History of the Negro Race in America from 1619 to 1880. Vol 1 / Negroes as Slaves, as Soldiers, and as Citizens

But notwithstanding the persistent and bitter opposition to the employment of slaves, from the earliest hours of the Revolutionary War till its close, Negroes, bond and free, were in all branches of the service. It is to be regretted that the exact number cannot be known. Adjutant-Gen. Scammell made the following official return of Negro soldiers in the main army, under Washington's immediate command, two months after the battle of Monmouth; but the Rhode-Island regiment, the Connecticut, New York, and New-Hampshire troops are not mentioned. Incomplete as it is, it is nevertheless official, and therefore correct as far as it goes.

RETURN OF NEGROES IN THE ARMY, 24th Aug., 1778.

Alex. Scammell, Adj.-Gen.[577]

It is gratifying to record the fact, that the Negro was enrolled as a soldier in the war of the American Revolution. What he did will be recorded in the following chapter.

CHAPTER XXVII.

Return to Table of Contents

AS soldiers the Negroes went far beyond the most liberal expectations of their stanchest friends. Associated with white men, many of whom were superior gentlemen, and nearly all of whom were brave and enthusiastic, the Negro soldiers of the American army became worthy of the cause they fought to sustain. Col. Alexander Hamilton had said, "their natural faculties are as good as ours;" and the assertion was supported by their splendid behavior on all the battle-fields of the Revolution. Endowed by nature with a poetic element, faithful to trusts, abiding in friendships, bound by the golden threads of attachment to places and persons, enthusiastic in personal endeavor, sentimental and chivalric, they made hardy and intrepid soldiers. The daring, boisterous enthusiasm with which they sprang to arms disarmed racial prejudice of its sting, and made friends of foes.

Their cheerfulness in camp, their celerity in the performance of fatigue-duty, their patient endurance of heat and cold, hunger and thirst, and their bold efficiency in battle, made them welcome companions everywhere they went. The officers who frowned at their presence in the army at first, early learned, from experience, that they were the equals of any troops in the army for severe service in camp, and excellent fighting in the field.

The battle of Bunker Hill was one of the earliest and most important of the Revolution. Negro soldiers were in the action of the 17th of June, 1775, and nobly did their duty. Speaking of this engagement, Bancroft says,—

"Nor should history forget to record that, as in the army at Cambridge, so also in this gallant band, the free negroes of the colony had their representatives."[578]

Two Negro soldiers especially distinguished themselves, and rendered the cause of the colonists great service. Major Pitcairn was a gallant officer of the British marines. He led the charge against the redoubt, crying exultingly, "The day is ours!" His sudden appearance and his commanding air at first startled the men immediately before him. They neither answered nor fired, probably not being exactly certain what was next to be done. At this critical moment, a Negro soldier stepped forward, and, aiming his musket directly at the major's bosom, blew him through.[579] Who was this intrepid black soldier, who at a critical moment stepped to the front, and with certain aim brought down the incarnate enemy of the colonists? What was his name, and whence came he to battle? His name was Peter Salem, a private in Col Nixon's regiment of the Continental Army.

"He was born in Framingham [Massachusetts], and was held as a slave, probably until he joined the army: whereby, if not before, he became free. ... Peter served faithfully as a soldier, during the war."[580]

Perhaps Salem was then a slave: probably he thought of the chains and stripes from whence he had come, of the liberty to be purchased in the ordeals of war, and felt it his duty to show himself worthy of his position as an American soldier. He proved that his shots were as effective as those of a white soldier, and that he was not wanting in any of the elements that go to make up the valiant soldier. Significant indeed that a Negro was the first to open the hostilities between Great Britain and the colonies,—the first to pour out his blood as a precious libation on the altar of a people's rights; and that here, at Bunker Hill, when the crimson and fiery tide of battle seemed to be running hard against the small band of colonists, a Negro soldier's steady musket brought down the haughty form of the arch-rebel, and turned victory to the weak! England had loaded the African with chains, and doomed him to perpetual bondage in the North-American colonies; and when she came to forge political chains, in the flames of fratricidal war, for an English-speaking people, the Negro, whom she had grievously wronged, was first to meet her soldiers, and welcome them to a hospitable grave.

