Laws that Freed

There were small numbers of “free” Africans from the very beginning of exploration and
settlement of the New World. “Free Africans” and later African progeny experienced
constraints of their freedom by laws and social customs. Laws regulating their liberties
and rights were part of colonial “Black Codes.” In spite of limitations on their freedoms
and access to freedom, the numbers of so-called “free Negroes” increased steadily over
time.

The first legislated abolition of slavery in the United States.

In the 17th century, enslaved Africans accessed freedom through earning money and
purchasing their liberty. Some were indentured servants from the beginning and upon
completing their indenture were freed. Others were the offspring of European fathers
who freed them. Military service was a path to freedom for many men.
There were small communities of free Africans in Spanish America. There is little
precise data on the number of “free Negroes” in the colonies. By the end of the colonial
period “free Negroes” numbered an estimated 61, 757 dispersed among all the states
and the Louisiana Territory. For Florida, Texas and California, only the totals of
“Negroes” are approximated but it is known that some of these Africans were “free”
(Landers 1999:7–28 McDonald 2003:35–41).
Overtime 17th century laws that promoted Africans gaining freedom had been repealed
or countered with other laws. During the 18th century, increase of the “free Negro”
population resulted from private manumission, gradual emancipation and in one or two
colonies the abolition of slavery. The next module section on Cultural Heritage explores
the various strategies enslaved and free African American Nation Founders used in
pursuit of freedom.
The first written antislavery protest in British colonies came from Germantown Friends in
1688. In addition, the German Salzburgers of Georgia, the Germans of the Valley of
Virginia, and the Moravians of North Carolina resisted the keeping of “Negro slaves” as
long as was possible.
Basing their ideology on religious grounds, a number of prominent members of the
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends criticized the importation of slaves in 1696,
objected to slave trading in 1754, and in 1775 determined to disown members who
would not free their slaves. Throughout the 1700s, the Pennsylvania Assembly
attempted to discourage the slave trade by taxing it repeatedly. Finally on the eve of the
Revolutionary War, Pennsylvanians formed the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, the first
of its kind in the nation. The philosophy of the natural rights of man, the premise upon
which the American Revolution ultimately emerged, ignited the press for abolition of
slavery in northern colonies and provoked Virginian and other southerners to advocate
repeal of earlier laws that constrained private manumission of slaves (McManus
1973:161–163).
American protests that taxation by the British parliament made slaves of the American
colonists were met with criticism that noted the hypocrisy of Americans “who
condemned the tyranny of England’s colonial policies…while holding one-fifth of the
colonial population in chains.”
Expressing similar sentiments is the “Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery” passed by
the
Pennsylvania Assembly in 1780 (Pennsylvania State Archives 2003). It was the first
such legislative enactment in America.
Another twenty years would pass before gradual emancipation was legislated in New
York and New Jersey where the ratio of African to Whites was three times that of
Pennsylvania. Also, significantly emancipation laws in New York and New Jersey
compensated slaveholders for their property. The laws permitted slaveholders to “enjoy
the services” of children born in slavery for twenty-eight years if they were male and
twenty-five years if they were females. It also allowed the slave master to abandon
these children. The overseer of the poor would then assign such children to a new
master who would be paid by the state for their care while “enjoying” their services. In
many cases, the new master would be the old one who initially abandoned the children
to the state, another kind of slavery, sponsored and supported by the state (Berlin
1974:22 Ftn. 10). This kind of state sponsored and supported involuntary servitude
would reemerge in the post reconstruction era under “convict labor” laws.
By the time of the first Census of the United States 649,207 “slaves” were enumerated.
Virginia had the greatest number of enslaved persons, 292,627, followed by South
Carolina with 107,094 and Maryland with 103, 036. Interestingly, Pennsylvania and
North Carolina had the same number of enslaved persons: 100,783 (Historical Census
Browser 2004). Some American-born Africans even held “slaves.” However, the
movement toward abolition of the importation of Africans was underway. Emancipation
of those enslaved had already begun but the demise of slavery as an institution would
ultimately test the will of a new nation “conceived in liberty” to live up to the ideals
African and European Americans fought for in order that it might exist.
Wars
From the very beginning of the colonial period, armed conflict marked the exploration
and settlement of North America, conflict that continued throughout the era. Spanish
conquest of the indigenous people in New Spain was followed by intermittent wars
among the colonial powers or would-be powers. They fought with one another and with
the Indians. Alliances were formed between Indians and first one European power then
broken and reconfigured differently. Never was the expression “war makes strange
bedfellows” so true as it was in the colonial period. Free and enslaved Africans and their
progeny were early participants in all of the various conflicts that sporadically broke out
between the English colonies and their Indian or European rivals in North America. In
spite of colonial and national laws designed to exclude Africans and Indians from
military service, inevitably when conflicts erupted Whites willingly drew upon the
manpower these groups provided.

