SLAVERY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

Editor Magazine of American History:

I notice in your September issue for 1888 [xx. 249, 335] a question asked by Mr. Laidlaw, concerning the abolition of slavery in New Hampshire. I had occasion some years ago to look the matter up, and from the notes I then made, I have information which may be of interest to your readers.

46

Negro slavery was never established in New Hampshire by any law of the province, or state; nor was it ever abolished by any legislative enactment. A province law enacted in 1714 forbade the importation, or bringing into the province by sea or land any male or female Indian of any age to be used as a servant or slave. The caption of said act alleges that Notorious crimes and enormities have of late been perpetrated and committed by Indians, and other slaves within several of Her Majesty's Plantations in America," and that it "is a discouragement to the Importation of White Christian servants." The word servants here undoubtedly means paid laborers, some of whom had their transportation expenses paid on their arrival here by residents of the province who desired their services; in consideration whereof they agreed to serve for a specified time for no further pay except a proper amount of food and clothing. Negro slavery existed in New Hampshire to a limited extent during the last century; during the closing decade thereof probably none were forcibly detained, and only those remained in enforced service who were advanced in years, and who by reason of kind and humane treatment, and the assurance of being cared for in their old age, preferred so to do. By the census of 1767 the number of "negros and slaves for life" was 633; in 1773, 681; in 1775, 479. and in 1790, the number of slaves was 158. It is uncertain whether the enumeration given under the heading as quoted, included free negroes, but I am strongly of opinion that it did, and that the number held in actual slavery was much less than those figures represent. The fact that there is no comma after the word negros in the original heading, is no proof of the unity of the heading, as it is well known that the people of that time were no more proficient in punctuation than those of to-day.

The census of 1790 was more explicit, having one column for "Other free persons" (meaning undoubtedly free colored persons) and another for

"slaves." In 1779 an attempt was made to secure the passage of an act granting freedom to the slaves. The matter was presented to the legislature in the form of an ably drawn petition, dated November 12, 1779, to which the names of nineteen negro slaves were signed.

The date of that document is several years earlier than that of the convention which produced the Federal Constitution, and I have copied it entire, from the original preserved in the state archives. It is as follows.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.

To the Honorable, the Council and House of Representatives of said state, now sitting at Exeter in and for said state :

The petition of the subscribers, natives of Africa, now forcibly detained in slavery in said state most humbly sheweth, That the God of nature gave them life and freedom, upon the terms of the most perfect equality with other men; That freedom is an inherent right of the human species, not to be surrendered, but by consent, for the sake of social life; That private or public tyranny and slavery are alike detestable to minds conscious of the equal dignity of human nature; That in power and authority of individuals, derived solely from a principle of coertion, against the will of individuals, and to dispose of their persons and properties, consists the completest idea of private and political slavery; That all men being ameniable to the Deity for the ill-improvement of the blessings of His Providence, they hold themselves in duty bound strenuously to exert every faculty of their minds to obtain that blessing of freedom, which they are justly entitled to from that donation of the beneficent Creator; That through ignorance and brutish violence of their native countrymen, and by the sinister designs of others (who ought to have taught them better), and by the avarice of both, they, while but children, and incapable of self-defence, whose infancy might have prompted protection, were seized, imprisoned, and transported from their native country, where (though ignorance and unchristianity prevailed) they were born free, to a country, where (though knowledge, Christianity and freedom are their boast) they are compelled and their posterity to drag on their lives in miserable servitude: Thus, often is the parent's cheek wet for the loss of a child, torn by the cruel hand of violence from her aching bosom; Thus, often and in vain is the infant's sigh for the nurturing care of its bereaved parent, and thus do the ties of nature and blood become victims to cherish the vanity and luxury of a fellow mortal. Can this be right? Forbid it gracious Heaven. Permit again your humble slaves to lay before this honorable assembly some of those grievances which they daily experience and feel. Though fortune hath dealt out our portion with rugged hand, yet hath she smiled in the disposal of our persons to those who claim us as their property; of them we do not complain, but from what authority they assume the power to dispose of our lives, freedom and property, we would wish to know. Is it from the sacred volume of Christianity? There we believe it is not to be found; but here hath the cruel hand of slavery made us incompetent judges, hence knowledge is hid from our minds. Is it from the volumes of the laws? Of these also slaves cannot be judges, but those we are told are founded on reason and justice; it cannot be found there. Is it from the volumes of nature? No, here we can read with others, of this knowledge, slavery cannot wholly deprive us; here we know that we ought to be free agents; here we feel the dignity of human nature; here we feel the passions and desires of men, though

checked by the rod of slavery; here we feel a just equality; here we know that the God of nature made us free. Is their authority assumed from custom? If so let that custom be abolished, which is not founded in nature, reason nor religion. Should the humanity and benevolence of this honorable assembly restore us that state of liberty of which we have been so long deprived, we conceive that those who are our present masters will not be sufferers by our liberation, as we have most of us spent our whole strength and the prime of our lives in their service; and as freedom inspires a noble confidence and gives the mind an emulation to vie in the noblest efforts of enterprise, and as justice and humanity are the result of your deliberations, we fondly hope that the eye of pity and the heart of justice may commiserate our situation, and put us upon the equality of freemen, and give us an opportunity of evincing to the world our love of freedom by exerting our. selves in her cause, in opposing the efforts of tyranny and oppression over the country in which we ourselves have been so long injuriously enslaved.

