes in 1619 and continued until 1660, during which time the
system evolved through usage. In 1660 slavery was, for the first time,
43
defined by statute. The stage continued for forty-five years with
bits of discriminatory legislation being passed along the way. The
final stage began in 1705 when an entire slave code was formulated,
thus entrenching and perpetuating the system.
Until 1670 blacks were brought into Virginia at a very slow
rate. The last thirty years of the century saw a significant rise
in the number imported, but mass transportation of slaves seems to be
strictly a phenomenon of the eighteenth century. Whereas servants
had been the major labor source of the seventeenth century, slavery
replaced it in the eighteenth century.^
•^Unfortunately, population statistics for colonial Virginia are relatively scarce, and the question of how many Negroes were in Virginia at any given time after 1625 is not easily answered. The following figures are comprised from what records do exist from the period and the calculated estimates of scholars. Although the records are somewhat sketchy, population trends can be determined.
Twenty-three blacks were listed in the Virginia census of 1624-25, and by 1648 it appears that their number had increased to about 300 as compared with 15,000 whites (Tate, 1972: 12). In 1671,Sir William Berkeley, a prior royal governor of Virginia, estimated that of 45,000 people in the colony approximately 6,000 were servants and 2,000 slave. A percentage breakdown indicates that in 1671 eighty- two percent of the population was free, thirteen percent was indentured, and five percent was slave (Wertenbaker, 1969: 26). Craven (1971^98), who has made a study of the headrights for this period, feels that this estimate of blacks is somewhat high. He suggests that-Lord Culpeper’s figure of 3,000 blacks in the colony in 1681, although also open to question, is probably closer to the fact than Berkeley's. After 1690, the slave population showed a steady and rapid increase. By 1708 one- third of the inhabitants of the colony were slaves. The composition for 1754 was approximately 168,000 whites to 116,000 blacks, meaning that over forty percent of Virginia's population was enslaved. By 1763 or 340,000 people, almost one-half of the Commonwealth's inhabitants were black. From that date until the time of the American Revolution in 1776, slaves continued to constitute almost one-half of the population in Virginia (Green and Harrington, 1932: 136-40).
44
The historical precedents of slavery reveal much about its
development. Nevertheless, a full understanding of the system requires
some discussion of its legal development.
The Legal Background
By the 1640's evidence that Negroes were "serving for life"
began to appear in the court records. The earliest documentation
is a 1640 case concerning three runaway servants, one a Negro. The
court punished the two white servants by extending their service, but
the black was sentenced to serve for the rest of his life. Other
cases of the period also indicate that slavery was a status becoming
established in custom (Tate, 1972: 5).
In 1639 the Virginia Assembly passed its first law demonstrating
differential treatment for blacks. This law stated that all persons
were required to possess arms and ammunition except Negroes (Hening,
1823: Vol. I (1639), 226). Three years later a law was enacted pro
viding that black women, since they generally labored in the fields,
were to be considered tithable (Hening, 1823: Vol. I (1642), 242). The
first legislative evidence that Negroes were serving for life is a
1661 statute. A section of the act stated "that in case any English
servant shall run away in company with any negroes who are incapable
of making satisfaction by addition of time, " the servant must make
up the Negro’s lost time as well as his own (Henning, 1823: Vol. II
(1661), 26). In the following year, another discriminatory statute
appeared, declaring that if any Christian should commit fornication
with a Negro man or woman, he or she would have to pay double the
usual fine (Hening, 1823: Vol. II (1661-62), 114-15).
45
Although estimates indicate that the proportion of blacks in
1670 was probably no more that five percent of the total population,
legislators were evidently concerned about controlling this element of
the population. In an effort to give whites stronger regulatory powers
over their slaves, the Virginia Assembly, in 1669, passed a law stating
that it would not be considered a felony if a master or overseer killed
a slave while punishing him (Hening, 1823: Vol, II (1669), 270)*^
This law marked an important turning point in the treatment of the
slave - he had lost the right to legal protection.
A second statute, passed in 1680, was entitled an "Act for
Preventing Negroes Insurrections." Although designed to prevent slave
rebellion (of which there seems to have been very little real threat oat the time), the practical effect of the law was to curb the slave’s
freedom of movement and ability to resist the white man. Specifically,
it prohibited the slave from carrying weapons and from leaving his3master’s property without a certificate of permission. The act
The legislators reasoned that a man would not kill a slave without reason, as the slave represented a valuable investment. This is in marked contrast to the existing laws governing the punishment of servants, A 1668 law made it legal to discipline runaway servants with moderate corporal punishment. Never was it excusable under law to kill a servant under punishment.
2The first recorded slave rebellion was attempted on the Northern Neck of Virginia in 1687, seven years after the passage of this law. During the entire colonial period there were only nine uprisings or threats thereof in Virginia (Tate, 1972: 110).
oThe lawmakers were especially concerned that gatherings of blacks under "pretense of feasts and burialls" would lead to insurrections (Hening, 1823: Vol. II (1680), 481).
46
further prescribed severe punishments for blacks found lurking in
obscure places or who lifted a hand against a Christian. Finally,
a slave who resisted capture could lawfully be killed (Hening, 1823:
Vol. II (1680), 481).
At this same time there began to appear in the legislative
records attempts to define a status for the slave distinguishable from
that for a servant. Color was the first and most obvious criteria
used for discrimination, and a 1661 law provided that all Negro children
were to serve in the same status as their mothers (Hening, 1823: Vol. II
(1661), 170). This, of course, meant that the children of Negro women
serving for life would also serve for life, thus making slavery
hereditary by law.
Another method used by the early legislators to distinguish
“foreign" types for the purpose of enslaving them was religion.
Apparently, some Negroes had attempted to gain their freedom by
arguing, sometimes successfully, that they had been baptised.^" In
1667, however, the legislature stated that baptism would not alter
the status of a person serving as a slave (Hening, 1823: Vol. I (1667),
260). A law passed in 1670 established that “all servants not being
Christians imported into this colony by shipping shall be slaves for
their lives, but, what shall come by land shall serve" until thirty
years of age, or for twelve years depending on their age (Hening, 1823:
Vol. II (1670), 283). This statute was repealed in 1682 and a new,
more inclusive one enacted, stating that all Negroes, Moors, Mulattoes,
1Warren Billings examines two cases of freedom suits made on the grounds of baptism, one successful and one unsuccessful in “The Cases of Fernando and Elizabeth Key: A Note on the Status of Blacks in Seventeenth-Century Virginia" (1973: 467-74).
47
or Indians, if their native country was not Christian at the time of
their first purchase, even though they themselves might be converted
were to remain slaves for life (Hening, 1823: Vol. II (1682), 490-92).
By 1682, therefore, the fact that a black or any foreigner was a
Christian would no longer protect him from enslavement.
Prejudicial legislation was not confined only to slaves. Free
blacks likewise felt the pressure of legislative discrimination. In
1670 an act was passed making it illegal for free Negroes or Indians
to own servants other than ones of their own nation (Hening, 1823:
Vol. II (1670), 280).
Throughout the seventeenth century, legislative measures were
passed which deprived Negroes of their personal and civil liberties.
Although many laws were passed guaranteeing servant rights, almost all
of the laws dealing with the rights of slaves were restrictive in
nature.1 In 1705 all the random statutes regarding slavery previously
passed were codified, thus establishing Virginia1s first "slave code"
(Jordan, 1969: 82).
By 1705, the Virginia system of slavery was well rooted. The
slavery of this period was less harsh, than that of the nineteenth
century, but the basic restriction of rights had become statutory by
this time (Garraty, 1970: 51). A slave could not act as a witness
against a white person in either civil or criminal cases, nor could
he be a party to a civil suit. The slave was given no moral or
religious instruction, nor was he given the benefit of education
except in very rare cases. By this time the penal codes fashioned
^For a listing of the legislation involving slave rights see the table on page 111.
48
more severe punishment for the slaves than for whites accused of
similar offenses. Moreover, much to the disadvantage of the blacks,
slave trials were not processed in the same manner as those for whites
(Banton, 1967: 121).^ The system required the submission of the slaveoto not only his master, but to every white man.
•1-In 1692 the Assembly set up a special Court of Oyer and Terminer for the trial of slaves accused of capital crimes (Hening, 1823: Vol. Ill (1692), 102). For an explanation of these special slave courts see Chapter VII - "The Lancaster Court."
2See Appendix I for a year by year comparison of the laws concerning servants and slaves.
CHAPTER VI
SERVITUDE AND SLAVERY AS DEFINED AND DIFFERENTIATED BY LAW
The legislative records of colonial Virginia demonstrate
clearly that from the time servitude and slavery were first mentioned
in law discrimination existed. Even before each status had attained
full statutory definition - some differentiation between laws governing
blacks and whites was evident.^ Not only were different standards of
conduct established for servants and slaves, different forms of punish
ment were used as well.
To better understand the discrimination in written law it is
useful to breakdown the laws according to type. The laws passed by the
colonial Virginia Assembly relating to servants and slaves can be
classified according to the purpose of the law, as either civil or
criminal.
Civil law consists of those laws enacted to define the status
and rights of each group and to standardize these definitions throughout
the colony. The English common law which served as a basis for colonial
law had made no provision for indentured servitude and slavery as these
institutions were unique to the new world. As a general proposition
these definitional laws simply formalized many of the practices already
existing in Virginia.
■ In many cases separate statutes were enacted to cover very similar situations - the difference being that one set of laws were for servants and one set for slaves, Even when both statuses are mentioned in the same law, often its applicability differs between the two groups.
49
50
Specifically, there were two types of civil law relating to
servants and slaves. The first simply defined the position or status
of the person serving as servant or slave. The primary function of
these "laws of position" was to standardize practices throughout the
colony and to provide the local courts a gauge with which to determine
more easily the proper method to enforce regulations concerning
servants and slaves. Laws setting the time of service for servants
coming into Virginia without indentures were simple laws of definition.
An act passed in 1705, for example, stated that all Christian servants
brought into the colony without indentures, if above the age of nineteen,
were to serve five years and, if under nineteen, until age twenty-four.
The county courts would adjudge the ages of these servants who would
then serve according to the legally prescribed formula.
The following table illustrates the major pieces of definitional
legislation passed before 1730.
TABLE 1
DEFINITIONAL LAWS
Servant
Year Law16421661166116801711
Time set for servants coming into the colony without indentures Provision for certificates of freedomWomen servants working in the ground to be considered tithable Servants imported not to be tithable until age 14 Servants employed in crops to remain working in crop after
death of master until crop is finished
TABLE 1 - Continued
Slave
Year Law
1661
1661
16671668 1671 1680 1680 1.682
1705
1711
If run away with a servant the servant must make up his lost time
Children of Negro women to serve according to condition of mother
Baptism not to alter status of slaveAll Negro women (including free ones) to be considered tithableTo be considered as property in estatesTo be adjudged in courts within three months of arrivalTo be tithable at age 12All non-Christians coming into the colony to be considered
slavesBeing in England not grounds enough to alter the status of a
slaveSlaves employed in crops to remain working in crop after
death of master until crop is finished
A second type of definitional law is that prescribing the
rights of and restrictions upon servants and slaves. The laws defining
rights and imposing restrictions served to outline more fully the
actual status of servants and slaves in colonial Virginia society.
Between 1642 and 1730 over twenty laws were passed guaranteeing
servants a wide variety of rights. By contrast, only two laws were
enacted during this eighty-eight year period conferring any rights or
privileges upon the slaves.^ In fact, the status of slave was conti
nuously defined in terms of restriction of rights. For a year by
The two laws that did guarantee rights for slaves served to benefit the masters as much as the slaves. In 1705 a law was passedallowing masters to defend their slaves in courts of Oyer and Terminer.Since slaves were valuable property, masters were actually being given the right to protect their property. When slaves on frontier plantations were permitted to be licenced to carry arms in 1723, it was notonly for self-protection, but to protect their masters as well.
52
year listing of the laws guaranteeing and restricting the rights of
servants and slaves see the tables in Appendixes III and IV.
These tables, in addition, very well illustrate the basic
differences in the nature of the laws enacted to define the boundaries
of servitude and slavery. A few examples show the distinction. While
servants were given the right to own property in 1661, eight years
later it is clear that slaves were considered mere chattels when a law
was passed stating that masters were not to be charged with a crime if
they killed a slave while punishing him. In 1705, when masters were
prohibited from using immoderate corporal punishment on servants,
they were permitted to dismember incorrigible slaves. The law of
1705 entitled "An Act Concerning Servants and Slaves11 combined all
previous legislation into a unified code. By this time, the boundaries
of what constituted servitude and slavery had been formally established
by statute. Future definitional laws would serve only to readjust these
boundaries.
Most criminal law defined crimes that could be committed by
anyone regardless of status. The discriminatory element of these laws
was that the nature of the punishment varied with the status of the
criminal. Corporal punishment was used much more extensively on slaves
than on. either white servants or freemen.'*' There were some crimes that
only applied to indentured servants and slaves, simply because of the
nature of their obligation to their masters. Examples of such laws are
those concerning running away, resisting one's master, and plotting
insurrections.
^The types of punishment used in eighteenth century Virginia and their applicability to people of different statuses is discussed in Chapter VIII - ’'Criminal Proceedings in the Lancaster Court.”
53
Several interesting contrasts come to light when the various
types of laws are examined with respect to their effects upon servants
and slaves. Strict definitional law was applied to both groups in an
attempt to outline and standardize status throughout the colony. In
addition, both servants and slaves were subjected to restrictive
legislation, although it is clear that a larger number of these laws
were directed primarily against slaves. Most important, however,
during this period many laws were passed guaranteeing servants various
civil rights, while only two can be construed as safeguarding the rights
of slaves.
The criminal laws passed concerning the two statuses differed
somewhat in their actual intent, A large majority of the criminal
laws which were passed to remedy existing problems were directed at
servants. In contrast, most laws regulating slavery, were more
anticipatory in nature. In other words, the laws controlling the
behavior of servants for the most part were passed and enforced only
when absolutely necessary to ensure tranquility and to maintain the
existing social order. On the other hand, most of the laws regulating
slavery were passed before slaves constituted a large or threatening
portion of the population and, in fact, before many of the problems
legislated against actually existed. For example the "Act Against
Negro Insurrections'’ was originally passed in 1680 yet the first
recorded attempt at such a rebellion did not occur until 1687. By
contrast, the law passed to prevent servant insurrections was passed
in reaction to an attempted rebellion in Gloucester County in 1663.
Although all major restrictive legislation directed at slaves was
enacted long before 1705, very few cases involving slaves were brought
54
in the Lancaster court before 1707. Cases involving servants appear
in the records as soon as, or on some occasions even before, the
enactment of legislation regulating that specific crime.
Slavery may not have been such an "unthinking" decision. It
seems that the Virginia legislators were aware quite early of the
potential economic importance brought about by a large permanent work
force. They also realized from the examples of other slave-owning
societies the problems of control when a large portion of a society
was enslaved. By the time slaves did become a significant economic
element of the^population and a threat to the slaveholders, the Virginia
colonist had already established a system of bondage well regulated by
law. As control on the local level became more necessary to the
overall operation of the society and the maintenance of the economic
system based upon slave labor, the local courts began to enforce the
discriminatory legislation more strictly to ensure the perpetuation of
slavery.
To determine if the same discrimination existed locally as is
evident in the legislative annals of colonial Virginia, the court
records of Lancaster County, Virginia have been examined. To appre
ciate the operation of the Lancaster Court, however, some understanding
of the procedures of the county court is essential.
CHAPTER VII
THE LANCASTER COUNTY COURT
Lancaster County and Its Records
The records of the Lancaster County court were chosen because
they are one of the few sets of Virginia county court records that have
survived intact, which is a major consideratiop when the study extends
over a period of time. Moreover, most of the records are legible, and
a large number of early records are not. In addition, they are thought
by other scholars to be typical for their area and time (Smith, 1947:
277).
Lancaster County is located on the southeastern tip of the
Northern Neck of Virginia.^" Located on the coast it was settled by
1648 and established as a county in 1651. In 1669 it was divided into
two counties - Lancaster and Middlesex. Because of its early settlement
and the early development of servitude and slavery there, Lancaster
makes a particularly good area of concentration for the study of the
growth of these two institutions.
