On the Issue of Slavery in New York State
Originally published in the TU on June 19, 2020
By Don Rittner
The recent decision by Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan on unilaterally deciding to bring down the Philip Schuyler statue because he had slaves shows the ignorance that most local politicians have on the issue of Slavery.
While all agree that slavery was legal, accepted, and being practiced for thousands of years, there was an epiphany by many of the early New York State forefathers that slavery should be abolished. It was not an easy thing to do, particularly in the Hudson Valley, which housed the largest number of slaves. Present day Albany and New York City have the dubious claim to fame to where it all began in the 17th century in our state.
New Yorkers like John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, George Clinton, James Duane, Daniel Tomkins, Philip Schuyler and others made it their business to try and end slavery through legal means and make amends for sins of the past. It was not easy considering at the time that Albany was settled by the Dutch and Philip Schuyler, who himself was from a wealthy and prestigious Dutch family, had to go against his own people to convince a still Dutch stronghold such as Albany that it needed to abolish a system that was always here. Many Albanians and landowners owned slaves for example:
Killian K Van Rensselaer, Patrick Clark, John Jac. Beeckman, Robert Yates, John W. Watkins, Francis Nicolle, Leonart Gansevoort, Thomas Lottridge, Nicholas Frats, Gilbert Jenkins, Renier I. Van Irveren, John Ten Broeck, James Caldwell, Abraham Ten Broeck (12 slaves), Pieter Schuyler, first mayor of Albany, and son Philip Schuyler (13 slaves, most of the hard work on his farm was done by white tenant farmers according to the Schuyler Mansion Web site), to name a few.
According to the New York Slavery Records Index, between 1646-1820 there were 250 slave holders in Albany County with a total of 4,288 slaves. The total Capital District of Albany, Schenectady, and Troy had 250, 228, and 977 respectively for a total of 728 slaveholders with 6,345 slaves during this period. By 1820 there were 645 free blacks living in Albany. These numbers are bound to change as more research is conducted.
Abolishing slavery in New York was an evolutionary process and the New York State law makers grappled with it by passing law after law. The best summary of this process was published in Documents of the Senate of the State of New York 124th Session in 1901. It included a State Library Bulletin History No. 4 written by ex -judge A. Judd Northrup.
Since there has been so much erroneous comments made about slavery in NYS on Facebook and elsewhere, and about particular people like Schuyler, here is the section verbatim on the legislative history of slavery in New York.
SLAVERY UNDER STATE GOVERNMENT FROM 1776 To 1827, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
When New York came to statehood in 1776 it had a population, as we have seen, of about 169,148 whites and 21,993 blacks, or the “blacks” constituted about 11 1/2% of the entire population. Up to this time there had been little legislation tending to mitigate the hardships of slavery, or indicating any relaxation of the old idea that slaves were to be regarded and treated solely as property. The colony of New York was no worse, and perhaps no better, in this respect than the other colonies.
The declaration of independence and the wide promulgation and general discussion of the doctrines of freedom and the “rights of man,” however, threw a new light on the subject. The “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” though intended by its proclaimers to apply to white men only, was yet seed sown in many minds and hearts, where it grew into doubts at least of the rightfulness of negro slavery. “Liberty and equality” was a phrase that shook all Europe when shouted in revolutionary France; and it made men think beyond the old limitations of race lines when reechoed in America. The revolutionary fathers, Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Madison, and many others, voiced what was perhaps a not uncommon sentiment among the better and more intelligent classes at this time, in declaring slavery to be an evil and a wrong, and in expressing the hope and belief that it would speedily come to an end in the republic. If this sentiment prevailed to some extent in the southern states, where slaves were numerous and slavery profitable, as we know it did, it is reasonable to believe that, to an equal if not greater extent, it pervaded New York and the other northern states, where slaves were few in number and their employment was of little pecuniary value.
The exigencies of the war of the revolution were the cause of the first state legislation mentioning slaves. The war had dragged along for five years, and the drain on the scanty population to supply the needs of the army had been severe. There had never been an extreme reluctance to use free negroes as soldiers, and these had fought side by side with white men all through the war thus far; but it was a pressing need indeed that made the whites willing to employ slaves as soldiers. The emergency, however, was great, and Mar. 20, 1781 was passed “An Act for raising two regiments for the Defense of this State, on Bounties of unappropriated Lands.”
In the act was the following:
VI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That any person who shall deliver one or more of his or her able bodied male slaves to any warrant officer as aforesaid, to serve in either of the said regiments or independent corps, and produce a certificate thereof, signed by any officer or person authorized to muster and receive the men, to be raised by virtue of this act, and produce such certificate to the surveyor general, shall, for every male slave so entered or mustered as aforesaid, be entitled to the location and grant of one right, [to 500 acres of bounty lands], in manner as in and by this act is directed; and shall be, and hereby is discharged from any future maintenance of such slave; any law to the contrary notwithstanding; and such slave, so entered as aforesaid, who shall serve for the term of three years, or until regularly discharged, shall, immediately after such service or discharge, be, and is hereby declared to be a free man of this state.
This was followed, soon after the war, by an act, passed May 12, 1784 entitled “An Act for the speedy sale of the confiscated and forfeited Estates within this State, and for other Purposes therein mentioned,” referring to estates forfeited to the state “by attainder or conviction in the progress of the late war.” It contained the following provision:
And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the said commissioner or commissioners shall, out of any monies which may come into his or their hands for rents, make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of any slave or slaves who may be found unable to support themselves, and who belonged to, and have not been disposed of by any person or persons, whose respective estates have become confiscated or forfeited to the people of this state.
This act was so amended May 1, 1786 as to manumit all negro slaves become the property of the state, by the attainder or conviction of any person whomsoever, and in the possession of the commissioners of forfeitures, who were required to provide, at the expense of the state, for the comfortable subsistence of all old and feeble slaves unable to gain a subsistence, so forfeited in their respective districts.