Bunker-hill Monument has a charm for loyal Americans; and the Negro, too, may gaze upon its enduring magnificence. It commemorates the deeds, not of any particular soldier, but all who stood true to the principles of equal rights and free government on that memorable "17th of June."

"No name adorns the shaft; but ages hence, though our alphabets may become as obscure as those which cover the monuments, of Nineveh and Babylon, its uninscribed surface (on which monarchs might be proud to engrave their titles) will perpetuate the memory of the 17th of June. It is the monument of the day, of the event, of the battle of Bunker Hill; of all the brave men who shared its perils,—alike of Prescott and Putnam and Warren, the chiefs of the day, and the colored man, Salem, who is reported to have shot the gallant Pitcairn, as he mounted the parapet. Cold as the clods on which it rests, still as the silent heavens to which it soars, it is yet vocal, eloquent, in their undivided praise."[581]

The other Negro soldier who won for himself rare fame and distinguished consideration in the action at Bunker Hill was Salem Poor. Delighted with his noble bearing, his superior officers could not refrain from calling the attention of the civil authorities to the facts that came under their personal observation. The petition that set forth his worth as a brave soldier is still preserved in the manuscript archives of Massachusetts:—

"To the Honorable General Court of the Massachusetts Bay.

"The subscribers beg leave to report to your Honorable House (which we do in justice to the character of so brave a man), that, under our own observation, we declare that a negro man called Salem Poor, of Col. Frye's regiment, Capt. Ames' company, in the late battle at Charlestown, behaved like an experienced officer, as well as an excellent soldier. To set forth particulars of his conduct would be tedious. We would only beg leave to say, in the person of this said negro centres a brave and gallant soldier. The reward due to so great and distinguished a character, we submit to the Congress.

"Jona. Brewer, Col.	Eliphalet Bodwell, Sgt.
Jona. Brewer, Col.	Eliphalet Bodwell, Sgt.
Thomas Nixon, Lt.-Col.	Josiah Foster, Lieut.
Wm. Prescott, Colo.	Ebenr. Varnum, 2d Lieut.
Ephm. Corey, Lieut.	Wm. Hudson Ballard, Cpt.
Joseph Baker, Lieut.	William Smith, Cap.
Joshua Row, Lieut.	John Morton, Sergt.[?]
Jonas Richardson, Capt.	Lieut. Richard Welsh.

"Cambridge, Dec. 5, 1775.

"In Council, Dec. 21, 1775.—Read, and sent down.

"Perez Morton, Dep'y Sec'y."[582]

How many other Negro soldiers behaved with cool and determined valor at Bunker Hill, it is not possible to know. But many were there; they did their duty as faithful men, and their achievements are the heritage of the free of all colors under our one flag. Col. Trumbull, an artist as well as a soldier, who was stationed at Roxbury, witnessed the engagement from that elevation. Inspired by the scene, when it was yet fresh in his mind, he painted the historic picture of the battle in 1786. He represents several Negroes in good view, while conspicuous in the foreground is the redoubtable Peter Salem. Some subsequent artists—mere copyists—have sought to consign this black hero to oblivion, but 'tis vain. Although the monument at Bunker Hill "does not bear his name, the pencil of the artist has portrayed the scene, the pen of the impartial historian has recorded his achievement, and the voice of the eloquent orator has resounded his valor."

Major Samuel Lawrence "at one time commanded a company whose rank and file were all Negroes, of whose courage, military discipline, and fidelity he always spoke with respect. On one occasion, being out reconnoitring with this company, he got so far in advance of his command, that he was surrounded, and on the point of being made prisoner by the enemy. The men, soon discovering his peril, rushed to his rescue, and fought with the most determined bravery till that rescue was effectually secured. He never forgot this circumstance, and ever after took especial pains to show kindness and hospitality to any individual of the colored race who came near his dwelling."[583]

Gen. Lee, of the American army, was captured by Col. Harcourt of the British army. It was regarded as a very distressing event; and preparations were made to capture a British officer of the same rank, so an exchange could be effected. Col. Barton of the Rhode-Island militia, a brave and cautious officer, was charged with the capture of Major-Gen. Prescott, commanding the royal army at Newport. On the night of the 9th of July, 1777, Col. Barton, with forty men, in two boats with muffled oars, evaded the enemy's boats, and, being taken for the sentries at Prescott's head-quarters, effected that officer's capture—a Negro taking him. The exploit was bold and successful.

