EARLIEST TRACES OF THE NEGRO IN PENNSYLVANIA

To the reader of the history of Pennsylvania, the statement that the colony was established in 1681 by William Penn seems sufficient reason for thinking that was the first settlement. But there were other people already established there and among them were to be found Negroes, as is very readily ascertained from the records. The people who occupied the territory along the Delaware, later to be called Pennsylvania, before its charter as a colony was granted, were chiefly Swedes, English, and Dutch, who had crossed over the river from the neighboring colonies.[1129]

Negroes were not numerous. There remains rather scant evidence of their presence in any considerable number, but authentic record of certain instances. It is found, for example, that as early as 1639 a convict was sentenced to South River, as the Delaware was then called, to serve out his time with the Negroes.[1130] This is the earliest record found; though frequent mention is made of them after this date. In 1664, the West India Company agreed to furnish about fifty Negroes to work in the lowlands on the Delaware River.[1131] This is the earliest explicit record that is found of trafficking in Negroes in Pennsylvania. The slave trade, thus begun by the Dutch Company, was continued, now rising, now falling, till the final abolition of slavery in 1780.[1132] The law of 1780, which provided for a gradual abolition, was subjected to such frequent evasion that in 1788 it became necessary to pass another for its clarification and enforcement.[1133] By the middle of the seventeenth century, the importation of slaves had become a part of the regular work of the merchants of Philadelphia, with the exception of a few conscientious Quakers who refused to profit thereby. Records of the end of the century indicate that the number of Negroes had by that time become very considerable, though no exact figures are obtainable.[1134]

But it is not to be assumed that because the slave trade began thus early and continued to grow, it did so without meeting any opposition. In fact it is probably due to a few years of opposition by various factors, which are here only mentioned briefly, that the slave trade did not become as prodigious in Pennsylvania as in other states, and that she was the first to pass an abolition law against it.[1135] Chief among the factors which opposed the increase of Negro serfdom were these: (1) the conscientious scruples of Friends in reference to the traffic;[1136] (2) the objection on the part of the German inhabitants (partially as Quakers, but not entirely);[1137] and, (3) the dissatisfaction caused among White laborers by the enforced competition of the Negroes.[1138]

As a result of this opposition to the importation of slaves, there was enacted various legislation restricting it, although there was at the same time an urgent demand on the part of some for slave labor. One of the first attempts on the part of the Colonial Assembly to restrict slave traffic was the act of 1700, imposing the maximum duty of 20 shillings per head imported, which amount was in 1705 increased to 40 shillings.[1139] Not entirely satisfied with this stroke, the Assembly attempted (1712) practically to prohibit importation by placing a levy of £20 per head, but this act was at once repealed by the crown.[1140] However great may have been the failure in legislation, it seems that the feeling against importation was quite marked and, for that reason, the number imported fell considerably. If the statement of a merchant, Jonathan Dickinson, may be taken as indicative, we may judge that it was the slack demand that brought about a decrease in importation. He says, writing to Jamaica, April, 1715,

However strongly the general public was opposed to the slave importation, it was nevertheless possible for the interests of the few to dominate. First, there was the desire on the part of the trading company for the rich profits derived, and the crown was loath to fail to safeguard the company in its demands; this service it performed by regularly repealing the obnoxious legislation, which was enacted and favored by the majority of the citizens represented in the Assembly.[1142] Second, certain influential classes of citizens, for example, the iron masters, wished for the continuance of importation because of the advantage accruing to them through the competition between Whites and slave labor. This is instanced in 1727 by a petition on their part for the removal of the duty because of the scarcity of available Whites.[1143]

This conflict between the ideals of different classes, complicated by the economic problem of labor, continued to be fought out chiefly in words, and legislation, until by the middle of the eighteenth century it is estimated, by some historians of Pennsylvania, that importation had nearly ceased.[1144] The period following 1750, however, saw importation again positively accelerated, due to the greater security in the possession of Negro slaves compared with that of the White servants. Passing over the crest of this wave of increase, we find a rapid decline in importation and sale of Negroes during the years immediately preceding the American Revolution; but even after the Revolution, fought for the principles of freedom, independence and equality, there occur not infrequent instances of the traffic in human flesh and blood.[1145] These cases form the exception rather than the rule, however, and in 1780 there was secured the law for gradual prohibition, to which reference has already been made.[1146]

The condition of the slaves in Pennsylvania was in many respects better than in other states; especially is this true if they are compared with those in the South, who were employed mostly in plantation work. Their clothing, if we may judge by the descriptions which usually accompanied the advertisement of runaways, was usually good and very striking in its variety, as witnesses the following description.[1147]

Socially they were less restricted and did not suffer the sharp separation from the Whites that was characteristic of the South. They were not on an equality, that was not to be expected, but they enjoyed considerable freedom among themselves,[1149] and the various religious societies were, at least to a considerable degree, interested in their spiritual welfare. We find, at any rate, no considerable opposition to their advancement as was present in Virginia, even at a much later date.[1150] The Moravians, as before stated, were usually opposed to holding slaves, and where they were held, they were on a basis of religious equality.[1151] The Lutherans were likewise tolerant, but it is to the credit of the Episcopalians that most is due. Negroes were baptized in their church and then instructed in religion by a minister provided for that purpose.[1152] Not only were the established congregations favorable to the aid of the Negro, but many itinerant ministers were desirous of educating him.