An act, with the misleading title, “An Act granting bounty on hemp to be raised within this state,” etc. “ and for other purposes,” was passed Ap. 12, 1785. It provided:
That if any negro or other person to be imported or brought into this state from any of the United States or from any other place or country after the first day of June next, shall be sold as a slave or slaves within this state, the seller or his or her factor or agent, shall be deemed guilty of a public offense, and shall for every such offense forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds lawful money of New York, to be recovered by any person who will sue for the same in an action of debt, in any court of this state having cognizance of the same, together with costs of suit. . . That every such person imported or brought into this state and sold contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act shall be freed.
Also,
That when any person or persons hereafter shall be disposed to manumit his, her or their slave or slaves, and shall previous thereto procure a certificate signed by the overseers of the poor (or the major part of them) of the town, manor, district or precinct, together with two justices of the peace of the county where such person or persons shall reside, and if in the counties of New York or Albany then from the mayor or recorder any two of the aldermen certifying that slave or slaves appear to be under fifty years of age, and of sufficient ability to provide for themselves, and shall cause such certificates of manumission to be registered in the office of the clerk of the town, manor, district or precinct, in which the master or mistress may reside, that then it shall be lawful for such person or persons to manumit such slave or slaves without giving or providing any security to indemnify the town, manor, district or precinct; and such slave or slaves so manumitted shall be deemed, taken and adjudged to be free; and the clerk for registering such certificate shall be entitled to two shillings and no more.
That if any person by his or her last will or testament shall give his or her slave or slaves, being at the death of the testator or testatrix under fifty years of age and likewise of sufficient ability to provide for themselves, to be certified in the manner aforesaid, such freedom given as aforesaid shall, without any security to indemnify the town, manor, district or precinct, be deemed, taken and adjudged to be good and valid to all intents and purposes, any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.
That all negroes, and other persons of any description whatsoever commonly reputed and deemed slaves shall forever hereafter have the privilege of being tried by a jury in all capital cases according to the course of the common law.
“An Act concerning slaves,” passed Feb. 22, 1788, and being chapter 40 of the laws of that year, was a revision of the existing laws of the state relating to slaves. It was the first deliberate expression of the state legislature on the whole subject of slavery, and it may be taken as an exhibit of the temper of the people at that time on that subject. As such, it is worth reproducing, in substance at least. It enacted:
That every negro, mulatto, or mestee, within this state, who at the time of the passing of this act, is a slave, for his or her life, shall continue such, for and during his or her life, unless he or she, shall be manumitted or set free, in the manner prescribed in and by this act, or in some future law of this state.
That the children of every negro, mulatto or mestee woman, being a slave, shall follow the state and condition of the mother, and be esteemed, reputed, taken and adjudged slaves to all in tents and purposes whatsoever.
That the baptizing of any negro, or other slave, shall not be deemed, adjudged, or taken, to be a manumission of such slave.
It was further enacted that slaves should not be imported or those imported since June 1, 1785, sold as slaves, under a penalty of £100, to be sued for by action of debt, the person imported and sold to be free; that any person buying or receiving a slave with intent to remove such slave out of this state, to be sold, should foſeit £100, and such slave be free.
It enacted prohibitions against concealing or harboring runaway slaves; against trafficking with slaves; against selling liquor to slaves; made owners of slaves liable to the persons damaged by thefts committed by slaves, to the amount of £5 or under: slaves to be committed to prison for striking a white person.
Slaves were to be entitled to jury trials in capital cases; slaves not to be witnesses in any case, except in criminal cases in which the evidence of one slave was to be admitted for or against an other slave.
Masters were forbidden to allow their slaves to go about begging. Pretended sales of aged or decrepit slaves to persons unable to keep and maintain them forbidden, and such sales declared void. Manumission of slaves regulated, to same effect as in laws of 1785, ch. 68 (given above, passed Ap. 12, 1785).
To those provisions were added in this act the following:
That if the owner or owners of any other slave, shall be disposed, to manumit and set at liberty, such slave, and such owner or owners, or any other sufficient person, for, or in behalf of such slave, shall and do, at the court of general sessions of the peace, for the city or county, where such negro or other slave shall dwell or reside, enter into a bond, to the people of the state of New York, with one or more surety or sureties, to be approved by such court, in sum, not less than two hundred pounds, to keep any slave from becoming or being any charge to the city, town or place within this state, wherein such slave shall at any time, after such manumission, live, the said slave shall be free, according to such manumission of the owner or owners of such slave.
And further, if any such slave hath been or hereafter shall be made free, by the last will and testament of any person deceased, and if the executor or executors of such person so deceased, or in case of the neglect or refusal of such executor or executors, if any other sufficient person, for, and in behalf of such slave, shall and do, enter into such surety as aforesaid, in manner aforesaid, then the said slave shall be free, according to the true intent and meaning of such last will and testament.
And moreover, that if any person shall, by last will or otherwise, manumit or set free, his or her slave, and no such certificate or security as aforesaid be given or obtained, such slave shall nevertheless, be considered as free from such owner, his or her executor, administrator and assigns. But such owner, his and her heirs, executors and administrators, shall remain and be liable to support and maintain such slave, if the same slave shall become unable to support and maintain himself or herself.
The law relating to manumission thus became, in substance:
1 Slaves under 50 years of age and able to support and maintain themselves, and so certified by the proper officers, might be manumitted by will or otherwise, without security being given for their future support in case they should become unable to support themselves. The master was thus freed from all farther liability on their account.
2 Any other slave, whatever his age or condition or ability, might be manumitted by will or otherwise, and become free on a bond being given for his support in case of his becoming unable to support himself.
3 If any person, by will or otherwise, manumitted a slave, and no certificate or security was given, the slave nevertheless be came free; but the owner, executors and heirs were liable for the support of the slave if he became unable to support himself.
On the subject of manumission, compare the colonial act of Dec. 10, 1712; Gov. Hunter’s letter to the Lords of trade, Nov. 12, 1715; the act of Nov. 2, 1717 (the result of Gov. Hunter’s letter) and the act of Oct. 29, 1730.