Therefore, Your humble slaves most devoutly pray for the sake of injured liberty, for the sake of justice, humanity and the rights of mankind, for the honor of religion and by all that is dear, that your honors would graciously interpose in our behalf, and enact such laws and regulations, as you in your wisdom think proper, whereby we may regain our liberty and be ranked in the class of free agents, and that the name of slave may not more be heard in a land gloriously contending for the sweets of freedom. And your humble slaves as in duty bound will ever pray.

The foregoing petition was read in the house of representatives, April 25, 1780, and a hearing appointed for the next session, of which the petitioners were to give public notice by publication in the New Hamp shire Gazette.

In this action the council concurred.

The matter was again before the house on Friday, June 9, 1780, and was disposed of in the manner shown by the following extract from their daily journal.

"Agreable to the order of the day the petition of Nero Brewster and others, negro slaves, praying to be set free from slavery, being read, considered and argued by counsel for petitioners before this House, it appears to this House that at this time the House is not ripe for a determination in this matter: Therefore, ordered that the further consideration and determination of the matter be post poned to a more convenient oppor

tunity." I find no further mention of the matter in the journals of the legislature, and it was probably not again considered by that body.

The constitution of this state, as adopted in 1784, declares, that "All men are born equally free and independent," and that declaration has been construed by some to have prohibited the holding in slavery any person born subsequent to that date. The sentiment contained in this extract was obviously borrowed from the Declaration of Independence of 1776, and I question its having been used with any reference to negro slavery, in either case. There were less than 150 slaves in New Hampshire in 1792, and there is a strong probability that most if not all of them were in that position voluntarily, for reasons before stated. Had any persons been held in slavery against their own wills at that time, it is reasonably certain that the matter would have been considered by the constitutional convention held in that year. Public opinion in the state demanded its extinction, and in obedience thereto it gradually died out; those who were aged and preferred to remain in the families they had served for years, were permitted to do so, and were cared for until they died.

The subject was before the legislature of this state on one subsequent occasion, and an act approved June 26, 1857, provided that no person should be deprived of the right of citizenship in this state on account of color, or because such person had been a slave. The act also provided, that any slave who shall come into this state with the consent of his master or mistress, or who shall come or be brought into or be in this state involuntarily, shall be free. Any person who held or attempted to hold a person in slavery, to be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction to be confined to hard labor not less than one, nor more than five years. Provided, that the law should not apply to any act lawfully done by a United States' officer, or other person in the execution of any legal process.

Joaac W. Hammond

CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

VOL. XXI.-No. 1.-5

MINOR TOPICS

GENERAL SAMUEL HOLDEN PARSONS

[The following letter from Hon. Charles J. McCurdy is published by request as a complement to the very able and satisfactory vindication of General Parsons by Dr. Loring. The substance of it was written before Judge McCurdy had seen the article, and would have appeared with it had it been received in time.]

HON. GEORGE B. LORING.

LYME, CONN., October 15, 1888.

DEAR SIR-Your letter of the 10th inst. was duly received. Your vindication of General Parsons is exhaustive and conclusive, and I am glad that it is to be published in a pamphlet form; not only his family and friends, but our states must feel under obligation to you for it.

As you were aware that I had taken much interest in the matter and had once begun a similar article, you ask if I would like to add a supplementary letter. It would be close gleaning where you had reaped. But one or two points I would respectfully make, arising chiefly from the internal evidence of the Heron letters alone. It is known that General Washington kept direction of the “Spy bureau" exclusively in his own hands. On the twenty-second of February, 1781, he wrote to General Parsons a confidential letter requesting him to employ a spy and promise him a generous compensation. On the fourteenth of March following, General Parsons answered that the spy employed had an assurance of generous pay. When General Washington wrote, Heron was undoubtedly in the British service, and was at the same time on intimate terms with General Parsons, for he says in his letter of February 4, 1781, "I spent a part of the night with Gen. Parsons and another with Gen. Stark," and am " intimate with both."

This letter is long and minute, and there is no hint of any defection of General Parsons, and there is no intimation of the kind until his letter of the twentyfourth of April following; so that the evidence from the sequence of the dates is that on the twenty-second of February, General Washington requested General Parsons to employ a spy. On the fourteenth of March, General Parsons answered that he had employed one, and on the twenty-fourth of April, Heron writes for the first time in his letter giving an account of his first proposing the treason to General Parsons.

The manifest conclusion from these facts, taken in connection with his proverbial sagacity and his selection and control of instruments, that General Parsons knew his man all the time and had turned him from his former employers and probably with the full knowledge of Washington. It is well known that along the line between the two armies this double espionage was a common occurrence.