There is one outstanding instance of the latter which may serve as an illustration. It is that of Reverend Whitefield, who took up five thousand acres of land on the forks of the Delaware in Pennsylvania, where he hoped to erect a Negro school. The movement was given wide publicity and subscriptions were asked for its support.[1153] In the papers which advertise the beginning of the project, there is found no statement as to the successful outcome of it; the whole scheme seems to have melted away as easily as it had arisen. The scheme of Whitefield, was equalled, and perhaps even excelled, by a much earlier proposal, 1722, which was made anonymously through the columns of the Mercury.[1154] The service was to be rendered to the servants of any religious denomination, and without any expense to them whatsoever. It was chiefly desired that the Negroes might be taught to read the Scriptures.[1155]

If justice were to be done to the various attempts on the part of itinerant ministers and the regularly established churches to aid in bringing enlightenment to the Negroes in Pennsylvania, it would require volumes. Such mention as has been made is for the purpose of pointing out the universality of the missionary spirit, so that it may not be understood that the entire work was carried on under the direction of Friends, to whose activities much more space must necessarily be given in this work. In the pages following it will be attempted to outline as definitely as possible, from the available records, what was actually accomplished by the organization of Friends towards Negro education.

QUAKER LEADERS AND THE NEGRO PROBLEM

However auspicious may have been the opportunity for attempts to plant slavery on the soil of Pennsylvania, it was neither destined to meet unqualified success nor to pass without rigorous opposition. The German population from the very outset, as we have already stated, was hostile to the idea of slavery.[1156] Likewise, the Quakers were dominated by men who believed that slavery had no justification, and throughout their lives were actuated by this belief. Brief mention may be made of three of these leaders, sufficient at least to indicate their viewpoint and the remedy which they advocated.

George Fox, their revered founder, was quite naturally referred to in matters of importance and far reaching consequence. Through the influence of his ministry, the doctrine of the freedom of all men and of inherent rights, which they possessed by virtue of being men, came to be accepted in the church organization, and was published in the discipline and various letters of that body.[1157] These acts of the church organization will be dealt with presently. Fox defends his position mainly on the religious basis; it is quite likely that a religious training and education is uppermost in his mind throughout his plea for the Negro. He does not limit himself to their case, but insists, also, on the education of the Indian natives. The education (religious) which he specifically mentions, is for the purpose of their salvation, but the attention of Quakers was not limited to that alone. Religious education did, however, receive their first consideration. The essence of Fox’s influential utterances on this subject is contained in the following extract.

From among the Quaker exponents of the freedom of all men, we can scarcely select one of greater influence than John Woolman. He was born in 1720,[1159] and thus grew up to manhood in a period when the opposition to slavery on the part of Friends was on the increase, and lived through its zenith, after which slavery among Pennsylvania Friends scarcely existed.[1160] He was well educated. The greater part of his life was spent travelling as a minister from place to place, now working among the Indians[1161] and again visiting meetings in the interest of the freedom of the Negro.[1162] His journeys throughout the colonies served to keep the individual meetings awake to the problem before them, and the firm conviction of the man won no less number of supporters than the eloquence of his appeal. The influence of Woolman did not, however, limit itself to the channels of his sermons; in 1754 appeared one of his best expressions on the traffic, entitled Some Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes. Nothing was permitted to stand in the light of his conviction as to the right; he refused to continue his practice of writing wills in all cases where the disposition of slaves was involved.[1163]

But it is impossible to give in this limited space an adequate resumé of the work of this great spokesman of freedom. A brief representative statement from his works, added to what has already been said, is perhaps the most satisfactory treatment that can be given.

While speaking of the life and work of the two above mentioned Quaker reformers, one other person seems to call imperatively for attention. His work was equally widespread and the public was kept open to his influence through several of his books and pamphlets published on the subject of slaves and slaveholding.[1166] A French Hugenot by birth, Anthony Benezet came early to America, where he was a staunch member of Friends, and in whose society he performed a continuous service for the freedom and education of the Negroes, until the time of his death in 1784.[1167] His immediate connection with the Negro School, established by Friends in 1770[1168] will be considered more fully elsewhere. The arguments advanced by him against slavery are based on the grounds of practicality and justice. The system is injurious to the slave and the master, and inconsistent with the ideals of a free community. We, ourselves, must agree with him in his position as set forth in the following selection.