Chapter 28, laws of 1790, passed Mar. 22, 1790, “An Act to amend the act entitled “An Act concerning slaves,” provided that slaves convicted of crime under the degree of a capital offense might be transported by the master or mistress out of the state, on the certificate of the court trying the offender, that transportation would be a proper punishment; also allowed appeals to the court of general sessions from the refusal of overseers of the poor to grant certificates for manumission of slaves appearing to be under 50 years of age and of sufficient ability to provide for themselves.
Chapter 17, laws of 1792, authorized the state treasurer to reimburse towns supporting slaves manumitted by the state on the confiscation of the estates of their owners; provided they were supported as other poor persons were.
The Quakers were among the earliest opponents They, however, sometimes owned slaves, but in many instances manumitted them, often without regard to the requisite formalities. The legislature by an act passed Mar. 9, 1798, confirmed such manumissions.
Efforts were made by the prominent statesmen of New York, soon after the formation of the state, to secure the abolition of slavery. The following, from Bancroft, reveals the feeling of the wiser men of that generation:
In the constituent convention of New York, Gouverneur Morris struggled hard for measures tending to abolish domestic slavery, “so that in future ages every human being who breathed the air of the state might enjoy the privileges of a freeman.” The proposition, though strongly supported, especially by the interior and newer counties, was lost by the vote of the counties on the Hudson. Jay lamented the want of a clause against the continuance of domestic slavery. Still, the declaration of independence was incorporated into the constitution of New York; and all its great statesmen were opposed to slavery. All parts of the common law, and all statutes and acts repugnant to the constitution, were abrogated and repealed by the constitution itself.
The New England states and Pennsylvania moved more promptly and effectually in applying the principles of the declaration of independence, the logical outcome of which was the abolition of slavery. New Jersey lagged behind. Even in the southern states there was a strong feeling in favor of some plan for the gradual removal of slavery, which, doubtless, would have culminated in legislative action but for the sudden and disastrous increase in the value of slave labor.
Finally, however, Mar. 29, 1799, New York passed its first great act (laws of 1799, ch. 62) for the gradual abolition of slavery. It enacted:
That any child born of a slave within this state after the fourth day of July next, shall be deemed and adjudged to be born free: Provided nevertheless that such child shall be the servant of the legal proprietor of his or her mother, until such servant if a male shall arrive at the age of twenty-eight years, and if a female at the age of twenty-five years.
That the master of the mother shall be entitled to the services of such child.
That the master shall file a certificate, within nine months after the birth of such child, with the clerk of the city or town of his residence, containing the name and addition of the master or mistress, and name, age and sex of every child so born, under a penalty of $5, for failure to file such certificate.
The person entitled to such service may nevertheless within one year after the birth of such child, elect to abandon his or her right to such service, by written notification filed with the clerk of the town where the owner resides.
The child so abandoned shall be supported and maintained till bound out by the overseers of the poor (as a pauper) at the expense of the state, not to exceed $3.50 a month, but the owner shall support such child till it is 1 year old. If no notification is so given, the owner shall be answerable for the maintenance of such child to the end of the period of its servitude.
That it shall be lawful for the owner of any slave immediately after the passage of this act to manumit such slave by a certificate for that purpose under his hand and seal.
A side light on slavery at this date, 1799, is given in the following advertisement appearing in the Oswego herald:
A YOUNG WENCH-FOR SALE. She is a good cook and ready at all kinds of house-work. None can exceed her if she is kept from liquor. She is 24 years of age—no husband nor children. Price $200; inquire of the printer.
The next legislation on the subject of slavery was chapter 188, laws of 1801, passed Ap. 8, 1801, “An Act concerning slaves and servants.” The first five paragraphs are substantially reenactments of existing laws. The sixth, declares the right of persons traveling to be accompanied by their slaves, to come into the state with their slaves and to remove them again; and of residents of the state to travel elsewhere with their slaves but requires them to bring them back again under severe penalties; also the right of persons having lived one year in this state to remove permanently and to take their slaves with them.
“And be it further enacted, That every child born of a slave within this state after the fourth day of July, 1799” shall be free, on the conditions named in the act of 1799.
In an act imposing a duty on strong liquors and regulating inns and taverns, passed Ap. 7, 1801, is a provision forbidding the sale of liquors to slaves without the consent of the master or mistress.
Several acts followed, of some of which only an abstract need be given to understand their full import, viz: 1802, ch. 52, and 1804, ch. 40, amending the act of 1799 in respect to the maintenance of pauper children of slaves, and the abandonment of children of slaves; 1807, ch. 77, amending the same act, and further limiting the power of residents to carry away slaves.
A most interesting illustration of the activity and earnestness of the very early antislavery movement is found in the preamble of chapter 19 of the laws of 1808, as follows:
An Act to incorporate the Society formed in this State of New York for promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and protecting such of them as have been or may be liberated. [Passed Feb. 19, 1808.] Whereas a voluntary association has for many years past existed in this state, by the name of “The New York Society for promoting the Manumission of Slaves and protecting such of them as have been or may be liberated “; and whereas the said society has represented to the legislature that besides its exertion to further the humane intentions of the legislature, by aiding the operations of the just and salutary laws passed for the gradual abolition of slavery in this state, it has established a free school in the city of New York, for the education of the children of such persons as have been liberated from bondage, that they may hereafter become useful members of the community; and whereas the said society has prayed to be incorporated, that it may be enabled more effectually to support the said school, and to fulfill the benevolent purposes of its association: Therefore [the act then incorporates] The New York Society for promoting the manumission of slaves and protecting such of them as have been or may be liberated, [for 15 years].
Chapter 96, laws of 1808, forbids the kidnapping of free people of color.