The county court records are very valuable as a resource for
the study of colonial history. Besides the fact that they are some of
the few primary sources still existing, they are rich in their content
and scope. The following description was written by a historian who
has devoted much of her time to the study of these early records.
^The Northern Neck is the peninsula between the Potomac and Rappahannock rivers.
56
(The) records, like those of other Virginia counties, comprise local court orders, wills, deeds, inventories and some proclamations of the governor and council as well as laws, orders, and other material coming from the provincial government. Some personal letters, bills, agreements and other papers were also recorded there as being the best means for their preservation. Although some of the material may seem commonplace and repetitious, there is much that is highly diversified and important, resulting from the fact that the local court exercised jurisdiction over many matters now controlled by individuals, public and private organizations, and the federal government.
Particularly illuminating are the prosecutions and litigations growing out of a newly-transplanted society, one with many features of different classes or groups with interests at times far apart, with some individuals ruthlessly exploiting opportunities for advancement, some irresponsibly following the inclination of the moment, and many, their reach exceeding their grasp, entangled in debt. It was a society with wrongs to be redressed and with rights and security to be maintained; and for these, it found in the institution of the county court a technique and surety of incomparable value. Again and again the colonists have recourse to the law; and often, too, the law seeks them out to restrain or punish. It is from the resulting court records that the historian frequently gets data that give a picture of the life of the time or fill in historical gaps or even, along with other materials, point the way to certain conclusions. Indeed the character of the records, and especially the litigant element, makes them a fruitful field for research into such matters of historical scholarship as the modification of the Old World pattern by the New World environment; the beginnings and subsequent workings of some institutions; the relation between various groups, activities, events, movements, time sequences in the development of society; or into other matters informational or interpretative. Indeed, many categories of human endeavor, interests, and ideas exemplifying "the process of civilization" are found within the Virginia court records, making them truly "a chapter in human experience" (Ames, 1947: 179-80).
To better understand the county court records, it is essential
to understand the county courts of Virginia and how they functioned.
Therefore, it is useful to outline the county court system of colonial
Virginia generally and as it applied to Lancaster County.
The Historical Background of the County Court in Virginia
County or monthly courts were created by an Act. of Assembly
in response to growth in the colony which made the use of one
57
centralized court inconvenient both in terms of the number of cases
to be handled and in terms of its location with respect to the new
settlements. The county courts had jurisdiction over limited civil
and criminal cases. By the end of the seventeenth century, however,
restrictions on the civil jurisdiction of these courts were removed and
the county courts could determine all civil causes brought for an
amount in excess of twenty shillings; those for lesser amounts were
decided by single justices. These decisions could be appealed to
the higher courts (Chitwood, 1905: 74).
In addition, county courts had authority to probate wills
and administrate estates, to punish vagrants, to indenture orphan
and bastard children, and to decide cases involving masters vs.
servants or vice versa. Moreover, the court was in charge of local
matters such as tax collection, public roads, and ordinary licensing
(Talpalar. 1968: 149). Criminal jurisdiction, however, was more
restricted because the Assembly considered juries composed of frontiers
men less experienced in judicial matters, not to be trusted with the
fate of criminals charged with high crimes. Accordingly, the juris
diction of these courts was limited in cases ’’touching life or
member" to referring cases with merit to one of the Quarter Courts.
The county courts generally convened once a month in the
"county town," where there was a courthouse which served as a reposi
tory for official documents such as the court order books, land
records, and marriage licenses. Typically, there was also a jail,
whipping post, ducking stool, stocks, pillory, and a gibbet. As the
importance of the courthouse as a central meeting place increased
ordinaries and stores grew up around it (Talpalar, 1968: 149-50).
58
Justices of the county courts were appointed by the governor
from lists of nominees submitted by the existing justices of that
county. Appointments were renewed at the discretion of the governor,
but because the custom was to approve most existing justices, appoint
ments were generally for life. Consequently, the county courts were
pretty much self-controlling bodies. The number of justices on a
particular county court varied according to place and time, but usually
ranged from eight to eighteen. The attendance of these justices
was often irregular and when a justice was absent too often he was
fined. Even though the control of the.county courts was in the hands
of a few, the integrity of the judiciary was considered most important.
Judges could be removed for such indiscretions as drinking on court
days. Upon taking the oath of office they had to swear to "do equal
right to all manner of people, great and small, high and low, rich and
poor, according to equity and good conscience and the laws and usages
of this colony" (Talpalar, 1968: 149).
Decisions were reached by majority vote of the justices,
but the county courts could also hold trials by jury. The juries
were composed of twelve bystanders, selected each day the court was
in session. Jurors on county courts were required to be property
holders of at least fifty pounds value (Chitwood, 1905: 80-83).
Despite certain defects, the county courts seemed well adapted to
local needs and there were few complaints regarding their fairness1(Chitwood, 1905: 93-94).
•^Study of the Lancaster court records seems to indicate that the justices there were adjudicating equitably. Even servants and slaves brought before the court were accorded due process of laxtf. See Chapter X - "Accessibility and Due Process in the Lancaster Court.
59
All major crimes committed by white persons were tried in
Williamsburg before one of the Quarter Courts.. It was quite inconvenient
and most expensive for the counties, especially those on the frontier
to send the prisoner, his guards, twelve jurors, and an average of
four or five witnesses to the capital for each trial. Consequently,
a special Examining Court, composed of the county justices and held
in the county, was created. The purpose of this court was to deter
mine if there was a reasonable chance of conviction before sending
the criminal to Williamsburg for trial. This system worked to the
advantage of the criminal against whom the evidence was not particularly
strong (Scott, 1930: 48-49).
When a prisoner who had committed an offense that was triable
at the General Court was captured, the justices were summoned to meet
at a time not less than five, nor more than ten, days from the time
of arrest. The prisoner and witnesses were heard, and if the court
decided that the case was strong enough for a trial in Williamsburg,
all witnesses were required to post bond to ensure their appearance
in court there. The Examining Courts, thus, served a function similar
to today's grand juries in making a probable cause determination but
not a final decision of guilt or innocence (Scott, 1930: 60-62).
Punishment for slaves accused of capital crimes was felt to
be most effective in deterring other slaves from crime if administered
immediately. Consequently, an Act of Assembly in 1692 provided that
the governor, upon notification by the sheriff that a slave accused
of a capital crime was in custody, could issue a special commission
of Oyer and Terminer to such persons of the county that he deemed fit
(usually the justices of the peace). Because of the inconvenience of
60
this process, the justices of the peace were later given a standing
commission of Oyer and Terminer for cases in which slaves were
accused of capital offenses (Chitwood, 1905: 99-100). These special
courts were held in the counties, rather than in Williamsburg, and
without a jury. In 1705 an act was passed which allowed masters to
testify in defense of their slaves "as to matters of fact." It also
provided public reimbursement for the owner if his slave were executed.
Furthermore, it was decided, in 1748, that a divided vote of the
justices (it is uncertain whether "divided" refers to a tie vote or
any non-unanimous vote) constituted acquittal. This act was in the
interest of the slave and ultimately the slave owner since slaves
were too valuable an investment be be hanged without due consideration
(Scott, 1930: 46).
Presentments and indictments were made by the churchwardens and
the grand jury. The churchwardens were supposed to make presentments
for fornication, adultery, drunkeness, abusive and blasphemous speaking,
absence from church, Sabbath-breaking, and other moral violations.
This type of duty was rather thankless and although they had this
power during the entire colonial period, it was seldom used (Chitwood,
1905: 83-84). The fact that the fines in these cases went toward the
benefit of the poor did not increase the activity of the churches in
crime prevention (Scott, 1930: 71).
In 1645, a statute provided that grand juries should be appointed
to act as public accusers to make presentments to the county courts. The
county courts soon became lax with respect to use of the grand jury,
however, and in 1677 a law was passed declaring that each court x-?hich
failed to swear a grand jury at least once a year would be fined two
61
thousand pounds of tobacco, each juror who failed to attend court
without a lawful excuse fined two hundred pounds. The sheriff
summoned twenty-four freeholders, usually twice a year, in May and
November, to serve on the grand jury. If less than the working number
of fifteen appeared, then the absentees were fined (Chitwood, 1905:
85-86). Usually the grand jury was summoned one month in advance, thus
giving the members time to discover violations of the law before the
next court convened (Scott, 1930: 69).^
Officials of the court - justices, sheriffs, and constables -
were supposed to report any violations of the law that came to their -
attention. This hardly proved an effective "police11 force, however,
and therefore, the churchwardens and grand jurors were given the
specific duty of reporting criminal violations. In fact, any private
citizen could report criminal violations*and in most cases he would
receive some part of the resulting fine as a reward. To ensure
further crime detection, masters were held responsible for reporting
breaches of law committed by their servants or slaves (Scott, 1930: 52).
After arrest, the prisoner was taken for a preliminary hearing
before a justice of the peace as soon as possible. After listening
to the prisoner and witnesses, if any, the justice would decide on
a charge. If the prisoner were charged with a felony or could not
furnish bail, he was committed to jail. Trials were conducted quickly,
^During the period studied the grand jury of Lancaster County was used so seldomly that it is impossible to study grand jury transactions over a period of time. This is particularly unfortunate because such presentments are made by people who normally do not hold positions of authority, and consequently, demonstrate at a most basic level what the people of a certain locality consider deviant at a particular time.
62
not only in deference to the rights of the prisoner, but to minimize
the expense of keeping him in custody and to give him less opportu
nity to escape (Scott, 1930: 56-57).
The Virginia county court system was organized in 1643.
Despite the lack of modern methods of communication the Lancaster
court operated very much according to regulation and always with
awareness of the latest legislation. Nevertheless, the Lancaster
court, as most courts, was sensitive to the local as well as the central
needs and trends of society.
What the Local Records Reveal About the Legislation
Although many laws were enacted by the colonial Assembly during
the period under study only certain of them were enforced in the
Lancaster court. One inference which may be drawn is that not all
the behavior considered deviant by the legislature was so considered
in Lancaster County. Another is that threatened deviant behavior
which prompted a colony-wide law never posed a threat in this.locality.
Generally, cases found in the local court annals involve matters of
particular concern to the locality,and the Lancaster court records,
therefore, should reveal much about that part of colonial Virginia in
terms of its unique needs, the behavior it considered deviant, and the
problems which threatened its stability and growth. For a breakdown
of the servant and slave cases brought into the Lancaster County court
between 1660 and 1730 see Appendix II.^
^From this chart many of the actual problems and their extent with respect to each of these classes is evident. Much minor slave crime was not processed in court and consequently, does not appear in the record. It would be hasty to conclude, however, that simply because a certain crime or problem is not mentioned in the records it did not, in fact, occur in Lancaster County.
One obvious conclusion can be made with respect to the laws
relating to the control of servant and slave insurrections. Although
these laws had been on the books since 1663 and 1680, respectively,
rebellion of either group was not seen as a problem in Lancaster
County. There is no evidence in the court records that meetings of
servants were prohibited at any time. Moreover, in the only case
found wherein slaves were charged with meeting illegally their punish1ment was merely a warning.
Another interesting pattern which reveals additional informa
tion about the laws is the order in which the legislation and enforce
ment appear in the records. As might be expected, much of the legis
lation which appears in the following table precedes its enforcement
by several years.
^The records for the court on October 10, 1716 indicate:
that one James Burns of this county sometime in September last permitted a great concourse of Negroes to assemble at his plantation and there to revell and drink in a verydisorderly manner under pretense of a feast made by twoof his Negroes (viz.) Duke and Adam in Contempt of the Laws and to the terror of his Majesties subjects. . . .
Burns was ordered to appear at the next session of court and Duke andAdam were taken into custody. The record for the next court statedthat James Burns appeared and
satisfied this court that he was ignorant of the day of making the said feast and that he contributed nothing thereto. . . .
he also assured the court that there would be no such meetings inthe future. The court dismissed the case and released the two blacksLancaster, at this time, evidently did not fear a united rebellion of the slaves, or surely the court would have punished the offenders more severely.
64
TABLE 2EXAMPLES OF LEGISLATION PRECEDING ENFORCEMENT
Law Passed
Appeared in Court Records
Servant right to complain about ill-treatment in court
1642 1658
Certificates for headrights to be made before county court
1657 1659
Ages of servants to be adjudged in courts 1657 1659
Penalty for bastardy 1657 1662
Provision for viewing bodies of servants before burial
1661 1663
Right to ownership of property (Servant) 1661 1663
Reward established for capturers of runaways 1669 1670
Court of Oyer and Terminer for trial of slaves established
1692 1713
Dismemberment as correction for incorrigible slaves could be authorized by the local courts
1705 1707
Masters to be repaid from public funds if one of his slaves is punished by execution
1705 1714
There are also many cases in which the converse is true -
certain activities, rights, and crimes were judicially recognized,
prior to legislative enactment. As can be seen from the following
table, a majority of these cases involve protection of the rights of
servants. In Lancaster County servants were contesting unfair contracts,
their freedom, and freedom dues prior to the time that the Assembly
guaranteed such rights. This treatment before the court seems to
demonstrate that a respect for servants and their rights existed in
Lancaster County very early. From the beginning in 1657 the court
65
records are replete with cases involving servants and their rights.
Not only were servants allowed the privilege of judicial process,1but, in a majority of cases, the court decided in their favor. It
does not seem possible that this would occur in a society where
discrimination against servants was the accepted practice.
TABLE 3
EXAMPLES OF ENFORCEMENT PRECEDING LEGISLATION
Law
Appeared in Court Records Passed
Contracts between masters and servants to be made before a justice of the peace
1665 1676
Contracts between master and servant to be made before county courts
1665 1705
Penalty for selling free persons as slaves 1671 1705
Right to petition for freedom in court (Servant) 1657 1705
Right to petition for freedom dues in court (dues guaranteed)
1662 1705
Servants could choose to be whipt in lieu of fines 1657 1705
Penalty for servant violence against master 1662 1705
Penalty for servant pretending a skill 1660 1705
See Chapter IX - "Civil Actions in the Lancaster Court" - for more specific information regarding the treatment of servants before the Lancaster court.
CHAPTER VIII
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE LANCASTER COURT:SERVANT AND SLAVE - ADJUDICATION AND PUNISHMENT
We have seen a significant difference in the treatment accorded
servants and slaves in the written law of colonial Virginia. One
would expect that the same disparity would carry over into the courts
which enforced the laws. To determine whether this was in fact the
case, the Court Order Books of Lancaster County, Virginia^" were
examined and all cases dealing with servants, slaves, and free blacks
were extracted. One of the most obvious differences in the treatment
of servants and slaves is the kind of punishment meted out for viola
tion of the law.
The punishment used by the courts for various crimes was for
the most part set by law. Nevertheless, the local courts were allowed
a certain amount of discretion in the administration of criminal
punishment. If there were mitigating circumstances In a case, the
justices might impose a lighter sentence than the law dictated or
release the accused with a warning. The purpose of this section is to
compare the way in which servants and slaves, as prescribed in the
law were punished in the Lancaster County court.
Very seldom in colonial Virginia was a jail sentence imposed
as a punitive measure; more often, fines or corporal punishment were
^The period studied extends from 1657 (the date when the first records begin) to 1730 by which time both servitude and slavery were flourishing in Lancaster County.
66
67
1 2 used. Although a servant could "pay" a fine by serving extra time,
slaves were serving for life and, therefore, the addition of time would
have been meaningless* By necessity, then, the punishments used for
slaves were entirely corporal in nature. It must be noted that in
the case of servants, corporal punishment was available and sometimes
used as an alternative to a fine.
There was a wide range of corporal punishment available to
the local justices, but whipping was by far the most frequently
employed. This form of castigation was usually performed by the
county sheriff immediately after the trial in the amount of twenty,
thirty, or thirty-nine lashes "on the bare back well laid on."
Servants had the right to choose whipping in lieu of additional
service to pay for a fine. Some Lancaster servants (including several
women) decided on this alternative.