Besides the three representatives mentioned, there were a host of others, many of them still earlier but perhaps none who exercised so great an influence. Among those worthy of mention were George Keith, a dissenter among Quakers, but one of the earliest teachers in Philadelphia, and a very ardent antagonist of slavery. Others, whose zeal outran their discretion, such as Ralph Sandiford, Benjamin Lay,[1170] and William Southeby, might be profitably discussed here, but lack of space eliminates their consideration. Still other itinerant ministers, Banks, Pennington, and Chalkley, though not so precipitous in their actions as the three above named, were none the less worthy spokesmen of the cause.

THE CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND THE NEGRO QUESTION

Under this head it is intended to present, (1) the activity of the society as an organization, and (2) the establishment of Negro education in the various meetings where any record of it remains. In doing so, let the reader keep in mind the principles set forth previously by the three representatives who have been mentioned as leaders in the cause of Negro education and liberation.

As is quite naturally expected, after this brief introduction to the belief of the Quaker leaders, we find that the society placed itself as a unit opposed to the perpetuation of bondage among the Blacks. Friends were astonished to find, when they arrived, that slavery existed in Penn’s colony, and as early as 1688 those settled at Germantown entered a memorable protest against it.[1171] Five years later George Keith, a Quaker who a few years later came into disfavor with the society, entered a vigorous denunciation of the practice of holding slaves.[1172] The general tenor of these protests is against perpetual bondage, their idea being that since it already existed, there should be a time limit set at the expiration of which all those held should become free.

It would have been possible for individual protests and those of smaller meetings to have gone on indefinitely and still have accomplished but little in the way of influencing others. Similar expressions from a central organization, speaking with some semblance of authority, could have accomplished much more, and did so, though not till some years later. The advices issued by the yearly meeting were usually in the nature of reproof, scarcely or never mandatory. One of the earliest was drawn up at the yearly meeting in 1727 and sent to the meetings subject thereto.

It is difficult to understand how any communication of this nature could have force in a situation that seemed to demand something in the way of command. But when it is recalled with what persistence such advices were given, and again repeated in the appropriate meetings, and that they were received by the monthly and preparative meetings very much as dutiful children would listen to the advice of father or mother, then the influence exerted by them does not seem so strange.

Moreover, there is ample evidence in the reports of various meetings at all times that the advices of the yearly meeting were being followed with considerable success. Philadelphia reported (1756) that they knew of no Friends who had been concerned in importing Negroes or other slaves.[1174] By 1772 the yearly meeting reported by way of letter that, due to the discouragement of the practice of slaveholding on the part of Friends in the colonies, it had greatly diminished in some parts, and in others disappeared almost altogether, as was true in the case of Pennsylvania.[1175] For the sake of more complete illustration of the type of expression issued, the following is quoted more at length.

The reader will have noticed that the chief emphasis is placed upon the wrongfulness of bartering slaves; this may be explained by saying that that was the first problem they had to face. Not until they were able to secure the Negroes’ freedom could an education be of much value to him, for all that he made of his life belonged to his master. But as soon as he became free, there arose other needs, other desires. New prospects opened before him, and there was a possibility that he might accomplish something for himself and his posterity. This was realized by the church organization and it followed the move for freedom by emphatic requests that the meetings take care of the spiritual and intellectual education of the negroes. The following will illustrate very clearly the insistence with which the local church investigated the activity of its members, and the penalty levied on the disobedient one. In 1759, it was reported that ... had purchased several Negroes; this being a breach of discipline, two members were appointed to speak with him on the subject, according to their custom. The final report on his case was made in 1762. They may be praised for longsuffering and condemned for inefficiency.

Instances similar to this one are almost without number; reference is made to a few of them only.[1178] The work of each of the particular meetings is more completely brought out in the following pages.