Low Country Colonies, Georgia and Spanish Florida.

Wars in Europe spilled over into the colonies. Wars in Africa fed a growing slave trade.
Once the British established territorial dominance along the New World’s eastern coast,
tensions increasingly heightened between the British colonies and the British monarchy.
As the monarchy attempted to tighten control of the colonies, there was a concomitant
increase in the number of colonists willing to participate in acts of rebellion over the
issues of political representation and trade equity. These rebellious acts ultimately
culminated in the Revolutionary War. All of the conflicts affected the status of Africans in
the colonies, but certain wars had greater significance for influencing the course of
African and subsequently African progeny’s enslavement and liberty.
The Spanish had taken advantage of Africans fighting skills for almost a hundred years
by the time Chesapeake and Low Country British colonials enlisted the aid of enslaved
and “free Negroes” in their conflicts with the Spanish and with Indians. Virginia laws that
sought to control “Negro” access to arms were relaxed when every able-bodied man
was needed to repel and launch attacks.
Indian Wars
During Indian wars, colonists were forced to enlist mostly enslaved African people in
order to be successful. This was especially true in the southern colonies where
enslaved African people and Indians both outnumbered Whites. There, Whites were
faced with a paradox: to defeat the Indians, they must arm enslaved Africans, but to arm
them gave the enslaved a much greater ability to successfully revolt. There was also the
possibility that the Indians and Africans would join forces against the White population.
These concerns led White colonists to pit the two groups against each other. They hired
Indians to track down and return runaway “slaves”; in turn, they enlisted Africans in the
militia to fight against Indians. The object was to create enmity between Indians and
Africans that would reduce the likelihood of the two groups joining together to attack
Whites (Fields 1998).
The laws passed by different colonies reflected the ambiguity of the White colonists
over whether or not to arm “Negroes.” Because of the possibility of Indian attack, a 1652
Massachusetts law required all “Negroes,” Scotsmen, and Indians who lived with or
were servants of English settlers to participate in military training. Four years later in
1656, Massachusetts prohibited “Negroes” and Indians from military service because of
the Whites fears about possible uprisings.
In 1639, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed the first legislation to exclude
“Negroes” from the militia. With a growing “free Negro” population, in 1705 the Virginia
Assembly thought it necessary to pass further legislation preventing “Negro [es],
mulatto[s], or Indian[s]” from holding civil, military or ecclesiastical office.
In South Carolina, a colony where “Negroes” out numbered Whites, the 1703 Assembly
offered to free any “slave” who captured or killed any Indian considered hostile to the
colony. By 1707, South Carolina law required militia captains “to enlist, traine [sic] up
and bring into the field for each white, one able slave armed with a gun or lance.” The
next year, Charles Town, South Carolina, employed “slave cowboys” to help protect the
settlement from Indian attack, a precedent that continued when South Carolina used
slaves to help fight during the Yemasee War.
In two Indian wars in the Carolinas, with the Tuscarora in North Carolina and the
Yemassee in South Carolina, several Indian tribes joined together in a common goal to
expel frontier settlers. Whites were not only forced to enlist help from neighboring
colonies to defend themselves against the Indians but also to enlisted all available
enslaved and “free Negroes.”