"They landed about five miles from Newport, and three-quarters of a mile from the house, which they approached cautiously, avoiding the main guard, which was at some distance. The Colonel went foremost, with a stout, active negro close behind him, and another at a small distance; the rest followed so as to be near, but not seen.

"A single sentinel at the door saw and hailed the Colonel; he answered by exclaiming against, and inquiring for, rebel prisoners, but kept slowly advancing. The sentinel again challenged him, and required the countersign. He said he had not the countersign, but amused the sentry by talking about rebel prisoners, and still advancing till he came within reach of the bayonet, which, he presenting, the Colonel suddenly struck aside and seized him. He was immediately secured, and ordered to be silent, on pain of instant death. Meanwhile, the rest of the men surrounding the house, the negro, with his head, at the second stroke forced a passage into it, and then into the landlord's apartment. The landlord at first refused to give the necessary intelligence; but, on the prospect of present death he pointed to the General's chamber, which being instantly opened by the negro's head, the Colonel calling the General by name, told him he was a prisoner."[584]

Another account was published by a surgeon of the army, and is given here:—

"Albany, Aug. 3, 1777.—The pleasing information is received here that Lieut.-Col. Barton, of the Rhode-Island militia, planned a bold exploit for the purpose of surprising and taking Major-Gen. Prescott, the commanding officer of the royal army at Newport. Taking with him, in the night, about forty men, in two boats, with oars muffled, he had the address to elude the vigilance of the ships-of-war and guard-boats: and, having arrived undiscovered at the quarters of Gen. Prescott, they were taken for the sentinels; and the general was not alarmed till his captors were at the door of his lodging-chamber, which was fast closed. A negro man, named Prince, instantly thrust his beetle head through the panel door; and seized his victim while in bed.... This event is extremely honorable to the enterprising spirit of Col. Barton, and is considered as ample retaliation for the capture of Gen. Lee by Col. Harcourt. The event occasions great joy and exultation, as it puts in our possession an officer of equal rank with Gen. Lee, by which means an exchange may be obtained. Congress resolved that an elegant sword should be presented to Col. Barton for his brave exploit."[585]

Col. Barton evidently entertained great respect for the valor and trustworthiness of the Negro soldier whom he made the chief actor in a most hazardous undertaking. It was the post of honor; and the Negro soldier Prince discharged the duty assigned him in a manner that was entirely satisfactory to his superior officer, and crowned as one of the most daring and brilliant coups d'état of the American Revolution.

The battle of Rhode Island, fought on the 29th of August, 1778, was one of the severest of the Revolution. Newport was laid under siege by the British. Their ships-of-war moved up the bay on the morning of the action, and opened a galling fire upon the exposed right flank of the American army; while the Hessian columns, stretching across a chain of the "highland," attempted to turn Gen. Greene's flank, and storm the advanced redoubt. The heavy cannonading that had continued since nine in the morning was now accompanied by heavy skirmishing; and the action began to be general all along the lines. The American army was disposed in three lines of battle; the first extended in front of their earthworks on Butt's Hill, the second in rear of the hill, and the third as reserve a half-mile in the rear of the advance line. At ten o'clock the battle was at white heat. The British vessels kept up a fire that greatly annoyed the Americans, but imparted courage to the Hessians and British infantry. At length the foot columns massed, and swept down the slopes of Anthony's Hill with the impetuosity of a whirlwind. But the American columns received them with the intrepidity and coolness of veterans. The loss of the enemy was fearful.