Chapter 44, laws of 1809, enacted that manumitted slaves may take “by descent, devise or otherwise; ” that all marriages contracted where a party or parties “was, were, or may be slaves.” shall be valid, and the children legitimate; and facilitated manumission,
The growth of antislavery sentiment is apparent in all the legislation of these years, but nowhere more clearly, perhaps, than in an act passed Mar. 30, 1810, entitled “An addition to the Act concerning slaves and servants.”
It declared that after the first of May next,
No person held as a slave shall be imported, introduced or brought into this State on any pretense whatever by any person or persons coming permanently to reside within the same; and that any person residing within this State for the space of nine months shall be considered as having a permanent residence therein, within the meaning of this act; but it shall not be construed to extend to such persons as may reside within this State for a shorter period; and if any person so held as a slave shall be so imported or introduced or brought into this State, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, he or she shall be and is hereby declared free.
And whereas, To evade the existing laws of this State concerning the importation and transfer of slaves, persons residing in adjacent states have manumitted their slaves and afterwards induced them to indent or bind themselves for a term of years, to certain persons citizens of this State, receiving at the same time for such term of service a price or consideration equal to the full value of the slave, whereby the persons so manumitted are not only reduced back to a state of virtual bondage but after having grown so old in service as to be incapable of gaining a subsistence, are turned out to become a charge on the community, to the great burthen of the public, and against the true intent and meaning of the laws of this State: Therefore,
Be it further enacted That no such indenture, contract or bond shall be obligatory within this State on the person so bound, and the same shall be void, and the person bound, having been a slave, shall be free.
[Further]—every person entitled to the services of a child born of a slave after July 4, 1799 shall cause the child to be taught reading so as to be able to read the Holy Scriptures, previous to its becoming 21 years of age; failure to cause the child to be so taught shall release the child from service at the age of 21 years.
Chapter 193, laws of 1810, provides:
That all such persons who reside in the counties of Ontario, Steuben and Seneca, and who have emigrated from the states of Virginia and Maryland, within ten years last past, who hold in their own right slaves which they brought with them from said states, be and they are hereby authorized to hire out their said slaves to any citizen of this State for a term of time not exceeding seven years; Provided always That at the end of such term of time for which said slaves may be so hired, each and every slave so hired shall be free, any law of this State to the contrary not withstanding: Provided always That the masters of such, slaves shall not be exonerated from liability to maintain any such slave, who, at the expiration of the term, for which he shall be so hired out, shall not be of sufficient ability to maintain himself.
The first law in the state in relation to the voting of black men is “An Act to prevent Frauds and Perjuries at Elections and to prevent Slaves from voting,” passed Ap. 9, 1811. Up to this time, free blacks voted under conditions applicable to whites and blacks alike. This law, “to prevent frauds”, or, in regard to blacks, to “prevent slaves from voting,” enacted:
That whenever any black or mulatto person shall present him self to vote at any election in this State, he shall produce to the inspectors or persons conducting such election a certificate of his freedom, under the hand and seal of any one of the clerks of the counties of this State, or under the hand of a clerk of any town within this State.
The method of proof of freedom before a judge is prescribed, on which, when satisfactory, a certificate was to be issued, certifying to the freedom of the black man, describing the person, his age, place of birth, and the time when he became free; the proof to be filed and the certificate to be recorded, and a certified copy of the record to be the certificate presented when offering to vote. Without producing such certificate, the black or mulatto person could not vote. In addition to producing the certificate he might be required to make oath that he was the identical person named and intended in the certificate, and a false oath in the matter was perjury. The judge or other officer taking proofs of freedom, on application of the black man, might issue a summons and compel the attendance of witnesses to prove such freedom. in a law passed Ap. 8, 1813, it was made lawful to remove any slave who should have left his master, or should have wandered from town to town, to the place of the settlement of his master.
It is a striking revelation of the condition arising and increasing in the period when slavery in the state was moribund. Slaves “leaving their masters”, and “wandering from town to town, ” were doubtless the old and useless, for the most part. The constant effort of the law to compel masters to take care of such slaves discloses a prevalent disposition on their part to turn off their used-up slaves to shift for themselves or to be supported by the public.
Chapter 203, laws of 1813, enacted: That the provisions of the Act entitled “An Act concerning Slaves and Servants’ relative to importation and exportation of slaves, shall not be construed to extend to cases where persons residing within and near the boundary line of this State and owning and occupying land over the said line in an neighboring state, shall bring such slaves into or take them out of this State for the purpose of cultivating the land which they may so own and occupy in either state.
In the revised laws of 1813, there is a reenactment of all then existing laws relating to slavery.
As in the revolutionary war, so now, in the war of 1812, provision was made by law for the raising of regiments in which slaves might become soldiers. This was done by “An Act to authorize the raising of two regiments of color”, passed Oct. 24, 1814. The city of Washington had been seized by the British and the capitol and other public buildings burned. The Americans had been defeated here and there, and the desperate condition caused this last resort for the procuring of needed soldiers.
Section 1 authorized the governor to raise, by voluntary enlistment, two regiments of free men of color, for the defense of the state, for three years, unless sooner discharged. § 3 required the commissioned officers to be white men. § 4 officers and privates to be paid, etc. same as United States troops, and a bounty of $20 given. § 5 provided that these troops might be transferred into the service of the United States. § 6 “That it shall be lawful for any able-bodied slave, with the written assent of his master or mistress, to enlist into the said corps, and the master or mistress of such slave shall be entitled to the pay and bounty allowed him for his service; and further, that said slave, at the time of receiving his discharge, shall be deemed and adjudged to have been legally manumitted from that time, and his said master or mistress shall not thenceforward be liable for his maintenance.” § 7 provided for the settlement of such slave if he became indigent.
Chapter 82, laws of 1814, amends the provisions of law of 1811 as to the place where certificates of freedom shall be filed, in the city of New York.
Chapter 145, laws of 1815, amends “An Act for regulating elections” passed Mar. 29, 1813, and affect New York city and county. A new provision is made, imposing penalties for willfully or corruptly refusing certificates of freedom, the law indicating the crimes that doubtless had been committed.