Each county was required to erect and keep in repair a pair
of stocks and a pillory. Criminals would be locked in these devices
for a prescribed number of hours during which time they were objects
of public ridicule, great crowds of people gathering to enjoy the
^Although some of the colonial statutes approved imprisonment as a means of punishment, such a sentence was seldom imposed. The public expense in housing prisoners for extended periods was prohibitive. Moreover, the conditions of the prisons were deplorable and the records in fact show that various prisoners, held in the eighteenth century Virginia jails, had frozen to death. Finally, escape from these establishments was relatively easy. For all these reasons, the prisons of that time were not used for incarceration but rather for pretrial detention and as repositories for runaway slaves or servants until they could be claimed by their masters (Chumbley, 1938: 127).
2Payment of the fine in money was usually impossible since most servants were impecunious.
68
plight of the offender. These contrivances must have relied primarily
on their mere existence to deter crime, however, because they were
infrequently used. The pillory served also as a back board for
another form of corporal punishment - ear cropping. This rather
gruesome practice was accomplished by first nailing the ear to the
pillory and then, after a set amount of time, usually an hour,
separating thecriminal from the pillory by cutting off the ear. The
Lancaster Court used ear cropping infrequently during this period and,
when it was used, slaves were the recipients.
Corporal stigmas such as ear cropping and branding were
employed to punish those convicted of crimes not serious enough to
warrant execution. In addition, these signs served as a warning to
the community at large Of the criminal tendencies of the individual.
Branding was usually accomplished by burning the letter "M,V to denote
murderer, or "T," to denote other felons on the brawn of the left
thumb (Chumbley, 1938: 127). During the period studied the Lancaster
court ordered one slave*s ears cropped for burglary; a second slave
was branded for manslaughter.
The emphasis on corporal punishment may seem unduly harsh by
today's standards, but it must be remembered that such punishment was
a substitute for imprisonment which would have been even harsher
because of the deplorable conditions of the jails. Moreover, the
colonists were concerned with deterring crime and felt that, to be
effective punishment needed to be sufficiently harsh to create fear
among prospective deviants.
Punishment inflicted for a capital crime, loss of life or
limb, by law applied equally to slaves, servants, and freemen. The
69
servant charged with a capital offense, just as the freeman, would be
brought before a local ’’examining court,” and if this court found
reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was guilty, he would be
sent on to the General Court for a trial by jury. The slave, on the
other hand, was tried by a local court of Oyer and Terminer, without
a jury (Hening, 1823: Vol. Ill (1692), 102).
The main purpose of the courts of Oyer and Terminer was to
guarantee a more speedy trial for slaves. A fast trial meant less
time lost from work if the slave were acquitted; if found guilty, the
speedy infliction of punishment would serve as a warning to other
slaves. Trying slaves in the locality also lessened the public
expense required to keep the slave in custody until the next court
session in Williamsburg and to transport him and other participants
once the court convened.
On the other hand, speedy local trials sometimes benefited the
slaves, as they meant shorter time that the slave would have to spend
in jail. It seems, too, from examining the Lancaster County records
that, on occasion, it was to the advantage of a slave to be tried
by people who knew him or the other people involved in the case. For
example, in 1713, Tom, a slave, was brought to court for stealing
various articles of food and clothing from a neighboring house.
Although this was a capital offense, the court, finding the slave
”not deserving of death,” released him after he had received thirty-nine
lashes (Lancaster Court Order Books: Feb. 6, 1713). Unfortunately, a
year later the court's familiarity with this slave worked to his
disadvantage. Upon being found guilty of feloniously breaking,
entering, and stealing some bacon and a knife, he was sentenced to
death (Lancaster County Court Order Books: June 11, 1714).
70
In another Lancaster case, Jocob, a slave, was found guilty
of burglary, but because the crimes were committed in the company of
his mistress and a servant the court mitigated his punishment. Rather
than being executed he received thirty-nine lashes, had his ears
removed, and was thereafter released (Lancaster County Court Order
Book: October 31, 1723).
These lesser punishments were not always the case, however,
because the Lancaster court (between 1660 and 1730) did sentence four
slaves to hang for the crimes of murder, rape, and burglary. The
chart on the next page illustrates the punishments used by the special
slave courts in Lancaster County.
Had any white man, servant or free, been convicted of murder,
rape, or burglary, he too, could have received identical punishment.
Whites charged with commission of a ’’life or limb” crime, however,
could only be "examined" in the Lancaster court and, if probable cause
were found, sent on to the General Court for trial on the merits and
sentencing. Between 1657 and 1730 there were a number of free whites
examined and sent on to the General Court, but only one servant was
brought before the Lancaster court accused of a crime serious enough
to merit a capital trial. That the records of the General Court have
been distroyed is unfortunate, however, since the outcome of these cases
cannot be determined and the useful comparison between punishment of
white men and .slaves for identical offenses thereby impossible.
For crimes in which the punishment was loss of life, the very
nature of the punishment dictated that the ultimate result fall equally
on all found guilty. Although hanging was the usual method of execution
in colonial Virginia (and the only one employed by the Lancaster court
SLAVE
OYER
AND
TERMINER
TRIA
LS
3<0
4-1 >f l CO O CO3 <0 B <0B x : 50 50 CO -C 50 50 • 3
XS CO £ £ J-4 «4J CO £ £ 3CO cd • ft •H cd •H •H *3
hQ 50 50 CO i J 50 50 ££ £ fl J-l £ £ cd£ ov cd cd cd Ov cd cd J-4
p4 r o PC PC w c o PC PC PQ
50 CO CO 4-1 1 2 3fl B B £ (0 a a a•ft cd cd CO 1 o cd cdu CO CO a 3 a u CO COCO -C cd 0 CO i4-1 cu <0 CO o o CO CO <0 CO ££ 50 x : _£ •r4 CO X ! 4-1 XJ -£ cq
*3 Pd £ -u 4-1 £ x> <0 4J •ft 4-1 4-1 j s£ •H 3 u X33 M-4 i—4 M-4 U-l A* T3 CO £ 5 M-4 M-l M-l J-lO O Cd o o v - / (0 & -r-4 O O o 3
Pm (0 4-1 M-4 4-1SO -P Po So cd CO *3 O SO So s o x :4-1 CO 4-1 4-1 4-1 50 CO CO 4-1 4-1 4J 50i—4 r —4 r-4 i—l •r4 a 4-1 JO r-4 r—i .—1 3•ft T3 *H •H •H U •H 4-1 £ •H •H •H cd3 £ 3 3 3 •H J-l •H cd 3 3 3 r—1
O Cd O O O a o a flu O O O to
J o J o SO4-1 4-1 4-1
• 3 i—l r—4 i—43 •H •H i-4
T J So So 3 So 3 3cd ■M 4-1 4-1 O 4-1 o OCD c-4 i—4 i—l i—4
i—4 •ft *H •rl 4-1 •H 4-1 4-1p -i 3 3 3 O 3 o O
O O O 53 O X 53
50 50£ f l
•ft •rlr—4 t—tcd cdCO CO4-1 4-1CO CO
3 TO <0 3£ £ > i— l >cd cd cd u cd
3 t-4 • f t i—450 *» •• CO CO o COu 50 50 COcd £ £ J-l •rl 4J J-4
x : • ft *r4 (0 >-l £ COo J-l p x : cd cd - f l
(0 CO 4-1 »—4 > 4-1■u 4-1 O 50 J-4 O£ £ £ J-4 CO £
W W cd 3 CO cdPQn M-4 cd 50
50 50 O CO ££ £ 3 M-l •rl
•H •H 5-4 O o j-iCO J-l 4J 3
cd cd 3 (0 <0 M-l 3CO CO J-l B cu CO J-4p j-i 3 3 cd _£ 3PQ PQ a 53 & H (Si
50<0 £ 3s> •H XI So £ 50cd c u o u •H J-l
i—4 B f l o u -Q OCO o ed cd cd O 3
H J s 3 X O
c oCM CM c o in
CO i—i CM \ CM CM CMCO i—4 \ -— i—4 —-u —^ i—1 O CO in Ov r~-cd vo r—1 c o CM r-4Q — *•— o — i—4
CM vO m r—4 CM i—l f-1
71
72
during the period studied) other more uncomfortable methods of execution
were sanctioned. The use of the more gruesome methods seems to have
been a characteristic of the early seventeenth century when maintainance
of the internal solidarity of the colony was essential to its survival.
In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, it seems that the
method of inflicting the death penalty, whether hanging or some other
method, was determined more by the crime committed than by the status
of the person committing the offense. In the eighteenth century a
change is evident, gruesome executions being employed primarily to
punish slaves. Nevertheless, the nature of the crime still strongly
influenced the method of punishment - particularly gross crimes being
punished by more violent types of death.^
Just as capital crimes committed by servants and slaves were
processed differently, so were cases involving minor crimes. Servants
had the right to be tried before the county court for minor offenses,
including bastardy, violence against their masters, petit theft, and
running away. A slave suspected of a minor crime like lifting a hand
■^Most slaves during the eighteenth century were executed by hanging. There are cases recorded, however, of execution being accomplished by other means. Poisoning one's master was considered a particularly horrible crime and when an Orange County slave, Eve, was convicted of poisoning her master she was drawn on a hurdle to the execution place and burned at the stake (Tate, 1972: 98).
There are also cases where a slave, after being executed, had his head cut off to be displayed in the community as a deterrent to other slaves who might be contemplating criminal activity. In 1772, two Augusta County slaves were convicted of murdering the same man. According to the court record:
it appearing to the Court that they had plotted and conspired to do the murder some time before it was done and that their heads be severed from their bodies and that one of their heads be affixed on a pole below this Town near the road at the rocks and the other near the road leading from Williams Mitchell's to Staunton (Augusta County Court Order Books:March 24, 1772).
73
against a Christian, possessing arms, or running away, need not be
brought before the entire court to be sentenced and in fact, the normal
practice was for him to be sentenced by a single justice outside the
courtroom (Tate, 1972: 92). While the Lancaster court records,
therefore, do not indicate minor slave crime, the mere fact that minor
slave crime does not appear in the trial records does not mean that
it did not occur. To the contrary, there is indication that these
crimes did occur. Slave runaways illustrate this point. For the
period studied, although the Lancaster records do indicate that one
black was brought before the court for running away,^ the court
certified reward for the capture of eighteen runaway slaves during the 2same period. This clearly demonstrates that slaves in fact were
running away but their punishment if and when apprehended was not
formally determined in the courtroom.
Typically, a master disciplined his own slaves. A 1669 law
indicates that masters were indeed administering their own "justice,"
stating that if a slave died while under correction, the master was
exempt from being charged with a felony (Hening, 1823: Vol. II (1669),
270). In 1723 the Assembly .amended this law to permit indictment
of a white man if it could be proven through the testimony of one
credible witness that the death of the slave resulted from a willful
or malicious act (Hening, 1823: Vol. IV (1723), 133). This provision
offered the slave a little more protection under the law, but very
^This slave was mentioned in the records only because he ran away in the company of white servants (Lancaster County Court Order Books: Sept. 19, 1679).
2Interestingly, all eighteen of these slaves were captured between 1710 and 1730. This seems to be another indication that the conditions of slavery were becoming less bearable after the turn of the seventeenth century.
74
seldom was it enforced in the colonial Virginia courts. No such
presentments were brought to the Lancaster court between the enactment
of the 1723 amendment and 1730.
Certain crimes could be committed only by servants and slaves,
with running away a primary example. Punishment, however, was quite
different depending on the status of the accused. A servant caught
after running away received added service - double time for the period
gone in addition to extra time to compensate for the expense of his
return (Hening, 1823: Vol. II (1657), 116-71), and moderate corporal
punishment as well (Hening, 1823: Vol. II (1668), 266). A slave
serving for life, of course, could not be punished by the addition of
time and by necessity his discipline for running away was always
corporal, and harsher than that given servants. In addition to the
normal punishment of whipping, habitual slave runaways could be deter-.
red by dismemberment (Hening, 1823: Vol. Ill (1705), 461), which usually
meant the loss of a foot (Tate, 1972: 97). In Lancaster County, the
usual punishment for such incorrigibles was the loss of the toes
rather than the entire foot. Between 1707 and 1730 the court permitted1dismemberment of five slaves. Finally, and most severe, runaway slaves
could be killed if they resisted capture (Hening, 1823: Vol. II (1672),
299) or were found "lurking in obscure places" (Hening, 1823: Vol. II
(1680), 481).
Certain laws were directed specifically at slaves. One such
example was the "Act for Preventing Negroe Insurrections" which
^All five slaves who were ordered dismembered by the Lancaster court belonged to Robert "King" Carter (two in 1707, one in 1722, and two in 1725). Carter was by far the largest slave owner in the Virginia colony, and it might be expected that he would have more problem in controlling his slaves than others who with relatively few, could use a more personal, and probably more effective, method of slave control.
75
prohibited slaves from carrying a "club, staffe, gunn, sword, or any
other weapon of defense or offense" and from leaving their master's
grounds without permission. Moreover, this act provided that any
slave lifting a hand against a Christian would receive thirty lashes
(Hening, 1823: Vol. II (1680), 481). Both of these crimes were con
sidered minor at that time and, consequently, their commission is not
recorded in the Lancaster Court Order Books.
Some legislation was aimed specifically at servant offenses.
It was quite easy for a servant, particularly a white one, to pass as
free. Therefore, the laws regulating runaway servants were more
intricate than those affecting slaves. A special provision was
enacted to punish servants who had forged or had used forged certi
ficates in attempting to pass as free (Hening, 1823: Vol. Ill (1705),
453). Runaway servants changing their names or disguising themselves
to avoid capture faced the punishment of six months additional service
(Hening, 1823: Vol, IV (1726), 174).
One particularly problematical crime which applied to women
servants, but not to female slaves was bastardy*- (Hening, 1823: Vol. II
(1657) 115; Vol. Ill (1705), 452). A child born to a slave woman was a
welcome addition to a slave holder's estate, but a master had no claim
to a child born to his unmarried servants. Therefore, to compensate
the master for lost time from work caused by the pregnancy, the new
mother had additional time (usually a year) added to her length of
service. Moreover, if she could not pay or find someone to pay the
churchwardens her fine for fornication, she had to serve extra for this.
*”The crime of bastardy was also enforced against free white women (they would be fined), but much less frequently than in the case of servants.
76
Between 1660 and 1730 there were seventy-nine women brought before the
Lancaster court charged with bastardy. As a baby was undeniable
evidence against the woman - all were found guilty and had time added
to their term of service.
Clearly, from the time the Lancaster County court began adjudi
cating, there was discrimination against the servants and slaves.
Much of this discrimination was the result of that court*s enforcement
of discriminatory laws. The types of punishment designated by law and
used by the court differed according to the status of the accused.
Freemen were punished differently from servants, and servants different
ly from slaves. For servants and slaves the differential punishment
can, in large part, be attributed to the nature of their status, and
the consequent legal prescriptions for punishment. Inadequate docu
mentation makes it impossible to determine the extent to which personal
prejudice on the part of the justices affected the nature and severity
of the punishments accorded each class. There is, however, evidence
that the judgments of these courts were for the most part quite
equitable.^
The following case from the Lancaster records well illustrates
the differential treatment received by freemen, servants, and slaves.
In October, 1723, a case came before the Lancaster court involving a
free white, a servant, and a slave - all accused of the same crime.
Jacob, a Negro male, was presented for stealing three bags of tobacco
and one-half bushel of Indian corn belonging to Henry Horne. Martha
Flint (the slave's mistress) and Mary Moulton (a servant to the same)
■^This point is discussed at length in Chapter X - "Accessibility and Due Process in the Lancaster Court.
77
were presented for aiding and abetting the crime and both were found
guilty.
The mistress was sentenced to pay all fines and to stand in
the pillory for one hour. In addition, she was imprisoned for one
"Kallender month” without bail and then "to continue on in gaol until
she find security for her good behavior for one year." The servant,
received thirty-nine lashes and was thereafter released (Lancaster
County Court Order Books: October 9, 1723).