"Sixty were found dead in one spot. At another, thirty Hessians were buried in one grave. Major-Gen. Greene commanded on the right. Of the four brigades under his immediate command, Varnum's, Glover's, Cornell's and Greene's, all suffered severely, but Gen. Varnum's perhaps the most. A third time the enemy, with desperate courage and increased strength, attempted to assail the redoubt, and would have carried it but for the timely aid of two continental battalions despatched by Sullivan to support his almost exhausted troops. It was in repelling these furious onsets, that the newly raised black regiment, under Col. Greene, distinguished itself by deeds of desperate valor. Posted behind a thicket in the valley, they three times drove back the Hessians who charged repeatedly down the hill to dislodge them; and so determined were the enemy in these successive charges, that the day after the battle the Hessian colonel, upon whom this duty had devolved, applied to exchange his command and go to New York, because he dared not lead his regiment again to battle, lest his men should shoot him for having caused them so much loss."[586]

A few years later the Marquis de Chastellux, writing of this regiment, said,—

"The 5th [of January, 1781] I did not set out till eleven, although I had thirty miles' journey to Lebanon. At the passage to the ferry, I met with a detachment of the Rhode-Island regiment, the same corps we had with us all the last summer, but they have since been recruited and clothed. The greatest part of them are negroes or mulattoes; but they are strong, robust men, and those I have seen had a very good appearance.'"[587]

On the 14th of May, 1781, the gallant Col. Greene was surprised and murdered at Point's Bridge, New York, but it was not effected until his brave black soldiers had been cut to pieces in defending their leader. It was one of the most touching and beautiful incidents of the war, and illustrates the self-sacrificing devotion of Negro soldiers to the cause of American liberty.

At a meeting of the Congregational and Presbyterian Anti-Slavery Society, at Francestown, N.H., the Rev. Dr. Harris, himself a Revolutionary soldier, spoke thus complimentarily of the Rhode-Island Negro regiment:—

"Yes, a regiment of negroes, fighting for our liberty and independence,—not a white man among them but the officers,—stationed in this same dangerous and responsible position. Had they been unfaithful, or driven away before the enemy, all would have been lost. Three times in succession were they attacked, with most desperate valor and fury, by well disciplined and veteran troops, and three times did they successfully repel the assault, and thus preserve our army from capture. They fought through the war. They were brave, hardy troops. They helped to gain our liberty and independence."

From the opening to the closing scene of the Revolutionary War; from the death of Pitcairn to the surrender of Cornwallis; on many fields of strife and triumph, of splendid valor and republican glory; from the hazy dawn of unequal and uncertain conflict, to the bright morn of profound peace; through and out of the fires of a great war that gave birth to a new, a grand republic,—the Negro soldier fought his way to undimmed glory, and made for himself a magnificent record in the annals of American history. Those annals have long since been committed to the jealous care of the loyal citizens of the Republic black men fought so heroically to snatch from the iron clutches of Britain.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Return to Table of Contents

WHEN the Revolutionary War began, the legal status of the Negro slave was clearly defined in the courts of all the colonies. He was either chattel or real property. The question naturally arose as to his legal status during his new relation as a soldier. Could he be taken as property, or as a prisoner of war? Was he booty, or was he entitled to the usage of civilized warfare,—a freeman, and therefore to be treated as such?

The Continental Congress, Nov. 25, 1775, passed a resolution recommending the several colonial legislatures to establish courts that should give jurisdiction to courts, already in existence, to dispose of "cases of capture." In fact, and probably in law, Congress exercised power in cases of appeal. Moreover, Congress had prescribed a rule for the distribution of prizes. But, curiously enough, Massachusetts, in 1776, passed an Act declaring, that, in case captures were made by the forces of the colony, the local authorities should have complete jurisdiction in their distribution; but, when prizes or captives were taken upon colonial territory by the forces of the United Colonies, the distributions should be made in accordance with the laws of Congress. This was but a single illustration of the divided sovereignty of a crude government. That there was need of a uniform law upon this question, there could be no doubt, especially in a war of the magnitude of the one that was then being waged.

On the 13th of September, 1776, a resolution was introduced into the Massachusetts House of Representatives, "to prevent the sale of two negro men lately brought into this state, as prisoners taken on the high seas, and advertised to be sold at Salem, the 17th inst., by public auction."[588] The resolve in full is here given:—

"In The House Of Representatives, Sept. 13, 1776:

"Whereas this House is credibly informed that two negro men lately brought into this State as prisoners taken on the High Seas are advertised to be sold at Salem, the 17th instant, by public auction,

"Resolved, That the selling and enslaving the human species is a direct violation of the natural rights alike vested in all men by their Creator, and utterly inconsistent with the avowed principles on which this and the other United States have carried their struggle for liberty even to the last appeal, and therefore, that all persons connected with the said negroes be and they hereby are forbidden to sell them or in any manner to treat them otherways than is already ordered for the treatment of prisoners of war taken in the same vessell or others in the like employ and if any sale of the said negroes shall be made, it is hereby declared null and void.