Chapter 45, laws of 1816, provided, that former slaves of those whose estates were forfeited should be maintained as paupers.
Chapter 137, laws of 1817, contains a reenactment of then existing laws relative to slaves and servants, but they gave the final blow to the existence of slavery in the state after July 4, 1827. It was enacted “That every negro, mulatto or mestee within this state, born before the fourth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, shall, after the fourth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, be free.”
Chapter 141, laws of 1819, amending “An Act relative to Slaves and Servants,” imposes penalties for sending to sea, or exporting, or attempting to export from this state, etc., any slave, or aiding in so doing, or conspiring so to do; declares the slave shall be free; but the act shall not apply to a slave pardoned by the executive on condition of leaving the state. Also, it gives to a person who resides or whose family resides a part of the year in the state and a part of the year in an adjoining state, the right to remove his slaves with him; and forbids the sale of such slave, if previously a resident of this state, to any person not an inhabitant of this state; the slave declared free, if so sold.
Prior to 1821 there was no distinction on account of color between free negroes and the whites in the matter of suffrage. A property qualification was required for all voters. That distinction was first introduced into the slavery institution of 1821. No property qualification was required, in terms, for white voters, but they must have paid taxes, or been exempt, or per formed or paid for highway labor, within the year in which they offered to vote. Colored persons were not allowed to vote unless they had been citizens of the state three years, and were possessed of a freehold of the value of $250 over and above all debts and incumbrances thereon, and had paid a tax on that amount. In 1826 the requirement of property qualification for white voters was abrogated. In 1845, again in 1860 and still again in 1869, the question whether the property qualification for colored voters should be continued, was submitted to the people, and each time was decided in the affirmative, by steadily decreasing majorities. Finally, all distinctions between white and colored voters were wiped out by the 15th amendment to the federal constitution, ratified in 1870, which said: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account or race, color, or previous condition of Servitude.”
The fourth day of July 1827, was the day when, according to the law of 1817, every slave in this state born before July 4, 1799, became free. All children of slaves born after this latter date were free but remained servants till a certain age. Slavery, as such, had come to an end. Various laws and resolutions, however, were passed by the legislature, from time to time, in the interests, and for the protection, of former slaves and other colored persons within the state, and in regard to the general question of slavery elsewhere in the United States. In some sense they belong to this history, and at all events are of interest in this connection. The revised statutes s of 1828, pt 3, ch. 9, tit. 1, art. 1, relating to habeas corpus, regulated the procedure in regard to fugitive slaves from other states and claimed here by their owners, and provided various safeguards against the enslaving of free colored persons.
Part 1, ch. 20, tit. 7, of the same statutes, (1828), is largely a reenactment of various laws, but contains some provisions from which it will be seen that slavery was not, after all, wholly extinguished in the state. The following is a summary of this law. § 1 Persons held as slaves not to be brought into this state. § 2 Last section not to discharge fugitives from other states. § 3 Emigrants from other states may bring their slaves with them, if born after July 4, 1796, and before July 4, 1827. § 4 Such slaves brought in since Mar. 31, 1817, shall be free, but remain servants, males till 28, females till 25 years of age. § 5 Such persons brought after passage of this law to serve only till the age of 21. § 6 permits nonresidents traveling in the state to bring with them their slaves. $ 7 Privilege of resident part of the year. (§ 3-7 are repealed by laws of 1841, ch. 247.) $ 8 & 9 Against selling any person as a slave. § 10 Forbidding transfer of service of certain persons. § 11 Certain contracts for service void. § 12 and 13 Against sending slaves or servants out of the state. § 14 Inhabitants journeying may take servants on certain conditions. § 15 Persons of color owing service or labor in other states secreting themselves in vessels may be returned. (This provision held in violation of the U. S. constitution, in Kirk’s case, 1 Parker’s crim. rep. 67, on the ground that congress has already legislated on the subject.)
Section 16 Every person born within this state, whether white or colored, is free; every person who shall hereafter be born within this state shall be free; and every person brought into this state as a slave, except as authorized by this title, shall be free.
Ch. 225, in laws of 1840, is “An Act to extend the right of trial by jury”, and § 1 declares: “Instead of the hearing provided for ” by the revised statutes, on habeas corpus, “the claim to the service of such alleged fugitive, his identity, and the fact of his having escaped from another State of the United States into this State shall be determined by a jury.” If the finding of the jury was in favor of the claimant on all the matters, a certificate was to be given to such claimant, and the fugitive could be removed, etc. If, however, the finding of the jury was against the claimant on any of the matters submitted to them, “the person so claimed as a fugitive shall be forthwith set at liberty and shall never thereafter be molested upon the same claim; and any person who shall thereafter arrest, detain, or proceed in any manner to retake such alleged fugitive upon the same claim, or shall by virtue of the same claim remove such alleged fugitive out of this state under any process or proceeding whatever, shall be deemed guilty of kidnapping, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison not exceeding ten years.” The district attorney was required to render his services to the alleged fugitive, or counsel should be appointed by the court. There were other incidental provisions, some imposing severe penalties for disregarding the terms of this law designed to protect the rights of the alleged fugitive. Before the writ of habeas corpus should be granted, the applicant was required to give a bond in the sum of $1000 to pay all costs and expenses, and $2 weekly for the support of the alleged fugitive while in custody, and if the jury should decide against the claimant, to pay the expenses of the alleged fugitive.
Chapter 375, in laws of 1840, being “An Act more effectually to protect the free citizens of this State from being kidnapped or reduced to slavery, ” required the governor “to take such measures as he shall deem necessary to procure ‘’ that any per son kidnapped, etc., be restored to his liberty, and returned. He might appoint agents to effect such restoration, who might perform journeys, take proofs, legal proceedings, etc.