The slave was merely "examined” at this time and several
weeks later a Court of Oyer and Terminer was held. The theft of one
hog belonging to Charles Pasquet was added to the charges previously
mentioned. Jacob pleaded not guilty, was found guilty, but the record
reveals:
As much as it appears that the sd..facts were done at several times and in the company of Christian white persons of the family wherein the sd. Jacob Resided the Court were of the opinion to mitigate his punishment.
This "mitigatedM punishment consisted of having his mistress post secu
rity for his future good behavior, receiving thirty-nine lashes,
and having both ears cropped "close to his head." (Lancaster County
Court Order Books: October 31, 1723).
Discrimination also appeared in the different court procedures
used for servants and slaves. A servant received the same type of trial
as a freeman. Not so in the case of slaves. Minor crimes were tried
before a single justice - if at all - rather than before the whole
court. Capital crimes were tried before a special slave court in the
county, rather than before the General Court of the colony. The court
records'ah'Lancaster County, then, confirm the evidence found in the
78
legislative annals - discrimination, especially against slaves was
apparent on the local level very early.
CHAPTER* IX
CIVIL ACTIONS IN THE LANCASTER COURT
At common law civil actions were those “brought to recover some
civil right, or to obtain redress for some wrong not being a crime
or misdemeanor" (Black*s Law Dictionary 312, Rev. 4th ed. 1968). Many
cases brought before the Lancaster court by servants took the form of
civil complaints. Basically, three types of action were brought: com
plaints of ill-usage, suits for freedom, and suits for freedom dues.
Throughout the period under study servants frequently took advantage
of their right to a court hearing and in most cases the court ruled
in their favor. All complaints of ill-usage were acted upon by the
Lancaster court,^ but frequently the court's decree was merely a
warning to the master involved. Nevertheless, this does seem to have
been a fairly effective deterrent because only once was the same
master brought before the court for a second offense. In sharp contrast,
the records are devoid of complaints by blacks of ill-usage.^
There were suits by blacks for freedom during this period, but,
as the following table illustrates, they were infrequent. The obvious
1One servant, Elizabeth Clifford had complained "that she goeth daly in danger of her life of the Negroes belonging to her sd. master.In order: to remedy her situation the court ordered her "sold at an outcry'* to another master (Lancaster County Court Order Books: February 18, 1674). This case is a typical example of a servant complaint of ill-usage, and, as in most cases, the servant was given redress for her grievances.
2Blacks during this period had very limited access to the court. For further discussion see Chapter X - "Accessibility and Due Process in the Lancaster Court."
79
80
reason is that most blacks were serving for life and, therefore,
precluded from bringing such actions. The table lists all suits for
freedom brought before the Lancaster court between 1660 and 1730 and
their disposition. In cases involving blacks the "M" represents
mulatto and the''"El" East Indian.
TABLE 5
SUITS FOR FREEDOM
YearWHI TE BLACK
Successful Unsuccessful Successful Unsuccessful
1660-69 16 11 0 1
1670-79 17 0 0 0
1680-89 17 1 1 0
1690-99 4 5 1(M) : 0
1700-09 17 4 0 2(EI)
1710-19 4 0 2 0
1720-29 3 1 0 1
The few blacks who sued for their freedom did so on the grounds of a
contract^- or because they had been set free in their master's will. It
is to their credit that the Lancaster justices and juries honored wills
setting slaves free because the laws of the colony discouraged this
practice. As would be expected white servants had more opportunity of
■^Although the vast majority of blacks were slave, a few were contract laborers or apprentices and consequently, could petition the court for their freedom upon expiration of the contract term.
81
being awarded freedom than blacks since servants generally had contracted
their services for a specified period of time, and the primary issue in
suits for freedom was the precise time at which the contract was to
expire.
Another interesting trend evident from the following table is
the sharp decline in the number of servant suits for freedom after
1710. Such a result cannot be attributed to a decrease in the servant
population of Lancaster County at this time since a similar decline
is not exhibited in other servant figures.
TABLE 6
SERVANT CASES IN THE LANCASTER COURT
Year Runaways Bastardy Ill-usage FreedomDues
FreedomSuits
1660-69 41 6 5 6 27
1670-79 49 8 3 8 17
1680-89 34 12 1 4 18
1690-99 37 9 7 3 9
1700-09 33 25 0 5 21
1710-19 31 10 0 3 4
1720-29 28 7 2 4 4
Fewer suits are likely the result of an improved and more effective
system of contracts. The fact that fewer servants were forced to sue
for their freedom also indicates that masters were becoming more
82
lenient with their servants while simultaneously becoming less1
tolerant of the slaves.
Another right guaranteed to servants by the Lancaster court
was having their contracts of service recorded. Although this right
did not appear in the Virginia statutes until 1705, the Lancaster
court recorded servant contracts as early as 1665. The purpose of
recordation was to protect servants from unfair contracts forced upon
them by unscrupulous masters. During this period no black servant2
had a contract recorded by the court.
Basically, there were two kinds of voluntary contracts. First,
a servant could agree to work for an additional length of time in
return for his master's promise to relieve him from hard labor, to
educate him in a trade, or upon occasion, to provide him medical
treatment. One example of this type of contract read:
Robert Clark servaunt to Robert Beverley, appeareing at this Court is willing to serve his master one yere longerthan hee came in for provided his said master will duringall his tyme free him from workeing in the ground, carryeing, or fetching of railes or loggs or the like things and beareing at the morter, and keepe him to his trade either at home or abroad, which the said Beverley doth promise.All which the Court doth order to bee entred upon record (Lancaster County Court Order Book: September 11, 1667).
There are cases in which a servant agreed to extra service for being
purchased from a former master.
Another kind of contract recorded by the Lancaster court
(particularly in the 1720's) is actually a substitute for a formal
1Historians generally agree that "concomitantly with the Negroes' descent to slavery, white servants gained increasingly liberal terms of indenture" (Noel, 1968: 165). This easing in the control of servants while tightening control of slaves seems to begin in Lancaster County around 1710-1720.
^Although a black would have had this right if he had enteredinto a contract, this was an infrequent occurrence in colonial Virginia as very few blacks had contracts.
83
trial and sentence. Specifically, if a servant had committed some
minor crime against his master, rather than having the master press
charges, the servant would come to court and "voluntarily agree" to
serve additional time. Abbot Smith, who has studied many court
records of this period, states that this type of contract is unique to
the Lancaster court. Referring specifically to that court, Smith
has described it as "very fond of registering agreements for extra
service* made for all manner of reasons" (Smith, 1947:391).
An interesting trend appears when the number of voluntary
contracts made over an extended period is examined.
TABLE 7
VOLUNTARY SERVANT CONTRACTS
Year 1660-69 1670-79 1680-89 1690-99 1700-09 1710-19 1720-29
Number 6 0 1 3 7 20 26
A significant increase can be noted after 1710 in the number of servants
being permitted to enter into voluntary contracts. These contracts
usually were advantageous to the servant, again indicating that society
through the legal system was becoming more indulgent in its treatment
of white servants in order to gain their support against the blacks.
Many laws of this period established or formally guaranteed
many servants’ rights. It is evident from an examination of the Lancaster
County records of the period that the court was upholding such rights.
On numerous occasions servants came to court complaining of mistreat
ment, seeking freedom or freedom dues, and the majority of these suits
84
were successful. Several cases indicate that the court even recognized
the right of servants to own property.^ Several servants lured into
unfair contracts were freed (Lancaster County Court Order Books: January
10, 1671; September 14, 1681; February 14, 1699; July 9, 1702; and
August 9, 1704).^
On the other hand, only two occasions were found during the
same seventy year period in which the court was a vehicle for the
protection of slaves. Twice masters were presented by the grand jury
and fined for working their Negroes on Sunday (Lancaster County Court
Order Books: November 9, 1715; and May 18, 1717). The classification
of these two cases as protective of Negro rights is somewhat question
able, however, as the primary motivation for these presentments was
moral regulation of the masters rather than protection of the blacks.
In summary, the court records from 1660 to 1730 indicate that
the white servant made frequent use of the Lancaster court to enforce
a variety of civil rights. Contrariwise, the slave had few, if any,
civil rights and the records show no suits for mistreatment or for
freedom dues. Although eight suits for freedom were brought during the
-In 1668 a master had recorded in court that he had given his servant a calf (Lancaster County Court Order Book: July 8, 1668). A servant died in 1681 having an estate of sufficient substance to merit official appraisal by court appointed officials (Lancaster County Court Order Book: January 11, 1681).
2In one of these contracts a servant was tricked into lifetime servitude.
A condition presented to this court made between Richard Syms and John Hobbs for the service of the sd. Hobbs during life, for which there appears noe consideration given to the sd.Hobbs is declared voide and ordered to bee cancelled and the sd. Syms who is ordered to pay costs (Lancaster County Court Order Book: January 10, 1671).
This supports the argument of Noel (1968: 169) that some whites were not above enslaving members of their own race.
85
seventy year period, it is evident that they were exceptional cases.
To understand more fully the reasons for the disparity in the number of
cases brought by servants and blacks, it is necessary to discuss a
most basic consideration - the access of each group to the judicial
system.
CHAPTER X
ACCESSIBILITY AND DUE PROCESS IN THE LANCASTER COURT
A most noticeable contrast between the treatment of servants
and slaves revealed by study of the Lancaster County records is the
accessibility to the court afforded each group. The number of cases which
mention servants far exceeds those involving slaves. This holds
true for both the civil petitions by, and criminal actions against,
each group.^ An obvious reason for a greater number of cases involving
servants is that there were more servants than slaves in Lancaster
between 1660 and 1700. This trend continued, however, into the
eighteenth century when there were probably as many or more slaves than
servants. Comparative population trends can be gleaned from an
examination of the number of servants and slaves brought into the
Lancaster court for age adjudication. For the child servant this
procedure would establish his length of service and set the time
at which he was considered tithable. Slave children were adjudged
As shown in the previous chapter, from 1657 on servants found the Lancaster court very accessible. For a comprehensive breakdown of servant and slave crime processed by this court between 1660-1730- refer to Appendix II - "Servant and Slave - Crimes and Suits (1660-1730)."
2By 1708 one-third of the Virginia population was estimated to have been slave. (See the footnote on page 43.) The population composition of Lancaster County was probably very similar. With a decline in the number of servants coming in during the early 1700's (See the footnote on page 31), it seems safe to assume that sometime just after 1700 the number of slaves in Lancaster County surpassed the number of servants.
86
87
only for the latter purpose.^ The following table illustrates the
number of servants and slaves adjudged during each decade between
1660 and 1730.
TABLE 8
NUMBER OF SERVANTS AND SLAVES ADJUDGED IN LANCASTER COURT
Year 1660-69 1670-79 1680-89 1690-99 1700-09 1710-19 1720-29
Servant 186 138 49 103 22 17 2
Slave 0 0 2 7 40 44 106
The numbers alone do not accurately portray the servant and slave
importation trends during this period. Although the number of servant
adjudications decreased markedly after 1700, many servants were still
being transported to Virginia. By 1700, however, most young servants
came to the colonies with indentures which obviated the need for an
age adjudication. The decrease noted in the records, therefore, is
due in part to an improved system of registration rather than a
demographic change (Smith, 1947: 231-32).
With respect to criminal offenses cases involving slaves
appear in the records infrequently because a master was permitted to
punish a slave for a minor crime without first obtaining the permission
of a justice of the peace. Since there was no requirement to obtain a
master paid a tax on all male servants fourteen or more years of age. All slaves twelve years or older were subject to the tithe.
88
court order to punish a slave, few masters sought judicial approval.?"
Between 1660 and 1730 thirty criminal cases involving siaves2were brought before the Lancaster court. The following table demon
strates a dramatic increase in the number of cases brought after 1700.
TABLE 9
NUMBER OF CASES INVOLVING SLAVES
Year 1660-69 1670-79 1680-89 1690-99 1700-09 1710-19 1720-29
Number 1 0 2 2 7 6 12
This increase interestingly took place long after the enactment of
most slave legislation, indicating that a majority of the slave
legislation was passed before major problems of control actually
existed. The passage of the 1705 slave code seems to be a legislative
and social turning point in the treatment of the slave. The increased
number of slaves being brought in the Lancaster court after 1705 can
be attributed in part to their increased numbers. Nevertheless, the
progression of the legislation affecting slaves enacted between 1660
and 1705 indicates tighter and tighter control. As the laws became
more severe it is to be expected that judicial action would reflect
this trend.
1Slaves were brought to court only if charged with an offense which occasioned public redress. Minor misdeeds, therefore, were riot recorded in the court records.
2Four cases during this period involved non-slave blacks thus bringing the total to thirty-four.
89
Throughout this period it has been demonstrated that blacks
were discriminated against in legislation and in their actual treat
ment. In interesting contrast to this trend of Colonial society,
discrimination before the Lancaster court between 1660 and 1730 seems
minimal. The justices had sworn to "do equal right to all manner of
people, great and small, high and low, rich and poor, according to
equity and good conscience and the laws and usages of this colony"
(Talpalar, 1968: 149), and this they seemed to be doing.
The law itself, as has been shown, made elaborate distinctions
between the status of servitude and that of slavery, and the court
records reflect this distinction especially with respect to the dearth
of suits by blacks to gain freedom or redress for mistreatment. Never
theless, the judgments of the Lancaster court appear equitable,
given the nature of the laws with which it dealt; most of the biased
treatment, it is submitted, occurred outside of the courtroom itself.
It-is true that laws themselves discriminated, as did the social
processes which channeled people into the court. Although statistics
are not available, it seems persons of lower statuses were more
likely, even then, to be brought into court on criminal or moral
charges than persons of the middle or upper classes. These latter
groups held power and to maintain it,ruled the subjugated classes with
a firm hand. A primary example is the legislation attempting to con
trol the runaway problem.
With respect to civil actions, the lower classes had a more
difficult time than those of the advantaged groups in vindicating
infringements upon their civil rights. In many instances, these
people simply lacked the knowledge, means, or legal protection
90
necessary to bring a case before the justices. A comparison of cases
involving servants and blacks, however, indicated that the servant
had much greater accessibility to the court than the free Negro,^ or
the slave, who, for practical purposes, had none.
As has been shown, servants who brought their own civil
petitions to the court generally were quite successful. The large
number of servant cases indicates judicial accessibility during this
period. In addition, the mere status of "servant’1 seemingly did not
hamper the administration of justice - an examination of the case
records shows the Lancaster court reaching an equitable result in
virtually all cases.
The free black also seems to have received equitable treatment
before the court. Illustrative are the cases in which a free black
bound his child as an apprentice. The black child was apprenticed in .
the same way as a white child. Specifically, the black was bound for
the same length of service (until age twenty-one) and for the same
terms (taught to read and write, provided for properly, taught a
trade in the case of a male, and given freedom dues at the end of
service) as prescribed by law for a white child (Lancaster County
Court Order Books: August 10, 1709; April 9, 1712; and June 11, 1729).
The fact that free blacks were not prejudged in criminal cases
simply because of their color is also evident in the records. When
Edward Nichen, a free black, was presented by the Grand Jury for selling
^Free blacks found the court more accessible than the slaves. On a few occasions they brought presentments of their own before the court. There were only four cases in the Lancaster records between 1657 and 1730 involving free blacks., but since there were very few free blacks living in Lancaster County during the period studied, the numbers are not surprising.
91
"Syder att his dwelling house . . in violation of the law, he
pleaded not guilty and was found not guilty by a jury. Two free
black women were found guilty of bastardy in 1728 but received the
same punishment (a fine) as would white women accused of the same
crime. However, there were so few free blacks in Lancaster County
during the period studied, that the conclusions drawn about their
treatment are somewhat tentative.
Neither did the Lancaster court evidence prejudgment in cases
involving slaves. For example when Adam and Duke, two slaves, were
brought before the court in 1716 charged with holding a disorderly
assembly of Negroes "under pretence of a feast," the court released
them with a warning although the law which prohibited such conduct
permitted corporal punishment. Evidently, this particular meeting
offered no real threat to the local people and the court took this
into consideration when fashioning its decree.
The treatment of slaves before the special courts of Oyer and
Terminer during this period also seemed equitable. Although the law
creating these special courts was passed in 1692, the first Oyer1and Terminer trial in Lancaster was not held until 1713. In many of
these cases extenuating circumstances served to mitigate the punish
ments ordered by the court (no prior crime - February 6, 1713; being
led astray by whites - October 31, 1723; mitigating circumstances -
January 17, 1725). Slaves found guilty of crimes for which they could
have been hanged were punished corporally and released.