Of all meetings in the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, there were none which accomplished more for the education of the Negro than did Philadelphia Monthly. As has already been noted elsewhere in this work, there was quite early a considerable interest manifested by the meeting in regard to the question of servitude, and also the masters’ care in giving them Christian instruction.[1179] There is no record to show that at these early dates there was any permanent school; all care was, without question, left to those who had Negroes in their employ, education being tutorial entirely. The master’s care was well guarded by the meeting’s committee on Negroes, however, and in this way a central responsible party was provided. In addition, there was also established a meeting which was held once each three months in the interest of Negroes.[1180]

In 1770 there came to the front a definite movement for the establishment of a systematic means of educating Negro children. The proposal for its consideration, made first month, 26th, was referred to the meeting in second month for action.[1181] On that occasion, there being expressed a definite sentiment in favor of action, a committee was appointed consisting of twenty-two members with permission for any other Friends to attend its deliberations who cared to do so.[1182] The date for the committee meeting was set by the monthly meeting. At the subsequent monthly meeting, the committee made its first report, which being acceptable to all was approved, and further steps were taken to secure immediate action. A digest of the report and proposals of the committee is here presented.[1183]

1. The instruction of Negro and mulatto children in reading, writing, arithmetic, and other useful learning—sewing and knitting, according to their capacity, is to be provided.

2. The instruction is to be under the care of Friends.

3. The monthly meeting to nominate a committee of Friends, whose duties are:

4. The children of free Negroes and mulattoes are to be given preferment.

5. Tuition to be free of any expense to the parents.

6. If enrollment of such children is not large enough, the committee may admit others according to their judgment.

Acting upon the recommendations incorporated in the report, a subscription paper was at once prepared, and the campaign for funds began.[1184] A committee of the following named Friends was appointed to assume the direction of the school agreeable to the articles of the report, viz.; Israel Pemberton, Samuel Emlen, James Pemberton, Richard Blackham, John Drinker, Hugh Forbes, and Edward Jones.[1185] Their term of service was stated as “until a new nomination be made by this meeting” and any vacancy occurring in the meantime was to be filled in the same way.[1186] Only three months later (sixth month) the committee of seven reported they had agreed with Moses Patterson as teacher, hired a house, and that a number of children were already admitted for instruction.[1187] In first month of the following year the committee requested permission to erect a school for the use of the Blacks, on the same lot occupied by the almshouse. The request was at once granted.[1188]

Though it was originally stated that the committee should report once a year to the monthly meeting, there was by no means a full report recorded in the minutes each year. They are adequate enough, however, to furnish some idea of the progress made with the school.

The details of a few reports will be presented. It appears from the records that the committee’s reports were always made the basis of judgment as to whether the meeting would continue the school or abandon it.[1189] Fortunately, the reports were usually favorable, excepting in matters of financial consideration; in this respect there was quite often a shortage.[1190] In the report of the first twelve years there is little that deserves repetition. The school continued regularly, according to statements made at intervals, and all things seemed to convince Friends that it was worthy of their support. Let us note the condition of the school at the end of twelve years, 1782.

For the five years preceding the instruction had been under the care of John Houghton, who, unfortunately, had to retire because of failing health.[1191] His place was taken two months later by Anthony Benezet, a teacher of great merit, and one who perhaps had the welfare of the Negro more at heart than any other man in the colony.[1192] At his suggestion, the school was removed from the house erected for that purpose and established in his own home. Great tribute was paid to the character of the work done by Houghton, with special reference to his painstaking visiting of families, seeking thus to increase the interest of parents, and ultimately the school attendance. It is stated that during the five years he was employed, two hundred and fifty children and grown persons had entered the school.[1193] The chief value derived, according to the committee’s view, was the increased appreciation aroused among the Whites for the Blacks. They were forced to realize that the Negro had talents which might be developed as their own, giving him an insight into greater possibilities which were not beyond his reach.

The report on the financial status was not so hopeful. The fees for the master, for the years 1779, 1780, and 1781 were eighty, ninety, and one hundred pounds respectively; in addition, there was the expense of odd jobs of work, wood for winter use, and also the item of books.[1194] To increase the difficulties arising from mere items of expense, there was introduced another factor, the payment to the treasurer of paper money which had greatly depreciated in value since it was subscribed.[1195] The result of the experiment, up to date, financially, was a deficit of £74/7/10. A part of this amount was covered by outstanding subscriptions, a considerable number of which could not be collected.[1196] The meeting was appealed to, to make up the deficit as usual by subscription. This method, though commonly resorted to, was in most places supplemented by special legacies left to trustees for any purpose the donor might designate.[1197] Legacies for schools were particularly urged by the quarterly and yearly meetings.

In 1784 there seems to have been but one school for the Blacks, the one taught by Benezet. The report stated that there was a decided need for another one in the near future; in 1786 it appears by answers to the queries that the school has been added and that both are supported by the voluntary contributions of Friends.[1198] The attendance problem was evidently not yet solved satisfactorily; it would perplex a teacher to-day. About one hundred were under the instruction of Benezet in 1784, but only fifteen to thirty-five generally attended.[1199] The progress of this number in reading, writing, and arithmetic was deemed satisfactory, though it was admitted it might be improved with more regular attendance.

The salary paid Benezet at this time was £100 plus the £20 which was allowed as the rent for his dwelling, which he continued to use as a school house.