"Sent up for concurrence.

"Sam^l. Freeman, Speaker, P.T.

"In Council, Sept. 14, 1776. Read and concurred as taken into a new draught. Sent down for concurrence.

"John Avery, Dpy. Secy.

"In the House of Representatives, Sept. 14, 1776. Read and non-concurred, and the House adhere to their own vote. Sent up for concurrence.

"J. Warren, Speaker.

"In Council, Sept. 16, 1776. Read and concurred as now taken into a new draft. Sent down for concurrence.

"John Avery, Dpy. Secy.

"In the House of Representatives, Sept. 16, 1779. Read and concurred.

"J. Warren, Speaker.

"Consented to.

"Jer. Powell,	Jabez Fisher,
W. Sever,	B. White,
B. Greenleaf,	Moses Gill,
Caleb Cushing,	Dan'l Hopkins,
B. Chadbourn,	Benj. Austin,
John Whetcomb,	Wm. Phillips,
Eldad Taylor,	D. Sewall,
S. Holten,	Dan'l Hopkins."

On the Journal of the House, p. 106, appears the following record,—

"David Sewall, Esq., brought down the resolve which passed the House yesterday, forbidding the sale of two negroes, with the following vote of Council thereon, viz In Council, Sept. 14, 1776. Read and concurred, as taken into a new draught. Sent down for concurrence. Read and non-concurred, and the House adhere to their own vote. Sent up for concurrence."

The resolve, as it originally appeared, was dragged through a tedious debate, non-concurred in by the House, recommitted, remodelled, and sent back, when it finally passed.

"LXXXIII. Resolve forbidding the sale of two Negroes brought in as Prisoners; Passed September 14, [16th,] 1776.

"Whereas this Court is credibly informed that two Negro Men lately taken on the High Seas, on board the sloop Hannibal, and brought into this State as Prisoners, are advertized to be sold at Salem, the 17th instant, by public Auction:

"Resolved, That all Persons concerned with the said Negroes be, and they are hereby forbidden to sell them, or in any manner to treat them otherwise than is already ordered for the Treatment of Prisoners taken in like manner; and if any Sale of the said Negroes shall be made it is hereby declared null and void, and that whenever it shall appear that any Negroes are taken on the High Seas and brought as Prisoners into this State, they shall not be allowed to be Sold, nor treated any otherwise than as Prisoners are ordered to be treated who are taken in like Manner."[589]

It looked like a new resolve. The pronounced and advanced sentiment in favor of the equal rights of all created beings had been taken out, and it appeared now as a war measure, warranted upon military policy. This is the only chaplet that the most devout friends of Massachusetts can weave out of her acts on the Negro problem during the colonial period, to place upon her brow. It attracted wide-spread and deserved attention.

During the following month, on the 14th of October, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a special committee, Messrs. Lee, Wilson, and Hall, "to consider what is to be done with Negroes taken by vessels of war, in the service of the United States." Here was a profound legal problem presented for solution. According to ancient custom and law, slaves came as the bloody logic of war. War between nations was of necessity international; but while this truth had stood through many centuries, the conversion of the Northern nations of Europe into organized society greatly modified the old doctrine of slavery. Coming under the enlightening influences of modern international law, war captives could not be reduced to slavery.[590] This doctrine was thoroughly understood, doubtless, in the North-American colonies as in Europe. But the almost universal doctrine of property in the Negro, and his status in the courts of the colonies, gave the royal army great advantage in the appropriation of Negro captives, under the plea that they were "property," and hence legitimate "spoils of war;" while, on the part of the colonists, to declare that captured Negroes were entitled to the treatment of "prisoners of war," was to reverse a principle of law as old as their government. It was, in fact, an abandonment of the claim of property in the Negro. It was a recognition of his rights as a soldier, a bestowal of the highest favors known in the treatment of captives of war.[591] But there was another difficulty in the way. Slavery had been recognized in the venerable memorials of the most remote nations. This condition was coeval with the history of all nations, but nowhere regarded as a relation of a local character. It grew up in social compacts, in organized communities of men, and in great and powerful states. It was recognized in private international law; and the relation of master and slave was guarded in their local habitat, and respected wherever found.[592] And this relation, this property in man, did not cease because the slave sought another nation, for it was recognized in all the commercial transactions of nations. Now, upon this principle, the colonists were likely to claim their right to property in slaves captured.