The last act, for many years, directly on the subject of slavery, was chapter 247 of laws of 1841, which repealed $ 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, of tit. 7, ch. 20, of the first part of the revised statutes. These sections allowed slaves to be brought into the state, to pass through the state, etc. The repeal extinguishes all privileges of slave owners, and all ownerships in slaves within the state.
The antislavery feeling in the state was not, however, satisfied merely with having extinguished slavery within its own borders. It was as hostile to its existence elsewhere in the United States, but did not seek to interfere with it where already established or permitted by law. But it did propose that the evil should not be extended beyond those limits. The expression of that feeling is found in the “concurrent resolutions” passed by the senate and assembly of the state from time to time. In 1847, during the Mexican war, with the prospect before their eyes that Texas and other territories would be added to our Union, they resolved “That if any territory shall hereafter be acquired by the United States, or annexed thereto, the act by which territory is acquired or annexed, whatever such act may be, should contain an unalterable fundamental article or provision, whereby slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever excluded from the territory acquired or annexed.” And in 1848, by concurrent resolution, the senators in congress are requested to use their best efforts to insert into any act or ordinance, etc., provisions excluding slavery; and in 1849, to the same effect.
In 1852, by concurrent resolution, the senators and representatives in congress are requested to use their best efforts to have a joint committee appointed to prepare a compendium of the first and subsequent enumerations of the inhabitants of the United States, showing in separate columns the whites, the free persons of color, and the slaves, by sexes, etc. and the representation under each enumeration, etc.; all of which indicated pretty clearly an intention to prepare for a vigorous attack on slavery in its relations to representation in congress.
In 1855, the legislature by concurrent resolutions declared that the bill, in congress, organizing the territory of Kansas and Nebraska and repealing part of the Missouri compromise prohibiting slavery, etc., was a gross violation of good faith. It demanded of congress the enactment of a law declaring that slavery shall not exist except where it is established by a local law of a state, thus restoring by positive statute the prohibition of slavery in the territory of Kansas and Nebraska. They declared “that the people of the State of New York will not consent to the admission into the Union of any state formed out of Kansas and Nebraska unless its constitution shall prohibit the existence of slavery within its limits.” They denounced the fugitive slave law of 1850; and demanded the right of free discussion, etc.
The intensity of feeling at that period is shown in the concurrent resolutions of Ap. 16, 1857: “That this state will not allow slavery within her borders, in any form, or under any pretence, or for any time however short.—That the Supreme Court of the United States, by reason of a majority of the judges thereof having identified it with a sectional and aggressive party, has impaired the confidence and respect of the people of this state.” The governor is requested to transmit a copy of the resolutions to the respective governors of the states of this Union.
Ap. 12, 1859, they resolved: “That this legislature and the citizens of this State look with surprise, mortification and detestation upon the virtual reopening, within the federal union, of the slave trade; that against this invasion of our laws, our feelings, and the dictates of Christianity, we solemnly protest here, as we will protest elsewhere, and especially at the ballot box;” . . . and call for the punishment of those engaged in the slave trade; and the governor is “required to transmit a copy of this resolution to the legislatures of the several states of the Union and earnestly request their cooperation in arresting this great wickedness.”
Jan. 11, 1865, by concurrent resolution, the legislature instructed their senators in congress to secure a resolution submitting a proposition to amend the federal constitution by adding thereto art. 13, prohibiting slavery in the United States; and February 2 following they ratified, by resolution, the 13th amendment that congress proposed. April 22, the same year, they passed a law ratifying the same amendment, probably on the theory that ratification by resolution was insufficient, or at least not sufficiently formal.
The next, and last, act of legislation of the state in any way affecting the subject of slavery was passed Feb. 20, 1883, (ch. 36), and was in these words: “Title seven, chapter twenty, part one, Volume one of the Revised Statutes is hereby repealed,” thus wiping out the last vestige of slavery legislation from the statute books of the state.
Indian Slaves
Frequent reference is made in the colonial records and laws, not only of New York but also of other colonies, to Indians as slaves. Indian slavery in some form existed in all or nearly all of them. We know that the Indians of the West Indies, from an early period, were made slaves; that the Spaniards made slaves of captives from the continent to some extent; that the Indian tribes made slaves of their captives in war, and sometimes sold them to the whites.
In Massachusetts, in 1637 and after, many captive Indians taken in the Pequot war were made slaves, and were sent to the Bermudas and there sold. Hugh Peter wanted “some boyes for the Bermudas’’ from these captives. Domestic Indian slavery existed at the same time, and the statutes of the colony made constant allusion to the fact.
In King Philip’s war, 1675-78, numerous Indian captives taken were disposed of as slaves. In 1675, 112 men, women and children of the Indians were, by the council of Plymouth, ordered sold, and they were accordingly sold. A little later, 57 more were sold. In all, in 1675-76, 188 were sold for £397 13s. The “Praying Indians” themselves did not escape the common fate of captive Indians. They all went, when captured, into West Indian slavery. The lawfulness of the slavery of both Indians and negroes was recognized by the “Code of 1650 ” of the colony of Connecticut. Indian slaves were imported into Pennsylvania from Carolina and elsewhere.
In Virginia, by and act passed in 1676, all Indians taken in war were to be held and accounted slaves during life. In the same year it was enacted that Indian captives taken by soldiers in war should be the property of such captors. The Indian captives of neighboring Indians were sold to the whites as slaves; and this was made lawful by an act passed in 1862.
Turning to New York, the evidence is not conclusive that Indians were enslaved during the Dutch period, within the province at least. It is probable, however, that the Dutch some times made slaves of Indian prisoners.
In a communication of the “Eight Men,” from Manhattan, to the Amsterdam chamber of the West India company, in 1644, they say: “The captured Indians who might have been of considerable use to us as guides, have been given to the soldiers as presents, and allowed to go to Holland; the others have been sent off to the Bermudas as a present to the English governor,” presumably as slaves.