During this period a smaller war, almost a skirmish, erupted in 1715 between the
Yemassee Indians and British colonists in North and South Carolina and Virginia. As a
result of their military service during the Ease War, many slaves received their freedom.
However, South Carolina soon changed this practice by providing monetary award
rather than freedom (Nalty 1986:6).
Small, though the Yamasee War was, the arming of at least 400 African American men
to protect the colonies was to set a precedent followed in the Revolutionary War and
have repercussions over the next generation with regards to Black and White relations.
Between 1702 and 1763, enslaved and free African American colonists participated in
the series of wars whose outcomes would shape the social, political, and cultural
characteristics of the future American nation and the social development of a national
consciousness among first generation Africans and their descendant communities
Wars for Territorial Dominance
Beginning with the war of Spanish Succession, also known as Queen Anne’s War,
(1702–1713), through the War of Jenkins Ear, (1739–1742) and the French-Indian War,
or Seven Years War (1754–1760), that followed, the Spanish, French and English
fought over their territorial boundaries in North America. During these wars armed
“Negroes” and mulattos helped defend French Louisiana from Indian attacks.
During this period of conflict between the European powers for dominance on the North
American mainland, Spanish and French employed Africans and American-born
Africans as soldiers. Although England came to dominate the North American continent,
the Spanish and French colonies left an important legacy to the United States regarding
the employment of American-born Africans in the military. It was in these non-English
colonies where blacks first served in segregated, all-black units, led by black non-
commissioned officers. Milder slave codes, greater equality and opportunity for free
blacks, and widespread miscegenation accounted for this increased tolerance to arm
blacks (Donaldson 1991:6).
The British continued to use “Negroes” as needed. The 1747 South Carolina assembly
provided for the use of “Negro” soldiers in the event of danger or emergency, and
authorized the enlistment of 50 percent of all able-bodied slaves between the ages of 16
and 20. Ever cautious, during the French-Indian War, the Virginia House of Burgesses
passed a statute in 1754 exempting all servants, enslaved and indentured, from
rendering military service. However, the law allowed “free Negroes” to enlist as laborers
and servants. One view held at the time was that the use of “Negroes” as menials in the
military was a means to free white soldiers for combat. However, in the heat of battle
every able bodied person, white or black, soldier or servant had to fight. For example,
as the fighting at Fort Duquesne worsened, General Braddock disobeyed the Virginia
law and ordered all servants armed and placed on the front lines (Bowman 1970:59;
Fields, 1998).
African participation in these wars proved significant for several reasons. First, they
served in integrated units and received the same pay as whites. Second, no African was
charged with either cowardice or treason (Greene 1951:124). Finally, these African
American veterans set an important precedent that later influenced military policy
concerning use of African troops during the American Revolution (Fields 1998).
This series of conflicts ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1763 in which the realignment
of colonial boundaries left France with no mainland territory. Spain retained New Spain
and received Louisiana in return for giving up Florida to England. The British controlled
all of the land east of the Mississippi and from the Florida Keys in the south to Hudson
Bay in the north.