^There were two slave cases in the intervening period (May 11, 1698 and November 10, 1709) which were serious enough to justify this type of trial. Why the court did not choose to request its commission for the special trial is unclear.
92
In 1723 a law was enacted permitting slaves to appear as
witnesses in cases involving other slaves (1723), and almost immediately
the Lancaster court heard such witnesses. In a case tried February 12,
1723, Harry, a slave, was convicted of raping a servant girl on the
testimony of the victim, a white freeman, and a slave. In another
case George, a slave, accused of murdering another slave had the
charges against him reduced to manslaughter on the basis of the
testimony of two whites and three slaves (January 17, 1725). From
the description of the proceedings in such cases it is evident that
the court processed the cases of slaves as impartially as the law
would permit. This, of course, was not true in the later stages of
slavery, when considerations of discipline and control became overriding
factors in courts trying slaves (Stampp, 1956: 226-27).
The attention to due process in cases involving servants and
slaves before the Lancaster court is even more interesting in view of
the composition of the court itself. The Virginia county court was
typically a self-perpetuating body composed of respected and successful
members of the community; the Lancaster Court was no exception. When
a servant brought a civil complaint to court it was typically against
a man of the same station as the members of the court, perhaps one of their
friends, or even one of them. Under these conditions one would expect legal
injustice and exploitation of the servants. This evidently was not the
case in Lancaster County; in fact, Abbot Smith has concluded with
respect to the typical pattern of court action in servant litigations
throughout colonial America that a "high proportion of cases in which
the servant received fair treatment, and a great many in which the
humanity displayed by the magistrates did them credit" (Smith, 1947: 246).
93
Examination of the Lancaster County records indicates that this
overriding sense of justice extended to the blacks adjudicated as well.^
The previous conclusion, however, refers to equitable treatment
before the court, and is not meant to imply that either servants or
slaves received equally judicious treatment from their masters. The
number of servant complaints of ill-usage well illustrates that
servants were being mistreated. Moreover, during this period three
cases were extracted in which individuals were charged with beating
a servant to death (Lancaster County Court Order Books: September 12,
1666; July 8, 1674; and July 4, 1704). Although mistreated, the
servant had statutory and judicial protection. The slave, on the other
hand, had neither. Consequently, no cases were found involving the
mistreatment of slaves. To conclude, however, that slaves were not
mistreated seems unreasonable. It is submitted that mistreatment of
slaves during this period was widespread. First, since servants
were abused it seems a reasonable inference that slaves were also
abused. More importantly, there were no formal sanctions against
ill-treatment of slaves. Historians (Morris, 1946; Wertenbaker, 1969)
who argue that servants during this period received harsher treatment
than slaves draw their conclusions strictly from written records. The
absence of recorded material in this instance, it is submitted,, does
not necessarily support the inference. As society did not consider
mistreatment of slaves an abuse of anyone's rights, no formal sanctions
were created to prohibit the practice. In fact, the society passed
laws permitting masters to correct slaves for their crimes and
It should be emphasized here that these conclusions are based only on the Lancaster records before 1730.
94
misdemeanors by administering corporal punishment and the law protected
them from being charged with a felony if a slave under correction was
killed. Evidence from both legislation and court records indicates
that throughout the seventeenth and into the eighteenth century
servants on the whole received far more lenient treatment than slaves.
Nevertheless, the period between 1660 and 1730 in colonial
Virginia, recognizing legislative discrimination, seems to be one of
judicial due process for the Negro, particularly when compared with
the treatment of the Negro in later centuries. The courts of the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries certainly did not afford the blacks
the same justice received in Lancaster County during this early
period. Had there existed in Lancaster during the period studied
strong fears and feelings of subjugation toward Negroes, it seems
unlikely that the local court would have dealt, indeed been permitted,
to deal with, blacks so leniently. Evidently, the number of slaves
in Lancaster before 1730 was just beginning to constitute a sufficient
proportion of the population to pose a real threat to the whites and
consequently, the total subjugation of the black by all segments of
society, characteristic of slave communities of later years had not
developed in Lancaster County by 1730.
CHAPTER XI
CONCLUSION
A comparison of the laws enacted between 1619 and 1730
concerning servants and slaves reveals that there was indeed legis
lative discrimination against the blacks. By 1680 the position of a
slave in law was established as one of total subjugation and bondage
for life. While the servant had many rights guaranteed by law, the
slave had almost none. Moreover, the servant found the local courts
quite accessible and amenable to the protection of his rights. Very
seldom was a slave allowed to use the process of the court, and when
charged with a crime, trial was in a separate court without benefit of
a jury.
In addition the reasons behind the enactment of the laws
governing the two classes also differed. Laws for the control and
punishment of servants generally were passed to resolve existing
problems, while slave laws were enacted in anticipation of problems
only later to arise when the numbers of those subjugated grew large
enough to threaten the established society. Certainly, blacks were
serving for life long before the status of "slave" was written into
law, but it is very significant that much of the slave legislation
between 1660 and 1730 was designed to create and control a large labor
force that had not yet come into its own.
It is a function of any court to enforce the law and, as the
law discriminated in the prescribed treatment for servants and slaves
95
96
between 1660 and 1730, the court records reflect this discrimination.
The justices in Lancaster County did, however, seem to carry out their
duty in a manner as equitable as was possible under the laws then
extant. Servants appeared before the courts very frequently to argue
for their freedom or to have a contract verified, and for the most
part the court was sympathetic to their positions. Blacks, both free
and slave, when they were permitted to appear before the court seem
to have also received just treatment.
The early years of the seventeenth century had been a time
of social disorganization when stringent control of all elements in
society was necessary for the survival of the colony. However, by
the middle of the century the colony had been firmly established and
no longer feared the threat of outside attacks. As a result internal
controls were relaxed, and the treatment of the laboring classes
became better. For the servant this trend continued until the system
of servitude died out in the later part of the eighteenth century.
Control of slaves, on the other hand, began to tighten as their number
and importance to the economy increased. The legislative turning
point appears to be 1705 when the existing slave laws were incorporated
into one "slave code." On the local level in Lancaster County, this
increased pressure on the slaves appears in 1722 when an increase in
the prosecution of slave crime becomes obvious. The year 1705 also
seems to be a legislative turning point in the treatment of the servant,
since most laws passed after this date were concerned with enhancing
his position rather than restricting it.
Certainly, as Morris and Wertenbaker argue, there was mistreat
ment of servants, especially during the seventeenth century. From
97
the material examined for this thesis, however, it seems unreasonable
to assume that the treatment accorded slaves was at any time better
than that accorded servants.
Morris bases his argument almost totally upon court cases,
and those used for the "Tobacco Colonies" (Virginia and Maryland)
definitely do illustrate that servants were mistreated (Morris, 1946:
482-497). However, that there are no cases in the records illustrating
slave mistreatment is not conclusive that slaves were not mistreated.
As the Lancaster records reveal, it was highly unlikely that cases of
slave mistreatment would be adjudicated in court. Another problem
with Mr. Morris's conclusion, at least with respect to the Virginia
experience is that the majority of his examples of servant mistreat
ment are Maryland cases, and Abbot Smith has stated that treatment
accorded servants in Maryland seems to have been much harsher than in
Virginia (Smith, 1947: 276-77).^ Mr. Morris seems to premise his
argument upon specific cases, failing adequately to judge them in
context with other cases of the time. If as was done with this study,
he had examined court cases involving servants over an extended period
of time, he likely would have found that cases of mistreatment comprise
a relatively insignificant percentage of the total adjudicated.
^And most remarkable of all, when most colonies progressively made their penal codes milder, should Maryland after abandoning her original death penalty for runaways and substituting double service progressively make her code more severe? I know of no answer to these questions, except to assume that the planters of Maryland were a harsher breed than those of Virginia and Pennsylvania. This assumption appears foolish, but one certainly gains the impression from reading court records that not only the laws but also the magistrates of that colony were less merciful. (Smith, 1947: 276-77)
98
Examination of the statutes and court records also seem clearly
to refute Mr. Wertenbaker1s theory that prior to 1690 the treatment
of slaves was better than that of indentured servants (Wertenbaker,
1969: 233). He states, "Docile by nature, feeling themselves utterly
helpless in a new land, easily acclimated, the Africans proved easier
to handle than the white man." Surviving evidence seems to indicate
that most of the blacks brought over from Africa were relatively docile
in their strange new surroundings. Elkins argues that the shock of
being wrenched away from their families and culture as well as the
hardships of being transported to enslavement left many first
generation Negroes psychologically numbed (Elkins, 1963: 98-102).
Mullin found in his study of runaway slaves that very few were native
Africans (Mullin, 1972: 46). Therefore, Wertenbakerfs description
is probably accurate when applied to the majority of first generation
blacks. Whether this conclusion holds true for succeeding generations
is, however, questionable.
According to Wertenbaker another indication of inferior
servant conditions was the frequency with which servants ran away. It
is true that cases involving runaway servants appear in the records of
seventeenth century Virginia with much greater frequency than runaway
blacks. To conclude that this evidence of itself demonstrates that
servants were being treated badly, however, is a bit hasty, since it
presupposes that all incidents of running away are the result of
mistreatment.^ Moreover, there were many more servants than slaves, and
consequently, it is only reasonable that there would be fewer runaway
^Mullin has well illustrated that, in the case of slaves, mistreatment was not the primary determinant of absconding. He lists, as controlling, three other reasons: to visit, to hire oneself out and pass for free, and to remove oneself to non-slaveholding places. Very
99
slaves. The slave was branded by his color, thus, it was much more
difficult for a slave to run away unnoticed. But most importantly,
incidents of slaves running away were less likely to be recorded,
especially in the seventeenth century before the laws officially rewarded
the captors of runaways making it necessary to keep records of
captured runaways for reward purposes, and before newspapers published
notices of runaways.
The examination of early statutes and records of the Lancaster
court clearly indicate a greater concern with the protection of servants
and their civil rights than was the case with slaves. Mr. Wertenbaker1s
arguments, while certainly accurate when limited to specific examples,
prove to be gross overgeneralizations in light of the findings in this
paper.i
Historical, legislative, and judicial records indicate that
there was prejudice against blacks in the Virginia colony from the
very moment the first ship carrying blacks arrived in 1619 - prejudice
more intense and different in kind from that experienced by the white
servant. There is no evidence that slaves were accorded better treatment
than servants for any length of time during the history of the colony
and it is submitted that the converse is, in fact, true. While there
obviously were individual exceptions to this proposition, evidence from
the legislative annals of the Virginia colony and the court records of
Lancaster County indicate that servants were accorded better treatment
than slaves throughout the colonial period.
few slaves, it is suggested, ran away because they were demoted or whipped (Mullin, 1972: 106-08).
100
S X—cO gjM ocH5
gCOX03 1W GO TOW 1■J COGa
4-1G4-1TO03 4-1M Q 03X COH < —Q 0055 EH GW 25 •HPM > GP-. g< PiW W
C/3 SopM GO mg TOJo a>03 i—4W •GPi &< BOOo v-x
co%
C/3
<iJ
>P iW03
03coVO
'O§GCO0)rO
TOaG•rlgC740)G4-JoGCOGOG00aS
CM<t. vO
4-JG COO TO G 00-C -a Q & G G4-1 G G TO TO •rH X•rH CM G G > B CO TO£ •H G X G o G £T3 G G G cj G TO00 G CO 00 G •rH CO GG TO G G G 00 £ CO G 00*H TO •H CO G G G G G G /-V
4-J •H B G 6 •rH 00 TO G G •H Xg CO o G X G G •rl TO TO? G TOG r—4 G G a G co O •rl TO? > G G §CO CO V—' 00 M 4-J •H fO 1—4 G G •rl G TOB TO CO G G G TO w G G GG X CO G 4-J G G TO G CO G GG cj G TO G rG G TO? Ph ,G TO? CO 00 G 4-4 Pio [5 O £ l 4-J TO G G G rG O O4-4 O •rl TO i—I > •rl TO G G CJ •H CO rG TO4-J r—4 o G O O •rl > •rH G GTO3 G cO 00 •rl 4-J G 4-J CO 4-4 4-1 G TO G •rl CO 00G O a C CO G TO G ,G M £ G CX •rl •|"H 4-1 CO O TO) TO? G G •rlCO G G G O s G fG X G G G G G >% 4-4 G•rl G G G H O G G fG fG (X O O G 4-4 Oi—1 rj O G G TO 4-1 •H O CO CO P4 44 4-4 G O rGtO § M-l G •i—1 £ i—i •rH •rH TO G GCO O TO X £ O H i—H G G G TO? TO4-1 G G i—1 G TO X o fO fO G TO? G O G rGCO 4-4 O O G i—1 G TO TO O TO CO CJ CMG O 4-J 4-4/-s B TO G o to? G /—s G B GCO o CJ X G G G CO CO CO CO G G G O4-J 4-J 4-J 4-J G a X G fG G G G G CO B rG O 44G G C G CO O O G CO G G G •rl G 4-4G G G G o 4-J 4-J o TO? •rl X TO >» TO O G XB CO B B G 4-J G G r-4 G > G > •H o X GrC G rG X 4-4 X CO G G O r-4 G r-4 G CO G G G r—4co O co CO 4-1 4-J G fG •rH fQ TO G TO G •rH G • G r-4 TO•H o •H O -G O G G > TO G CO G CO > 00•ri TO GG G G 00 f"H B G G G o G G GG G •rH G •rH G P-! PM G O G FGP4 PM Pm Pm H C/3 '—■” FG X FM V-/
LOvO
inmvO
APPENDIX
I -
Cont
inue
d
101
CO
%
<XCO
C/3
3XH1pelWCO
rsLAvO '
1—1
OX
3CJ3
3 3 3x 3 > 3 /S Mi 3 X X4-J •H •H X X O Mi O c•r-l x U 3 4-J 3 <x 3 •H& 4-J *4 3 3 <x X > 3
Ps •H 3 3 > X o 3 001—1 4-J 3 & — Ml Mi Mi 3 00 3u 3 M 3 O 3 o 3 d 3 3 ^\3 3 3 3 — U <4-4 3 X O 3 •H 3 3PM CO 4-J 4-J 4-1 o 3 3 3 •H •r4 o 3 3o 3 3 3 3 3 Ps X 3 X d PM 3u O 00 3 3 3 d 3 — X 3 X 3CM cj 3 d > > 3 £ 3 Mi 3 3 3 X Ml XTO 3 M Ml 3 3 d 3 CJ > O 3 O 3Mi 4-J 3 3 •H 3 3 3 3 X 3 X 3 X Mto 3 1 3 3 3 3 y—\ e X 3 Ml X >
<4-1 O 00 i—l 4-J 3 Mi Os o X PM •r l Ml X Ux 3 r-4 3 <4-1 B X 3 3 3 & 3 3 34-J •H •H O O o — 00 £ X 3 O Ml 3 3 X
a •r-4 3 00 3 x u 3 3 X O 3 g 3£ O Ml B £ U 4-J 3 <4-4 <4-1 *H 3 O X <4H X 3 Os 3
•H CO •H o O 3 O 3 O 3 3 X X 3 3 3 B> •T-l Ps 00 4-1 X d <4-1 £ 00 3 M M •H X rv 3 Mi cmo 3 d 3 3 3 00 3 g 3 3 3 £ 3 3 > O Xu •H Ml *H a 4-J 3 3 Ps CO •H 3 4-J 3 X 3 O Mi X CJ •r lcm oo 3 Ps •rH 3 M •H d 4-J 3 4-J 3 3 X 00 > •r4 3 •r4
Ml 4-1 M 3 3 <4-4 3 3 3 00 Ml 00 00 3 Ml X 3 3 d X 33 •H CO Ml Mi > 3 B 3 d <4-1 3 3 •H •r4 3 3 3 3 X X
X I > 3 3 O Mi <4-1 3 3 > 3 O XJ u *r4 M4 /-S 1—4 3 O 3 X X 3 3X I g <4-1 3 O Mi M U 4-1 o Ml d 3 3 •>H 3 3 3 CM 3
d o CO 3 d 4-1 <4-4 •H 3 X 3 Ps <4H 3 *r*4 X P>i—i 4-1 U Ml Ml 3 Mi 4-> 3 3 3 u X 3 Mi d 3 •iH <44 Mi P—I Mi X3 O o O 3 4-J O u 3 o d X 3 £ X X 1-4 X Mi O 3O 3 x <4-1 <4-1 3 <4-1 3 U O O <4-1 o u O Ml 3 3 O 3 3 X 3x 00 CJ O O 4-J B X o Mi O o 3 3 X d X XCO 3 4-J 4-J 4-1 O •r4 X o <4-1 3 3 4-J x O <4-4 3 d Ml 3 3 3 3 3 Ps
Ps 3 3 3 <4-1 <4-4 3 3 3 3 <x Ps Mi •H 3 3 r-4 3 3 O 3CO O a; 3 <y •r4 3 o 4-J 4J 4-J O . B Ps X Ps X *r4 3 6 *H X4-J > B B B Ps 4-J B 4-J 3 H 3 •H 4-J 3 3 X <x Os X 3 3 Ps 3 33 XI x X 4-J Ml XI 3 3 3 3 3 g 3 rH o 3 Mi 00 PM X 3 •H 33 3 CO CO CO t—l 3 CO 4-J O •r4 XJ cd •r-4 o 3 3 3 3- 3 X *r4 > 3> O •H *r4 •H 3 a •H x i 3 o 3 > 4-J 3 cd o 3 Mi 3 X Mi 3 X O Miu 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 B O 3 r—1 3 •H X 3 Mlcu 3 3 3 3 3 •f-4 ♦r-4 Ml PM o PM a 3 PMCO PM PM PM PM PM PM EH PM ' - x s c < 5 PM v~ /
00XCO"
a\i n\o~
APPENDIX
I -
Cont
inue
d
102
cnaaCP
CO
3H>ps3Wco
0r“ 443CO 03O r gCO •HO 4-1 60c (0 S3
•H G•H
gCO.