During the English period, there is frequent reference to Indian slaves. “According to the Minutes of 1679, it was resolved that all Indians within the colony were free—nor could they be forced to be servants or slaves—and if they were brought hither as slaves, a residence of 6 months should entitle them to freedom.” But this rule did not prevail at a later period in the English colony, as is evident from both documents and laws.
In the narrative of grievances against Jacob Leisler, appears this: “The same night (Dec. 23, 1689) an Indian Slave belonging to Philip French was dragged to the Fort (New York) and there imprisoned.”
The colonial act of May 1, 1702, is the first act mentioning Indians as slaves. A tax is levied “upon every Negro or Indian Slave Imported in this Province from their own Countries.” The next is an act passed Oct. 21, 1706: “Whereas divers of her Maties good Subjects, Inhabitants of this Colony now are and have been willing that such Negro, Indian and Mulatto Slaves who belong to them and desire the same, should be baptized,” etc. The same act declared “That all and every Negro, Indian Mulatto and Mestee Bastard Child & Children who is, are and shalbe born of any Negro, Indian, Mulatto or Mestee, shall follow ye state and Condition of the Mother & be esteemed reputed taken & adjudged a slave & slaves to all intents and purposes whatsoever.” An act of Sep. 18, 1708 speaks of “Negro, Indian or other Slaves.”
Lord Cornbury wrote to the board of trade, Feb. 10, 1707-8, as has been said in a preceding chapter: “A most barbarous murder has been committed upon the family of one Hallett by an Indian Man Slave, and a Negro Woman, who have murdered their Master, Mistress and five children.”
In 1712, the Lords of trade, at Whitehall, recommended the reprieve of Hosea and John, “Spanish Indians,” convicted of participation in the insurrection at New York in that year.
Among the slaves imported from the West Indies and Brazil, very probably, were Indian slaves of those countries. This of itself may be some explanation of the frequent reference in the acts of the colony to Indian slaves, but there were evidently other Indian slaves.
It is more than probable that some Indian slaves of the Indian tribes, made such by capture in war, were purchased by the colonists and held as slaves.
In 1702, in “Propositions made by 5 of the farr Indians,” the “Pani” (Pawnee) Indians are spoken of as “the Naudowassees by ye French called Pani, a nation of Indians that live to the Westward towards ye Spanyards,” with whom these “farr Indians” were at war. Schoolcraft, speaking of the “Pawnees (Pani),” says: “The Pawnees were formerly a brave, warlike tribe, living on the Platte River in Nebraska. Their history, until a recent date, is one of almost constant warfare with the Dakotas.” It is pretty certain that these “Panis” were among the Indian slaves of the colonists.
In “the Paris Documents,” of occurrences in Canada during the year 1747-48 the Journal, under date of Nov. 11,1747, recites: “The 4 Negroes and a Panis, who were captured from the English during the war and had run away from Montreal, as mentioned in the entry of the 28th of October, in the preceding Journal, have been overtaken and brought in today; we intend to put them on board a small vessel bound to Martinico, the last in port; these slaves will be sold there for the benefit of the proprietors.”
In the entry of Oct. 28, it is said: “We learn from Montreal that 4 to 5 negroes, who had been taken from the English during the war, have deserted. . . It will be proper, henceforward, to send all these foreign negroes to the Island to be sold there.” The “Panis” was here included in the “4 to 5 negroes, who had been taken from the English during the war.”
The same journal, under date of Dec. 1, 1747, recites the finding of some “Dutchmen” among the Indians, who had been adopted, for which reason the Indians would not sell them for money, “but they will exchange them for Panis men or women. . . We shall wait until the coming down of the Michilimakinac canoes to buy some prisoners at a lower figure than could be done now.”
M. Varin, in a letter to M. Bigot, from Montreal, July 24, 1754, in giving an account of a battle with the English, and of the losses of the Canadians, says: “Mr. Pean’s Panis has been also killed.” This was at Fort Necessity, Fayette co. Pa.
In the articles of capitulation for the surrender of Canada, between Gen. Amherst, commander in chief of the British forces, and the Marquis de Vaudreuil, governor and lieutenant general for the king in Canada, Montreal, Sep. 8, 1760, art. 47 as proposed by the French, recited:
The Negroes and Panis of both sexes shall remain in their quality of slaves, in the possession of the French and Canadians to whom they belong; they shall be at liberty to keep them in their service in the colony, or to sell them; and they shall also continue to bring them up in the Roman religion.
The British general wrote opposite the proposition: “Granted; except those who shall have been made prisoners.” Those, we may assume, were carried off as spoils of war, “Panis” as well as “Negroes.”
If farther proof were needed of the fact that the British kept Panis Indians as slaves, we have it in the “Articles of Peace between Sir William Johnson and the Huron Indians, made at Niagara, July 18, 1764″. They contain the following:
Article 2nd. That any English who may be prisoners or deserters, and any Negroes, Panis, or other Slaves, who are British * property, shall be delivered up, within one month, to the commandant of the Detroit, and that the Hurons use all possible endeavors to get those who are in the hands of the neighboring Nations; engaging never to entertain any deserters, fugitives or slaves; but should any such fly to them for protection, they are to deliver them up to the next commanding officer.
Judge Matthews, of Louisiana, in the case of Seville vs Chretien, in which an Indian sought “to recover his liberty,” says:
It is an admitted principle, that slavery has been permitted and tolerated in all the colonies established in America by the mother country. Not only of Africans, but also of Indians.
In The State (New Jersey) vs Waggoner, April term, 1797, the court says:
They [Indians] have so long been recognized as slaves in our law, that it would be as great a violation of the rights of property to establish a contrary decision at the present day, as it would in the case of the Africans, and as useless to investigate the manner in which they originally lost their freedom.