Colonial boundaries of British, Spanish and French before 1763.

Rebellion
“The Kings Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of Parliament, had, hath, and of
right ought to have full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force
and validity to bind the colonies…in all cases whatsoever…” Declaratory Act, British
Parliament 1766.
Three short years after the Treaty of Paris found the American British colonies, most
specifically New England, pitted against the Monarchy and Parliament over the British
Empire mercantilism commercial system. That system demanded that the mainland
colonies trade exclusively with the British West Indies and England. New England
resisted, importing sugar and tropical produce from non- British plantations and drained
the British islands of money. New England merchants sold mainland produce to the
British West Indies for cash, with which they purchased cheaper tropical commodities in
foreign islands. After supplying the British West Indies with supplies, the northern
colonies had an annual surplus of 100,000 barrels of flour and large quantities of beef,
pork and fish which they sold to Spanish and French colonies.
The British government attempted to reign in the steady momentum of mainland
colonies toward economic independence through various acts between 1764 and 1773
that taxed imports, lowered duties on molasses, and imposed duties on tea, glass,
paper, paints and other items. Economic resistance to dictates of imperial power thinly
masked class-based discontent of some colonists with kings, nobility, aristocracy and
hierarchy. The “natural rights” philosophy of John Locke, took hold in the colonies where
almost half the white colonists were only a generation or two away from their lower
class origins. The ideas of the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness and that all men were created equal, was even more appealing to African
Americans relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy by enslavement or, if free, by social
custom.
Revolution was inevitable. The Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770 is the date often
identified as a turning point in British-American relations. Ironically Crispus Attucks, the
first man killed on that day, the first martyr of the War for Independence, was an
American-born African and a formerly enslaved.
Revolutionary War
On April 19, 1775, the Battles of Lexington and Concord signaled the first major
offensive military act by the British to suppress the colonists that resulted in fighting and
bloodshed. Scholars generally agree that those events ignited the atmosphere of
rebellion and ushered in a military and political state of war. The American and French
victory at Yorktown in October 1781 ended major campaigning during the Revolutionary
War, although isolated, small engagements continued through 1782. In April 1782, the
British government called for its military forces to refrain from offensive action and
prepare to withdraw from the American colonies. In April 1783, Congress ratified the
provisional peace treaty. The signing of the Treaty of Paris finalized the peace. The end
date given for the Revolutionary War, September 3, 1783, is the date on which
American and British diplomats signed the Treaty of Paris (National Park Service 2000).
The War lasted 8½ years. Except for the Vietnam War, it was the longest war
Americans ever fought. Of all the wars that Americans have fought, only the Civil War
saw more American military deaths per 10, 000 citizens. Furthermore, it is highly
probably that these numbers do not take into account the deaths of American-born
African revolutionary soldiers since “Negroes” were not considered citizens. It was a war
for national independence but it was also a civil war against the British.
While the nation was born of the War, it created deep schisms between Americans.
Only about 40% of Americans were patriots, another 40% were neutral and 20% of
Americans, the Loyalists, supported the British.
These numbers probably also do not take into account American-born African patriots
and Loyalists. The War became a world war as the French, Spanish, Dutch and
Hessians took sides fighting in North America and with their seafaring fleets attacking
British possessions in the West Indies, Africa and India.
The Revolutionary War was never really won. The British in 1783 decided to make
peace with America for political, military and economic reasons.
Finally, the Revolutionary War was a model for other subordinated peoples worldwide.
The War established the validity of an underlying premise that there was a voluntary
contract between government and the people allowing government to rule, that all men
are created equal and that God has endowed them with certain inalienable Rights…
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness… Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

Concept design for the The Black Revolutionary Patriots Memorial.

From the perspective of over 5000 American-born African Patriots who fought in the
war, the Articles of Confederation that gave shape to the new nation and the
Constitution that was to be its charter over the coming years, fell far short of the ideal of
freedom and equality for all Americans. Yet “free” and enslaved African people were to
continue to work to build the new nation and press for social reality to match the
idealism of America’s founding documents.
Phillis Wheatley (1753–1784) an enslaved colonial American-born African poetess
captured the feelings of the American-born African patriots and those of many other
African people and their descendants who participated in building the new nation when
she wrote:
“In every human Breast, God has implanted a Principle, which we call Love of Freedom;
it is impatient of oppression, and pants for Deliverance. … The same Principle lives in
us.” (Wheatley 1774)
Conclusion
Looking at historical contexts it is clear that from the inception of this nation Africans
and the progeny participated in establishing the role of the United States in the world.
Cultural heritage, the next section of Module I, focuses on the cultural patterns of
Africans and their descendants, both enslaved and “free,” that helped to shape other
dimensions of Colonial America and the New Republic that emerged from the struggles
of all of the American people.
Cultural Heritage Part I examines Africans and African Americans as change agents in
exploration, settlement, expansion, and development of four regions of North America
from the 16th century through the 18th century: Spanish America, the Chesapeake, the
Low Country and French America. Part II will continue this scrutiny of Africans and their
progeny in the Northern Colonies during the 17th through the 18th century.
Cultural Heritage identifies how Africans and their descendants helped people the
places that became the United States. It examines African people’s roles in developing
the American economy and in transforming the environment. Cultural Heritage aims to
enhance the reader’s knowledge of the expressed cultural values and social institutions
created by African peoples as they participated in the founding of America. Cultural
Heritage Part II: Northern Colonies, War of Independence and Founding America
in development will further uncover the role of Africans and their progeny in the
Revolutionary War and how “free” Africans and their progeny helped to shape the
political environment of the new Nation.