The confederation of the new States was effected on the 1st of March, 1781. Art. IX. gave the "United States in Congress assembled" the exclusive authority of making laws to govern the disposal of all captures made by land or water; to decide which were legal; how prizes taken by the land or naval force of the government should be appropriated, and the right to establish courts of competent jurisdiction in such case, etc. The first legislation under this article was an Act establishing a court of appeals on the 4th of June, 1781. It was discussed on the 25th of June, and again, on the 17th of July, took up a great deal of time, but was recommitted. The committee were instructed to prepare an ordinance regulating the proceedings of the admiralty cases, in the several States, in instances of capture; to codify all resolutions and laws upon the subject; and to request the States to enact such provisions as would be in harmony with the reserved rights of the Congress in such cases as were specified in the Ninth Article. Accordingly, on the 21st of September, 1781, the committee reported to Congress the results of their labor, in a bill on the subject of captures. Upon the question of agreeing to the following section, the yeas and nays were demanded by Mr. Mathews of South Carolina:—

"On the recapture by a citizen of any negro, mulatto, Indian, or other person from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed by another citizen, specific restitution shall be adjudged to the claimant, whether the original capture shall have been made on land or water, a reasonable salvage being paid by the claimant to the recaptor, not exceeding one-fourth part of the value of such labor or service, to be estimated according to the laws of the State of which the claimant shall be a citizen: but if the service of such negro, mulatto, Indian or other person, captured below high-water mark, shall not be legally claimed by a citizen of these United States, he shall be set at liberty."

The delegates from North Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey, and Connecticut, refrained from voting; South Carolina voted in the negative: but it was carried by twenty-eight yeas, against two nays. After a spirited debate, continuing through several days, and having received several amendments, it finally passed on Dec. 4, 1781, as follows:—

"On the recapture by a citizen of any negro, mulatto, Indian, or other person, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed by a State or a citizen of a State, specific restitution shall be adjudged to the claimant, whether the original capture shall have been made on land or water, and without regard to the time of possession by the enemy, a reasonable salvage being paid by the claimant to the recaptor, not exceeding 1-4th of the value of such labor or service, to be estimated according to the laws of the State under which the claim shall be made.

"But if the service of such negro, mulatto, Indian, or other person, captured below high water mark, shall not be legally claimed within a year and a day from the sentence of the Court, he shall be set at liberty."

It should be carefully observed that the above law refers only to recaptures. It would be interesting to know the views the committee entertained in reference to slaves captured by the ministerial army. Nothing was said about this interesting feature of the case. Why Congress did not claim proper treatment of the slaves captured by the enemy while in the service of the United Colonies, is not known. Doubtless its leaders saw where the logic of such a position would lead them. The word "another" was left out of the original measure, and was made to read, in the one that passed, "a State or citizen;" as if it were feared that, by implication, a Negro would be recognized as a citizen.

By the proclamation of Sir Henry Clinton, already mentioned in the preceding chapter, Negroes were threatened with sale for "the public service;" and Mr. Jefferson in his letter to Mr. Gordon (see preceding chapter), says the enemy sold the Negroes captured in Virginia into the West Indies. After the capture of Stony Point by Gen. Wayne, concerning two Negroes who fell into his hands, he wrote to Lieut.-Col. Meigs from New Windsor on the 25th of July, 1779, as follows:—

"The wish of the officers to free the three Negroes after a few Years Service meets my most hearty approbation but as the Chance of War or other Incidents may prevent the officer [owner] from Compling with the Intention of the Officers it will be proper for the purchaser or purchasers to sign a Condition in the Orderly Book.

" ... I wou'd cheerfully join them in their Immediate Manumission—if a few days makes no material difference I could wish the sale put off until a Consultation may be had, & the opinion of the Officers taken on this Business."[593]