•H4->
03 a) 03 4-10 42 •Ho -u <0 sl-l 43 g60 Q> 4-J O<U > y
!3 3-10
S3•H (0
03 4-J4J (0 *r4•H rH > ,G5 ^ G £
CO <0Jo 43 03 CO / —NCO 03 45£ O 03 G OCO #» 4J G o CO{3 0) co MH r-43 g S3 43 43G •i-i Si 4~> <0
4-1 0 9 G COO o g •H
43 cO £ mh 43& G g 4-J
4-j o •H •r l03 X G (0 cO &■U a; 60 43 3G (0 4-J 0) GCO 60 S 3 O> t3 03 •HG •r l MH CO <0 4-J0 > O 43 CO03 g 03 4-J O
co G 3 •H43 CO (0 4-) CO G03 G CO r—1 }-•
•H MH 03 4-1 43 OrH o r"l 03 3 CH60 •H OG 43 Q
W CJ
vOvO
iH0>
CO •H4J G 0G 4-J G G 600 G O G 0 0 G G
0 g 0 MH •iH 0 •H ✓—\ O *H4-1 0 g 0 MH rH G 0 O 4-JG G 4-J G 42 O 43 •rH 4-J P 0CO *H a O 4-J 0 60 G 0> 3 0 *H • 43 G 0 G gG 03 V 4 rH G 0 Ps o 4-1 •H > O 0 / —NCO (0 0 0 0 *r4 43 g •H > G MH 03 4-J 0 003 G G G I 0 > 4-J 0 0 •H G
3 O 0 60 O 03 0 0 Ps O 46 3 0*4-4 4-J 0 •iH G 0 G 0 0 4-J rH G •H 4-J £O G 4-1 4-J 0 P 4-J G 46 0 G 43 43 G 0
CO 0 •H 43 3 0 •H 0 — 0 0 O 0 G60 TO o 03 4-J i MH G 43 O 60 G P G 03G G •H TO •rl rH O 60 4-J 4-J 0 0 O O P G G
•H •H mh 0 3 H 0 •H Ps 43 G /~ v 60 •HPs •H *H G G £ 03 O Ps 4-J P G O MHG 4-J 4-J 43 03 O & C > 4-J O 0 O 4-J 4-> O3 3 09 G 4-J 0 G •rH g 03 3 G G 0 > 4-J 3
43 O 0 0 •iH 4-J o 4-J •H 0 O G 0 0 03 O G O z43 60 O £ •H MH •iH 60 G O P h •H 03 O 43 0
03 4-J CO 43 0 0 03 60 O 43 > 0 0 •H 4-J GG •r4 •r l g r\ CQ •H 4-1 0 03 4-J 3 G G 4-J o 60 03 0 •r l 00 £ g C o TO 0 43 G 0 0 G " T 44 O P • r l G 0 0 0 £ G
g O 03 0 O O •rH G 0 03 G MH £ P PS 0 •H Ps60 CO CO •H 0 4-J JH S-4 0 •H > 0 O MH o G g 0 0G 4-J g 4-t Ps 0 0 60 P h 1--1 rH Ps G £ 03 O 60 O > G 4-J 4->
•r l G CO '3 G 0 0 P 3 03 0 0 0 G 4-J G 0 G G£ co 4-1 O G MH G 13 0 g G G 0 43 o 03 P •H 0 0 P 0 0<0 > 0 •H 0 0 G o G 0 43 •r l •H rH 0 43 4-1 > 4-1
•H G g G 4-J MH i G 0 o 3 4-J G O £ > ^rj 0 p 4-J 0 G G G> (0 a G CQ o 0 O 4-J 0 0 4-J o 0 0 *H 0 0 0 0
CO 0 O 0 G MM 0 o G 0 g 0 G G 0J 43 G g > 0 0G 03 MM 43 G 0 4-1 O 43 O 0 4-J P h 0 0 O •r l 4-Jo G O CO G g MH & 0 G G G g 60 G G 4J
MH O G G G •r l £ o 4-1 G 60 0 0 £ O MH 0 o 0 O 0MH o o o 4-J 0 •r l MH 43 4-J O MH 0 0 > 46 O MH O 4-J G 0 > MH G
G mh mh mh 0 rH CO O 60 G MH O G G G MH 0 G •HO 4-J N *tM 0 0 0 0 O O Ps 0 0 *H 0 4-J 0
•r-4 CO Ps Ps Ps •H Ps > Ps G g Ps 0 4-J 4-J 0 4-1 4-J 4-J G > 0 4-J 0 0 60CO CQ 4-J 4-J +j rH 0 o 4-1 43 4-1 rH 0 G rH 0 G a •rH 0 0
•H rH rH rH 0 J5 g i—I MH 0 i—1 0 0 0 G 4-J 4-1 0 4-J 0 G rH MH> 0 G G CO g 0 CM 0 O •H 0 0 g > 0 43 43 G 0 0 0 0 O 0 4-JO g G G G G G 3 G G G g 60 60 0 0 o o g Og *H 0 0 0 o 3 G 3 0 0 O •H •H Pm S •H o <
P H PM PM PM Pm P3 O PM Pm 60 g : P3 PG '—f i-3 41 EH
COvOvOrH
vOvOvOrH
APPENDIX
I -
Cont
inue
d
103
C/3
3
g<►J03
r~-\oXo
C/3
3H53
56 W03
O o4-J 4-J
54 TOG 4-1 G GO G 4-J G i—4
•H G 4-J G •H G4-1 > CJ 5 XJ TOO 54 < G •i4
a) G G > i M G> a) U CO P*»rQ '_' 54CO 1—1 54 G CU
r-4 ,o O G £ XJ XJ CUCO G CJ G 54 G . ^
rG E* G 4-1 G oCO 4-1 CO § 3 G r 4 G
•r4 c O Od 3 TO t 4mh 4-1 •rl O 54o 54 o G XJ CJ rQ G
XJ 3 4-1 O G G 4-1CQ (0 XJ <y G TO G CO >* 543 54 B XJ 54 *H rG G G4-J a) CU G > 4-1 •H O CUCO XJ > 54 £ G G B cn O4-J •r4 G CJ o £ 54 CO o 54CQ CQ rH 1— 4 O G cj 1—1 CU
C TO G r—l G •r4 •H0) O X— s. G 54 -G 54 G 4-) XJ
rG o CO G X) •rl 4-J G TO G G4-J G G 4-1 G 4-1 O 3 54
a) G *44 54 O ,C 54 G rG GU 43 O o G G 4-J G G 4-1 54 X JG XJ XJ O •rl4-1 o cu CO •H to <44 G TO #1 TOr-4 4-1 cu G CQ G O 3 G G TO GCO 54 i-4 G G G M-4 54 O
G MH 1—4 O •rl CQ X ) •r4 •rH G uO <y i—4 o XJ •H G 4-J rH G4-J s CO 1—1 G X ) TO >» G.o G 44 G M G 3 •r4 54 rQ4-J > •r4 rQ rG i—i 54 O CMO XJ r-4 XJ CJ rG MH i—4 OG o 3 G O G CO G o 4-1
5-i r-4 4-1 4-1 G TO •r4 1 G Ge CO O G G G > > TOCO G G CU 4-J CQ i—1 TO O 54 54 G
•r4 25 •r4 XJ o rid G G G G G o4-J V-/ *r4 G O 3 > TO TO 54a . H o G G 1-4 COco H o r—1 1-4 t—4 G
CQ < < PQ C/3 < 53CO o\ O i—4vO vO I-'- P-.vO vO vD vOr-4 H i—4 i—1
G£G
COG
•H MHm G OCO G
3 CQr—1 54 54
CUg 54 XJ£ O G
<+4 cuCO ,Gco cu
4-J 544-J r-l cuG G cua> G Ge <0
rG Cu XJCQ 54
•H CQ GG G £3 CUCU CU 54 XJ
a Gi—4 •H O CQCO 4-1 4-1 •H5h >O MH CU GCu O XJ 54H GO G B CQ 4-1a O O
•H G G <3cu 4-1 O £4-J •i-l GCO x i CO G Gu XJ •H 3 £cu G > 54 GXJ o GO 54 3S P4 Cd
X JG
•rl
G
Ga0)543ucu03CJ
00G•H4-JCQ•rlCQG54
G>03r - lCQ
>1CO
SG3>-4
CMr-~vcr
vor-.vO
GrQ4-1 GTO rQ3B O
4-JTO4-J G GG O OG G •r4> G l-H54 CU »—•G GTO G rQ
rG GXJ 4-1 PiGG MH TOOTO G54 G OG O CJ4-1 •r4 G CQTO 4-1 PQ ?>vG TO GB 3 XJ £•*-> G GG G GG G •H 3G O 54£ >V4J rQ TOG o GXI XJ rG
G £ XJTO > G4-1 O TO 4->CJ 54 4-J GG CU G G54 CU G 544-1 G > 4-1G 54O GCJ C/3
104
CO
3Xi
<kJco
d333•rl4-J3o
CJ
wXJMQJ3WPMPM<
CO
3
H
5WCO
ooovO
Ps 3CM 4-J 3 3 3r-4 Mi Mi O 3 d
3 3 3 •rl r3 3'CJ 44 PM 3 4-J 4-j d3 O 3 O r-4 Ps 3 3 Ps00 O Mi 3 r— 1 3 3 Mi r-4 3 Mid CU PM PM 3 *H -3 Ml 3 3 o Ps 4-J3 00 3 •rl rM Ps +-J Ml 3 .3 3 3
3 3 CO 4-1 3 3 Si 4-J B •rl & od E? •r-l CO 3 O Mi 3 O o •rl 3 4-JCO 3 r3 •rl rQ r4 3 3 Mi 4-J 3 3
xi 144 Mi o ,3 •rl 3 3 rQ 3 d3 4-J O 3 JPJ Ps o 4-1 xi O 3 Ml 3
x> > O 3 3 o o •rl o x i4-J 4-J 3 £ 3 X Mi 4-J +J 4-J 00 3o r-l 3 u 3 3 r3 S 00 3 3 3 3 •rl+J CO o i— l 3 4-J 3 X 4-J 3 •rl r-4
> <U CQ 4-J Mi 3 3 4-J 3 CQ •rl d rQCJ •rl r-4 O CO 3 CO O 3 3 Mi 3 33 Ml rQ X. 4-J 3 4-J 3 4-J > 4-J r-4 T— 1 3 3 3 4-JMi Mi 3 3 •rl PM o 3 3 3 r-4 PM O O Xi 3d CO Xi 3 Mi 3 3 •rl •rl r-4 3 3 Xi •rl 3 3r-l 4-J 3 00 3 4-1 3 •rl 3 4-1 Ml•H Mi •rl X. 44 3 O 4-J 3 4-J <£ 3 CU U,3 •|"t 4-1 Mi CQ 00 3 x 3 00 3 3 £j PM 3O CU Mr 3 3 3 Ml 00 Mi 3 O 3 H 3 3
r3 3 3 B 3 •r4 Ml 3 3 Mi 3 O *r4o 4-J (U O 3 4-J 3 o *t 4-> 3 3 r3 44 Mi Eju Ml 1+4 r3 CO CO Mi 3 O 3 •rl 4-j 3 O M4oo 44 3 O o •r4 3 rQ 3 N < Ps 3 •rl 44 3<u o 3 4-J 3 3 •rl 3 4-J S 3 H
•rl 3 3 CO •rl o 3 3 3 Mi 4-J 3r3 CO 3 O 4-J Mi o 3 33 3 rC Mi O 3 3 d
d 4-J 3 3 •H 1+4 Mi 3 3 4-J 3 £ X 4-J 3<u 3 O 3 CO •rl 3 00 •rl M Mi O 4-J £ 3 34-J O o 3 CO r-4 > 3 4-J O 4-j •rl O u OMi £ •H •H 3 3 3 00 3 s 3 o Mi •r4 MiO 3 rQ B o r-l •rl 3 d X iJ m O 44 3PM CO rQ Ml u 4-J CO 4-J Mi •H 3 4-J X 1+4 •rl Pse O 3 CO r3 10 4-J d 3 c MJ O•r4 3 o 44 PM 3 3 o 3 Mi 3 3 £ 3 3 Mi4-J 3 3 •rl 1 r4 3 O 3 o O 3 44
r3 CO M-T 3 £ 3 3 O > •rl Mi 3 •rl O Oo 4-J CO 3 O 3 3 00 O 3 3 3 > 3 3
& O •rl 3 3 3 •rl O •rl 3 3 •H •rl 3 4-JCO 55 3 Mi 3 rQ 3 O > •rl i— 1 JB > O Mi0) 3 00 3 Ml Mi 4-J r-4 o CO o 300 r-l 3 3 o O r-4 Mi Mi O< PQ jz; S Pm <1 < < P>4 < P-i O
CM vO CM00 00 OsvO vO vOi— 1 r-4 r-4
r-l d3 3
cu 3 d00 CO 3 3CO O i-4 3
3 o Psi— 1 ,Q Mi 3 CO•rl 3 •rl £4-J d PM 3CJ 0) 3 33 00 3 ,Q 3
d O Micu 3 •rl Or—1 •*~i r-4 4-J 00JO r4 3CO cu 3 3 •rl
X rQ JQ •rl d4-J ai 3•rl o 3 34-1 4-J O r3CO •rl 3
<U CO — 4-J MlrQ cu 3 3 CM
Ml O £ PMO 3 o Ml 34-» 4-J 3 3 o
3 O PQ 44 Mi4-J CU 3 3 OO '3 3 3 •rl 443 3 PM •H
•rl 4-J 3CO 3 3 3 34-J CM r3 3 X 4-J3 O 4-J > £ 3co r—\ O> ^ 44 o Ml •rlU 4-J o > O 44cu •rl 3 <44 •HCO r-l 3 •rl -P
•rl O 3 Mi'3 JO •H CO O 3<U 3 4-J 4-J •rl O4-J 4-J CO 3 3Ml •rl 3 3 •rl 3 .O *3 •<— i > > Ofi* CU Mi o6 Mi 3 MiM O CQ P4
Negroes
must
give
up ownership
of ho
rses
, ca
ttle
, or
hogs
Master
resp
onsi
ble
for
damage
done
by slaves
left
on
a quarter
with
out
an ov
erse
er
APPENDIX
I -
Cont
inue
d
105
CU 54
33
rdCQ 3 • rv • A <0 54 d 3<0 CQ X X 3 3
,d * 3 f—4 <0 44 O 44 44 3 d iHCQ d CO X CO cj <0 £ 3 g 3CO CO > CQ (0 o X o 3 rH 3 3 •r l o
d r-4 •H CO TO CO IS 54 > CQ g 54 d to CMo cO V4 i—4 rQ Mh 3 o dCQ ON i-4 U r\ O CO X 3 3 O rH 1—!3 CO CO o\ <0 44 a) <0 00 •iH 44 3 3CD a) CO CO > 00 PQ 3 XJ M4 54 3CQ 4-4 oo 44 d 44 CO 54 rH 3 O 44
<0 44 CO O <0 <0 O i—i cO d T--1 MH 3 3 3M4 CQ O CQ 44 CO X O •i4 O > OO d d CO d 44 * o 44 3 44 O •H
<0 4-J 3 rd CO O CO (0 CQ d d 3 rH O 44 -r—\ MH4-) 4-1 3 g 4J 44 X rQ •H 3 3 g 3 d 44 3 •H3 4-1 O o d 44 TO r 4 3 O 3 3 3 44O o
CO£ o
gO U
CO oo44 54 CQ
4J3
d 3 do
iH3
X3
543
CO U 4-> X d 44 o O d O 3 *54 •iH g 3 a(u CQ co CO CQ • a CM d MH 3 3 X 3 44 rH
< CL) rH O •rH r-4 44 •<4 •rH d 3 44 rQ CJ #% 44X tO 44 TO d 44 U CO •rH d 44 3 O O d
• • d •H • • O <0 44 3 d r*J 3 3 O 54 54 CM o
g00 CQ CQ M rd CQ d rd d H4 o > d 54 00 ' - ' r d
00 $-1 4J 00 4-1 |5 00 3 Cj ,Q 3 o 3 d 44< •H o CO to •H O 3 o 3 O 3 p 00 o P3 3 3 •rHX r-4 X <0 d S rQ CJ o 54 d O 3 00 •r4 g £CO r-4 CO 54 00 3 X l 44 rH d 54 PQ 44 54
•r4 00 X <0 00 CQ cd rQ 54 O O •r4 3 d 3 3 44r tf d 4J #k rQ d ?4 Cu 44 O *» •rH O d 3 44 to 3 •r4 d
•r4 o o •H CO CO CO o d CQ 3 44 O 44 d 54 P i o$-4 r-4 rQ 4-1 (0 o i-4 (0 o
sd d 3 rd 3 •i4 3 54 X 54
O CO 4-J pH 4-1 cO 44 co 3 O 44 3 3 d g d O CJ 54 oU4 CO CO rQ CO rv c •r4 54 d 44 3 O •H g O 3 MH 3 00
4-1 CD r —4 CO 4J 44 CO 54 X 44 o co 44 M4 54 33 3 •H > 3 OCQ CQ CQ 3 rd d CQ CQ <0 CO CQ rH 3 C 3 44 CU 44 3 3 oCO d 4-J <0 d 44 •r4 •3 00 rH 44 PQ CU 3 i—H 3 00 O 44
,d U <o •H g 54 <0 CQ Q 54 (0 d 3 CQ 3 3 3 54 44 3 rd d 44CQ O 4-4 4J 00 O 44 c0 rd 44 w PQ g 44 3 S r tf O d 3 •r4 44CO 44 44 O TO 44 44 g O 54 54 d rQ 3 I f.j 3 3 3 44 d O
tH o >4 <0 3 O 1 CO d 3 rr 3 d 3 rH rH 3 3 dPQ oo ,a • i- i PQ O CO d > •rH > CQ > O 3 rQ ?Q CU 00 •rH to
>» -u to <0 TO 44 to CO H o d 3 3 54 44 54 44 d PQ 3 to 3-U r-4 d 12 o c0 r-4 d r-4 J2 d o 00 rH O 3 4J O r-H d •H 44 3 ♦r4 354 CO CM 4-1 CO CM c0 o d CO 54 3 3 3 44 CO o i—1 54 54 rQ >
•H d r-H a) d > rH •H 00 rH d |H •H 54 3
£a) i—1 00 <0 ctf i-4 <0 3 3 MH 3 •H rd O rH
PM <£J < Pu W < PQ S 2u 1—1 CM & EH Cm COm CO
<01uO
oor *-
H i—i
r-4CO> o X
4J3o
rd
CQ00d
•r4r-4
!SM
Wo13o
CQ(0>4344
rHCO>
3d3
CQ54PQ
in
3>
300333I
to3543
4J543
333
•rH CQ 4J 44 4-1 r-4 a d •rH CO 54 »H a O *Hd u rQ d •H •H (0 54 4J 3 rH CJ do u i—4 44 o £ rQ Eh to 54 CQ d 3 •H 3 3CQ CO d £ CQ c j d CO <0 CQ 3 54 dCO o cO CO <J *r4 54 3 > 54 MH 3 •H TO<0 44 o > i—H 44 O MH 3 P> 54 O O •iH toCQ O >4 d r-4 m 44 O 44 co 3 3 g O 3
<0 ii cO o 3 d rH CQ in 44 44 o > 3 34-1 CQ 44 CQ > •3 O CO 3 CQ i—i 54 d tJ 44 44O rQ O o 54 <0 rH rd rd 3 54 1*4 3 3 3 44 d d