Judge Matthews, in the Louisiana case above cited, says that the permission to introduce negroes “was intended as a means of enabling the planters to dispense with the slavery of the Indians by their European conquerors.” He says farther:
About twenty years after, [the introduction of slaves into Virginia by the Dutch], slaves were introduced into New England, and it is believed that Indians were at the same time, or before, held in bondage. . . The first Act of the Legislature of the Province of Virginia on the subject of the slavery of the Indians was passed in 1670, and one of its provisions, according to Judge Tucker, prohibits free or manumitted Indians from purchasing Christian servants. The words free or manumitted are useless and absurd, if there did not exist Indians who had been slaves and had been manumitted, before and at the time this Act was passed.
In the case of Gomez vs Boneval, in Louisiana, 1819, the court said:
But the descendants of Africans are not the only subjects of American slavery. The native Indians have also been enslaved, and their descendants are still in slavery.
These citations, it is true, do not conclusively prove that Indians were ever held as slaves in New York; but do show that it was a common custom in the colonies to hold them as such. Presumably, the same custom prevailed in New York.
Aaron Schuyler, of New York, in 1693, gave to his daughters, Eve and Cornelia, by his will, two houses and lots on Broadway, New York, with an Indian slave woman to each. (W. B. Melius)
Mr. Melius, of Albany N. Y. who has made this subject a matter of special study, says:
I do not believe the pure Indian was sold as a slave. There are cases on record wherein Indian women would bind themselves to white men and become their servants. I know of no case where they were afterwards sold as chattel, and believe the Indian who was the slave was not without mixture. . . We find that Sarah Robinson, an Indian woman and native of New York, landed at Southampton and came into the possession of Robert Waters, and was sent as a slave to Madeira and there returned by the English council to New York. I believe this not to be a pure Indian woman, but amalgamated. . . In 1717, complaint was made that slaves ran away and were secreted by the Minisinks, and they intermarried with the Indian women.
On all the evidence on the subject, however, it is safe to say that Indian slaves were owned in the colony of New York. At one period, they were, probably, Indians imported from the West Indies and Brazil. At another period “ Panis” Indians were slaves. Some Indians, specially Indian women, voluntarily be came “servants” or slaves. The children of free Indians and slave mothers of African blood were slaves, following the condition of the mother. It is highly probable that Indian slave captives of the adjacent warlike tribes were purchased from these tribes by the English, and remained slaves. It is not improbable that some of the weaker tribes contributed in various ways to the number of Indian slaves.
It is improbable that any of the stronger tribes, like the proud and warlike Six Nations, were ever made slaves.
That Indian slavery in some of these forms existed in New York is reasonably certain. The statutes for a long period repeated the phrase “Indian slaves,” which is a clear recognition of an existing fact. And the fact that Indian slavery existed in all the surrounding colonies leads to the same conclusion.
It is noticeable that “Indian * slaves are not mentioned in the acts of the legislature of the state, though the colonial laws, down to the end of the colonial period, speak, in almost every statute relating to slavery, of “Negro and Indian slaves.”
[End of Senate Slavery section]
The New York Manumission Society
In 1785 “The New York Society for the Manumission of Slaves and the Protection of such of them as had been or wanted to be Liberated” was created and in 1808 incorporated in New York State. They organized on behalf of black New Yorkers who were experiencing the widespread practice of kidnapping black New Yorkers (both slave and free) and selling them as slaves.
The Society founded the New York African Free School two years later and members provided or raised funds for teachers’ salaries, for supplies, and the erection of new buildings to accommodate the increase in student population They also visited the schools periodically and reported on the state of the school and the students. Later they lobbied to pass the 1799 law, which granted gradual manumission to New York’s slaves. The organization provided legal assistance to both free and enslaved blacks.
Besides helping in legislation, in 1787, they created the African Free School to educate black children. By 1820 over 500 black children were enrolled and by 1832 there were black teachers instructing them.
A number of success stories came out that school system.
Dr. James McCune Smith wanted to be come a doctor but had to Glasgow, Scotland to get his medical degree. In 1952 his picture was on the cover of the March issue of the Journal of the National Medical Association. Smith was born in New York City in 1811, got his early education at the Free School After he graduated in 1837 from medical school he practiced in New York City.
Ira Aldridge went to the free school at age 13. He became a celebrated Shakespearian actor who played before the crowns throughout Europe. Aldridge is the only actor of African-American descent among the 33 actors of the English stage honored with bronze plaques at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon. He was especially popular in Prussia and Russia, where he received top honors from heads of state.
Henry Highland Garnet was an African-American abolitionist, minister, educator and orator. Having escaped with his family as a child from slavery in Maryland, he grew up in New York City. He was educated at the African Free School and other institutions, and became an advocate of militant abolitionism. He became a minister and based his drive for abolitionism in religion. Trojans know Garnet since he moved with his family to Troy, New York, in 1839 and taught school and studied theology. In 1842, he became pastor of the Liberty Street Presbyterian Church for six years. During this time, he published papers that combined religious and abolitionist themes. Closely identifying with the church, Garnet supported the temperance movement and became a strong advocate of political antislavery.
Charles Lewis Reason went to the free school with his two brothers but was teaching mathematics there at the age of fourteen. He became the first African-American college professor in the United States, teaching at New-York Central College, in McGraw NY. In 1847, Reason, along with Charles Bennett Ray, founded the New York-based Society for the Promotion of Education among Colored Children.
George T. Downing was an abolitionist and activist for African-American civil rights while building a successful career as a restaurateur in New York City; Newport, Rhode Island; and Washington, DC.
Alexander Crummell was a pioneering African-American minister, teacher and African nationalist. He was ordained as an Episcopal priest in the United States, and went to England in the late 1840s to raise money for his church by lecturing about American slavery. Abolitionists supported his three years of study at Cambridge University, where Crummell developed concepts of pan-Africanism.
While we can acknowledge that many slaveholders were early New Yorkers. We can also acknowledge that many of them right here in Albany worked hard to abolish it. Righting the wrong did not always work immediately. It took time and trial and error in legal maneuvers but eventually slavery was totally abolished in New York State and by the Civil War there were no slaves living in the Capital District.
Don Rittner - Historian At Large 