4J o co d 44 44 d CQ •iH 44 O > 3 d 3 344 d <0 *4 o CQ •r4 •r4 d •rH 3 3 d rQ O 54 54 3 > 543 Q d <0 co 44 15 o rd 3 3 3 M4 > 54 3
CO O g •r4 r j rQ O g 3 CQ -M g CU o 3 54 3 dIS 44 {5 o 44 CO d > d rd 4J TJ 3 3 00< 54 co O 44 rQ •rH O O o 54 CO O rtf d 3
<0 CO 54 54 CO O •rH 44 d o 3 rtf tO<0 d co • O O 00 d cu 54 M4 d •H •H to CJ d
-{■H TO •rH 1 rQ CO 3 44 d •rH 3 3 3 3 3 3 d 3 •H 3,d 4J rQ rj« •rH rQ o CU 3 CU 3 H 3 3 to 3
00 4J CQ I—1 •H •P g 44 44 3 54 CU 44 00 O to> d •rH 00 PQ r-4 d o •rH 3 •rH 3 3 g 3 3 54 o 3 3
•r-t £ o rQ o CO o £ CQ 3 > 44 44 O rQ s 3 to 00 Nw »—4 rd i n 00 CQ r d 54 o 3 3 CJ 44 44 54 •rHCO r-4 <0 i—i d d CQ * 3 44 mh 54 54 3 54 3 MH 3 to
•H rQ 00 •H •H o 44 3 d CU 3 rQ o 3 O 3 44 O rd 54,tf d CO 44 r-4 u d 00 o 00 3 44 3 MH g 54 a 3
o •r4 Cu O r4 CO to g d o O O 3 3 CU 3 toU 4-1 r 4 <0 CQ p» 3 •H 44 g -P 3 d d O •r4 •rH dO CO CO a> CQ — 54 * i- i CM i—1 g 44 44 O o 3 a rd to 34-4 4-1 <0 rQ 4J 54 (0 TO i—1 CQ •r4 3 d 44 •H 3 3 44
d 4J CO CO <0 CQ c0 d 3 54 rH 3 4J 13 d 54 44 3CQ 0) CQ O >4 14 44 3 CQ 3 O 3 > 3 •H 44 •H 3 oCO g 4-J 3 CO 54 (0 > 44 d g 54 d 44 3 d d 3
rd <0 54 4-J cu CO o 43 ♦rH 54 CO 3 3 3 X to s d 3CQ 00 o O CO a) £ 44 00 o 3 3 MH 3 TO CU 3 o 3 dCO to 44 O CO 44 MH g > O 54 3 p> a to
i-4 3 O rid 54 4J CQ CO •H M4 3 o 4J O o•r -l ►Q cO CO •H <0 3 44 LQ MH 00 3 C £ 44 3 54 44 3 g
PQ 4J rQ CU d <0 CQ g d 44 O 54 rd 54 3 cu 54 o4-J CO r-4 O <0 54 rQ CO rH o 3 44 a O 44 54 CM 44 3 to54 CO 4J 14 CO 44 CO CQ > 3 PQ 44 rQ X 54 MH rd 44 3 rQ 44 3
•rH <0 d > g <0 54 d 4J 44 00 3 oo d to 3 3
&00 CO CO •rH 00 3 3 3 O •rH rd •H o •rH 3 54< P4 H H < CQ CM Q S o ctf CJ £ Ch
APPENDIX
I -
Cont
inue
d
106
CQ 73 <0M <0 i-40) rd 44 rQ oX o d d 44 544-J d o 44 CQ B o
W O CO <0 CO Ps CO 54 CM00 B X 73 d d rd •r l CM 54o CO d o £ 44 <0 COX 54 4J CO d CO o d rC • 73
•H B d CO CQ rd d 00 44 o 5454 <0 o QJ p CO 54 44 B d d (0 3O X X B d > CO CQ o 54 •H <44 Q B
4-J $ X r-4 d Ps d Ps 54 rX Orv CO CO t-4 O o d 44 CU 54 t-4 CO
co <4-4 4-1 •r l CQ £ •H O X •H 54r - l o CO d a) 44 44 d 44 X £ 44 +J •H4-J Ps G d r-4 54 O o d d £ d d CU d44 u CQ •r l CU rQ O d d a) Ps CO d CQ •r lCO CO d d •r-l 44 44 54 CO O X 73 do > 4-J 00 u 00 54 73 44 d o B
d d d CO •r l O d d CO CU 00 d (0 o o cur\ r —1 4-j 73 54 •r l o d 44 d d CO 54 rC •r-l 54
CO CO CO CO CO 54 54 r-4 o d •H rH d 44 44 o> co CO <0 o o rQ CQ 44 00 (0 rQ 44 d 44 O< CO & o p 73 d d 44 CO d rQ d <0 44 44 44
u o 4-J d d o d cu •r l o 44 CO •r l 44 54 d d CQo 54 r - l B 4-J •H d >4 .X Ps CQ d <0 54
X ! U4 00 CQ <0 CO 44 d i-4 d rQ d 54 CU r-4 > CO> G G CO 54 rd CO o d 44 o •H O cu d d< r t 4-J •H 00 (0 4-1 O 44 > d o CO 73 o CO 54 1—1 •r l(J s cu *d G CO Cl 44 d o 54 54 CO rd CJ d CQ £sCO H O B 54 •H rQ d Ps r4 (0 O d rd 44 o M
cu o Ps o / —s rQ CO Ps CO 44 54 a d CO COS3 O X o r - l CO o 44 r 4 44 CO d d Ps d 54 Eho 4-J (0 o 4-J d d 73 73 d > 73 44 CO d d •H CU Oo d d rQ Ps a> •r l d o 44 d CO (0 r-4 •r l o B 73• w G 4-J O 4-J B d <0 O r-4 rd 54 • #\ <0 B 54 d
(0 o CO d d 54 CU 44 44 CQ CQ CO 73 73 CO <3 54 dCO 7 3 d > r-4 o d <0 (0 d CO •r l CO i—4 CO 54 O
7 3 5-1 r-4 -r l o X co 73 X 00 00 1-4 rQ rQ O Ps CU 5J•r l CO CO •r l 4-1 a B rQ d d rQ d 44 o O rQ m d co
<3 X CO CO ,X d <0 Ps 54 •r l •rH d o 44 1-4 44 44 o PsX u o B 54 B O d CO 73 54 44 44 CO 44 & 54 •H OCO o 7 3 O o d o CO 44 B d CO d CO d O B 54 rd o r 4
M-4 4-J 4-1 r-4 44 •r l •r l cu t-4 <U CO o d co <0 CO <44 r-4 M4O B O 73 CO CQ B o O Ps o 44 •r l <U O
CO CO CO i—l O H 5-4 5-i 54 o <0 73 d 73 CO CO d Ps rQ<3 CU ♦rl ,X d >4 d CO CO a) cu 54 73 54 £ o d CO d •iH d (0 44
> 4-J o •4-4 CU 44 d 44 44 Eh cu d d 44 d p g M4 o 54 54CO d Cu d £ £ CO CQ 44 £ d d H dH r-4 d r - l d d d d O <0 d r 4 co o
CO PQ PQ X iJ s <3 p i p i CO F<4 u3 r-4 CO cn> i-4 i-4 CMp i r'» is — —W r-4 i-4 r-4CO a 73 r-4
r-4 d dO rQ d d o12 co O d 54 o 54 44M > 4-J 44 CO •rH •r l •r lp7 54 CQ CQ Ps CO 44 CO CMs CO 4-J 73 44 d d rQ •r l rd CMw CQ d d 54 o £ 44 73 44o d a d o d B 73 •
M > 4-J o d CO d <0 M4 d *44 Oo O CO a •r l CO B d ,d O O COo CU d X CO o 54 44 rd x 73
CO w •r l Ps • CO Ps 54 CO 44 rd COH CO rQ CO d d 44 cu 00 CU •r l 44 1-4 COO G *x * 54 1-4 & •H d CO £ d •r l d<3 •r l U CO 73 rd d 44 rd d <0 44 (0
CW co 54 CO os d d £ ,X cu d 73 d oin 4-J Ps d CM co d CO 54 cu CO d •r lO •4-4 CO CO N_/ 54 CQ o O X cu co r4r » CO O d in CQ 54 44 £ CO rd rd d
CO r - l 4-J B •r l CO o cu OO 44 Ps 44 o COd d cu 44 d d a) Ps cu 44 •r-l rQ
}-l d CO Ps > CO d CO •r l t-4 rQ X 54 •r l 44 44co > •rl rQ 54 rQ o d 00 CO X 44 o 54 d d 444-J u f"H cu •r l •r-| d rQ d d <44 d 44 CQ
H CO cu <44 CO o 44 44 44 54 54 a CU d dS3 d CO G •H 44 •r l rX Ps CO d o Ps co O d B< B •r l o 44 O d rQ d 44 <44 d CO 54 1-4> X 44 B 54 r 4 44 o CU Cu cj CU COP i o 4-1 ■d <0 o CO 44 73 a 54 Ps 00 COw 44 •rl CO CJ ps O 73 a 54 cu d Ps d d d 54CO £ cu •H 44 CO CO o d rQ 54 cu d •r l o O
CO CU <4-1 54 44 CO 73 44 44 54 a •r4 B > d rQo 00 •r l d d 54 CO d d d <0 o •r l •r l dg G X CO 4-J r-4 44 00 O 73 44 co X 44 • TV 00 •r-l CU dco •rl 15 Ps CO d 54 •r! <0 CO 44 73 73 O
rH r -l d d B 54 o 44 rQ 54 • «\ CQ CU Ps CU B 54 CUo d cu CU id O 44 •r l CO CO ps 44 d rQ Ps CO O cu
•r4 CO -Q 44 44 +J •H CO I—1 d d 54 o 54 CO> 73 o Ci •H 00 54 i—1 rQ rQ r 4 d d 54 1—1 CO rXG rC o CO d CO rQ d CO > 44 O Cu o rQu 54 d £ 44 • *> CO •H / ---s a d O 44 73 54 cu B 44 44 oo o o 73 44 CO Ps 44 44 CQ CU 54 CO cu 44
U4 <44 CJ CO 1—I cu d d 54 44 CO d o CO O 54 rC 'CO o CO O d o o O <0 co o 44 oo *r4 CO <0 CO CO
Ps Ps 4-J CO •r l CO o •r l 44 1—1 Ps o Ps d P 44 44 •r l 444-J 4-J G Cl 4-J 44 d r 4 54 73 d 44 d •r l 54 d CO d dr-4 r - l d CU r—4 co 44 •r l d •r"I CO 54 £ o O £ cu CU d d •r l ■ dd d > cu d rQ o 44 P cu 00 d d 44 d d x CO > B *44 >G G u G 54 54 54 £ d d 54 54CO (0 cu CO CO CO O co d d CU <0
p4 P4 C/3 PU o CO Pu P i p i P i CO CO
APPENDIX
I -
Cont
inue
d
\ 107
c/a
co
cu cq cq mcu co
G cum <uCQ CQ
CU <u CU rQ(U 4-»
UM CO
00 CQ
CQ JG
Co Co
G CT\
UH co
CQ OCU <U
(1) CO
CO o
4-J 00
g o G Oo 1 T3 »—1 o CO•H Vi o rH co 4-1 4-J rH4-J cu 4-4 O Q> CQ CU GcU a. m •H CO G E CQ vO 4-1CQ 4-j g g G t—I G G rH O o0 G cu g G G rQ tf G G 4-J >cU cU rtf cU E rQ •rl G rQ 4-J G•H i—f (U 00 •H G rH o'CJ CU CQ CU G O •H CQ 4-1 s > co 4-10 3 > O 4-J G •H CQ OM g o cU m G 3 G rH 4-Jcu rG rG G O G E rH CO •rH OG rQ G G O G rQ G 4-J GO 4-1 <4-4 o CQ G G rj • *\•H CU Go •H 4-j G <4-1 •H § G T3 •H 3 CQCQ CQ G G O 1“l G nd GCU G cU CQ -G O 4-1 <4-1 rQ G G 00 cuo > G G •r! G O cu O M G •r-lg cU 4-1 CU CQ i—l CQ G X •rH XJ00 r-l *r4 •H G 4-J O CO G G > G<D CQ CO T) G CU Ph UM G •H *1-1 G O G M♦H G 3 a rQ •H G 4-1 G O G00 > M 00•H E o 3 r\ CQ Td<U G «—1 G G G G a* CQ GG •H o G CU G CO G G rQ G G CUG G 4-J CQ O G G G ♦H rQ G 4-j O cUm O Fj O rQ «4-l Jg E O o TQ 4-J ?H rrQ Q G CQ G CQ G a G G 4-1 T3 CQr\G o CU <U CU pH 4-J G G E > cU G GCQ CU *H o > G G X G CQ G G O rH M O<U X CQ CQ 4-1 cU E CQ 4-J'O •r-l G > G 3 4J4-J CQ CQ 4-1rG O G 'G X> cU CU E G 4J•r-l G •rl <U CU co G G G 4-1rH O GrG O Fj CQ r - l G rQ • «\ & 4-J 3 G CQ 4-J r\ rH rH04 £ G CQ 3 cd > G rQ •I"I 5} G CO O OO 3•H rQ CU O E E G pH o O E CQ E U-4 G G 4-J CJJG u 4-1 a. o. r—l ?—4•H G G G rQ O 4-J O G 4-Jr—1CO o ♦H CU CO G > 3 G ♦rl CQ G G rH CU •H r\G m £ CQ o CQ •H O G rQ pu rd r-4 G •H 00 rQ r—14-J CQO — 4-J <U 4-> G G o G G G cU 3 G G£ 4-J 00 g O •r-l G Ps CQ G 3 4-J rH rQ E 3 O0 G cu c 5-< r-4 •H G G > CU rQ 3 4-J G4-J 9} •H cj cu 00 •H 4-J E CQ rQ E cU oo uh G •H U-4 G 00CU S 4-J jg ra CU E G 3 4-J T—I E 3 rH G 4-J O > GrG g o nd 'X o CQ O CQ CQ o cU rH G G pz;G CQ <u G G G •H Ph 4-1 G rH •H CM G •XJ Go •r-4 6 'O rd (U •l-lU-4 > G rQ G cu 4-4 CQ & rQ r—1 CQ G0 cu G cu G 3 G rH •H G3 cu o G G 1—4 O CM cU rH rQ G
CM :z; Pm P«u O 0 3 O H £ <1 o Pm
C/3§I£P3wCO
OOCN
108
rocu3G•r-l4-JG0
CJ
1MXMWPhPh<3
CUCM rO
toOG H T3•r-l <u r-4X 4-J r jco c+4 OCQ CO O
S-4 T) 4-JO G CO
co 4300 4-JG rO CQ
•h co CD TO£ CQ 4-J G
CO O -H CO CO& G 4-J 4-J 1-4< ^5 u CQkJ a) CD <U
4-1 > 43O TJ r-4 4-JG ccs CO
< CD 431-3 CQ 0) U 4-JCO X 4 3 •H
CO 4-1 CQ fe£ ■ 0 3 CDCO 4J O > CQG CO CQ3 a) to r-4 COn a « CQ Or
co UJh G *H 60 OO 44 G -y
*44 CQ •Hw- #t J4 TO
G *4 CQ CO CDO CD 44 1-4 «
•r-l 4-J 4-J O CDCQ CQ G CD G
•H CO O TO G> B & cOo 4-JJh O
Ph <vO 1"-CM CM
r—1 r —1
CQ*H44 G
<U00 &G w
•H CD00 "3G «Ucd H
44 M-l 4JO <D O t—l4-j > a a)
•H *4 CO 441 CD O S
O M-f *r4 OCQ CD 44 4J
CO CO J4 > ,& cO r t W) W)
Pu t O £ G G1-4 G CO *H *H
TO G G co TS 4 !H CD G -H G *455 00 • M 3 CD O
J-l CQ &0 4-» £> O Jh CO CQ CDpcj *44 43 *H J4 OW 5-4 rO P , 4-JCO CO CM O
m <D cq toOtoO > . co 4-J GC j4 (U -rl G -H
•1-4 0 a S CO CQCQ r-4 -H H > 33 r-4 > CD 54 m
1-4 >4 42 CD a>J-4 P h CD 4-1 CQ GO CO CQ O
G CD J-4 J-4too *r-4 43 CQ J4 O OG CQ 40 O *44 44
• 4 T ) cd 4-j4 C r 4 f i (U > , > ,CO CO O g 4-J 4-Jpj 4-J CJ £3 Cd r-4 ?—4
CQ co c CO CO^4 ^ G GO *H CD CD
Jx, CO Ph Ph
SERVANT
AND
SLAVE
- CRIMES
AND
SUITS
(166
0-17
30)
CT\CM Bl.
2(F).
o o co co *—1 rH rH o o o ‘ o11 « co 14 rH o o rH 15
oCM P-~ H ' Serv. 9
CMsoo CO o 00 o o o rH o o o o 19 <r CM 10 29
o*T—t Bl. O o o o CM o o o O o
/HtH ' rH CM o m CM o o CM is
o?Hr-«rH Serv.
CM00
CM p- o r—1 o o o o rH o O o 21 <r co © 28
OsO1
Bl. o O o CM rH*H
o o p P o o o CM so
1 2(EI)
o o CM OOOo■ H Se
rv.
19 6(M) co o o o o o o o o o o o 28 21 *n © 26 <?xn
asasi
'rH« o 1(1) o o o o o o p o o o o rH
/-NX*H © © iH CM
oOSsOH Se
rv.
OS OS CM o o o o o o o © o © 20 Ch CO r-. 19 39
asoo" i
Bl-. o o o iH o o o o o © © © o fH iH o o . rH CM
oCO\opH
| Serv.
12 o rH iH rH o o o o © o © o 15 18 Hj- H 23 38
OSP>.1
Bl. . o o o o o o. o. © © . © p o © o © o © © ©
oP-.sOrH Se
rv.
oo 00 o rH o o o o o © o © 21 17 00 CO 00CM 49
OsSO1
Bl. o o o o o © o o o o © o o © rH o o rH rH
OSOsOrH Se
rv.
SO 10 CM o o o © o o © o o © - 18 CMso m 38 L56
Bast
ardy
Hog
Kill
ing
Threatening
Mast
er
Viol
ence
Stea
ling
Rape
Mans
laug
hter
Murd
er
Fort
une-
tell
ing
Bugg
ery
Selling
Syder
without
a Li
cens
e
Meeting
Ille
gall
y
Inco
rrig
ible
SUB-TOTAL
(CRIMINAL
CASES)
Suits
for
Free
dom
Suits
for
Dues
Complaints
of Il
l-Us
age
SUB-TOTAL
(CIVIL
CASES)
TOTA
L.Indian
M =
Mula
tto
F =
Free
El -
East
Indi
an
APPENDIX III
SERVANT RIGHTS
Guarantees
1642 - Standard time of service set for servants coming in without indenture
1642 - Right to complain in court of ill-usage by master1657 - Servants to be provided for properly on voyage to Virginia1657 - Ages of servants to be adjudged in court1661 - Right to ownership of. property1661 - Provision for viewing bodies,of servants before burial 1661 - Right of women servants impregnated by their masters to be sold 1661 - Provision for certificates of freedom to be provided by courts 1670 - Indians and blacks forbidden to own Christian white servants 1676 - Masters must negotiate contracts with servants before justices of
the peace1680 - Creditability of indentures to be judged by a justice of the peace1705 - Servants to have two months to prove indentures1705 - Penalty for people selling free persons as slaves1705 - Protection from immoderate punishment by masters1705 - Duty of master to provide properly for his servants1705 - Churchwardens to see that sick servants are cared for1705 - Right to petition in court for wages and freedom1705 - Contracts made by servants void unless made in court1705 - Freedom dues standardized and guaranteed1705 - Servants given right to choose to be whipt in lieu of paying fines
Restrictions
1642 - Prohibited dealing without permission of master 1642 - Forbidden to marry without the consent of their master 1663 - Need license from master to go abroad1663 - Localities could prohibit meetings of servants if desired 1705 - Servants prohibited from buying liquor at taverns without master's
permission1713 - Servants not to keep a horse without a license
110
APPENDIX IV
SLAVE RIGHTS
Guarantees
1705 - Masters may defend slaves in courts of Oyer and Terminer, but only on facts
1723 - On frontier plantations slaves may be licensed to have arms
Restrictions
1667 - Baptism does not alter the status of a slave1669 - Not a felony for a slave to be killed while being corrected1680 - Need permission to leave master's grounds1680 - May not lift a hand against a Christian1682 - May not remain at a plantation other than their own more than
four hours at a time1691 - No slave may be set free unless they are transported out of
the country within six months1692 - Separate court of Oyer and Terminer set up to try slaves accused
of capital crimes 1692 - Forbidden to own horses, cattle, or hogs 1705 - Act declaring slaves real estate1723 - Slaves may only be set free for acts of meritorious service
111
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Unprinted Sources
Augusta County Court Order Books
Lancaster County Court Order Books
Printed Sources - Books
Ballagh, James C.1895 White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia: A Study of the
System of Indentured Labor in the American Colonies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historicaland Political Science.
Ballagh, James C.1902 History of Slavery in Virginia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Studies in Historical and Political Science.
Banton, Michael1967 Race Relations. New York: Basic Books, Inc..
Barber, Bernard1957 Social Stratification. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Beverley, Robert1947 The History and Present State of Virginia. Louis B. Wright
(ed.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Blum, John M . , et al.1963 The National Experience. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and
World, Inc.
Brown, Robert E. and Brown, Katherine1964 Virginia 1705-1786: Democracy or Aristocracy? East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University Press.
Cappon, Lester J. and Duff, Stella F.1950 Virginia Gazette Index, 1736-1780. Williamsburg: The
Institute of Early American History and Culture.
Carter, Landon1965 The. Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778.
Jack P. Greene (ed.). Charlottesville: University ofVirginia Press.
112
113
Chitwood, Oliver P.1905 Justice in Colonial Virginia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Studies in Historical and Political Science.
Chumbley, George L.1938 Colonial Justice in Virginia. Richmond: Dietz Press.
Craven, Wesley F.1971 White, Red, and Black: The Seventeenth Century Virginian.
Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia.
Davis, F. James, et al.1962 Society and the Law. United States: The Free Press of
Glencoe.
Degler, Carl N.1970 Out of Our Past. New York: Harper and Row.
Dowdey, Clifford1969 The Virginia Dynasties. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
Elkins, Stanley M.1963 Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual
Life. New York: Grosset and Dunlap.
Erikson, Kai T.1966 Wayward Puritans. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc..
Faulkner, Harold U.1954 American Economic History. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Fithian, Philip V.1945 Journal and Letters. Hunter D. Farish (ed.). Williamsburg:
Colonial Williamsburg, Inc..
Furnas, J. C.1969 The Americans: A Social History of the United States,
1587-1914. New York: G. P. Putnam1 s Sons.
Garraty, John A.1970 Interpreting American History. London: Collier-Macmillian
Limited.
Greene, Evarts B. and Harrington, Virginia D.1932 American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Harris, Marvin1964 Patterns of Race in the Americas. New York: Walker.
Harrower, John1963 The Journal of John Harrower - An Indentured Servant in the
Colony of Virginia, 1773-1776. Edward M. Riley (ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
1X4
Hening, William W.1823 The Statutes-at-Large, Being a Collection of All the Laws
of Virginia (1619-1792). 13 vols. Philadelphia and NewYork.
Herrick, Cheesman A.1926 White Servitude in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: John
Joseph McVey.
Jessor, Richard, et al.1968 Society., Personality, and Deviant Behavior. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Jones, Hugh1956 The Present State of Virginia. Richard L. Morton (ed.).
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Jordan, Winthrop D.1969 White Over Black - American Attitudes Toward the Negro,
1550-1812. Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Main, Jackson T.1965 The Social Structure of Revolutionary America. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Middleton, Arthur P.1953 Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of the Chesapeake Bay
in the Colonial Era. Newport News: The Mariners’ Museum.
Morris, Richard B.1946 Government and Labor in Early America. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Mullin, Gerald W.1972 Flight and Rebellion: Slave Resistance in Eighteenth-Century
Virginia. New York: Oxford University Press.
Quinney, Richard1970 The Social Reality of Crime. Boston: Little, Brown, and
Company.
Scott, Arthur P.1930 Criminal Law in Colonial Virginia. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Smith, Abbot E.1947 Colonists in Bondage: White Servitude and Convict Labor in
America, 1607-1776. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Smith, Warren B.1961 White Servitude in Colonial South Carolina. Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press.
115
Stampp, Kenneth M.1956 The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South.
New York: Random House.
Talpalar, Morris1968 The Sociology of Colonial Virginia. New York: Philosophical
Library.
Tate, Thad W.1972 The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg. Charlottesville:
The University Press of Virginia.
Wertenbaker, Thomas J.1969 The First Americans, 1607-1690. United States: Macmillian Co..
Printed Sources - Articles
Ames, Susie M.1947 "Law-in-Action: The Court Records of Virginia's Eastern Shore."
The William and Mary Quarterly IV, Series III (April): 177-91.
Billings, Warren M.1973 "The Cases of Fernando and Elizabeth Key: A Note on the
Status of Blacks in Seventeenth Century Virginia." The William and Mary Quarterly XXX, Series III (July): 467-74.
Degler, Carl N.1950 "Slavery and the Genesis of American Race Prejudice." Compara
tive Studies in Society and History 2 (October): 49-66.
Handlin, Oscar and Handlin, Mary F.1950 "Origins of the Southern Labor System." The William and
Mary Quarterly VII, Series III (April): 199-222.
Jordan, Winthrop D.1962 "Modern Tensions and the Origins of American Slavery."
The Journal of Southern History 28 (February): 18-30.
Noel, Donald L.1968 "A Theory of the Origin of Ethnic Stratification." Social
Problems 16 (Fall): 157-72.
Ross, Edward A.1969 "Social Control." in Sociological Theory: A Book of
Readings. Lewis A. Coser and Bernard Rosenberg (eds.).The United States: The Macmillian Company.
Vaughan, Alden J.1972 "Blacks in Virginia: A Note on the First Decade." The
William and Mary Quarterly XXIX, Series III (July): 469-78.
116
VITA
Betty Wade Wyatt Coyle
Born in Hampton, Virginia, July 17, 1946. Graduated from
Hampton High School in that city, June 1964, A.B., the College of
William and Mary, 1968, and worked for Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation, 1968-1974.
The author was accepted for'graduate work in the Department
of Sociology at the College of William and Mary in February, 1970.
