Читать книгу The Ragged Road to Abolition - James J. Gigantino II - Страница 8

Introduction

This book is about the meaning of slavery and freedom in the United States. The setting, though unconventional, is central to American understandings of these two loaded terms. It follows the story of abolition in the North but reverses the usual narrative: slavery did not die after the Revolution, it sustained itself until the Civil War.

In 1789, Catherine was born a slave in Hunterdon County, New Jersey. Like thousands of other slaves in the state, she worked daily for her master, John Hagaman, on his hundred-acre farm in Amwell. Cate, as her master called her, forged relationships with other slaves and in 1811 at twenty-two bore her first child, a boy named Bob, though the boy’s father remains unknown. Four years later, Catherine welcomed a daughter named Hannah. In 1840, Catherine moved with her master to neighboring Raritan without her children. Although the 1850 Census recorded her as a free woman, on February 16, 1856, Hagaman sold sixty-seven-year-old Catherine as a “slave for life” for twenty dollars to Charles Sutphin of Sommerville. After the sale, Hagaman, himself not much older than Catherine, moved with his son Dennis and daughter-in-law Mary to Joshua, Illinois, forty miles west of Peoria.¹

Northern slaves like Catherine have usually been portrayed as peripheral to the overall development of the North and of the United States even though she experienced slavery decades after abolition’s enactment and in the midst of national debates over abolition and slavery’s westward expansion. Slavery in the North never attained the same position in the economy as it did in the Caribbean, the Chesapeake, or the Low Country since the North remained a society with slaves rather than a slave society. Indeed, early travel accounts describe New Jersey as both a place of few slaves and abundant opportunity. One visitor, Francisco de Miranda, the Spanish general, American ally, and future liberator of Venezuela, remarked during a 1783–1784 stay that he had not “encountered an individual who was ill clothed, hungry, sick, or idle.” Out of all the places he visited in America, de Miranda had never “seen any other place in which the people appear happier and on more of an equality” than New Jersey. According to him, New Jersey was truly the “Garden of America.”²

Just six years after de Miranda’s visit, roughly 11,500 slaves lived in New Jersey. The “Garden of America” had more enslaved blacks than all of New England combined and almost the same slave to total population ratio as the much larger New York. Of course, the slave populations in most of the South easily outpaced New Jersey, though from 1790 to 1830 the state had more than twice as many slaves as Delaware. Additionally, some Jersey counties de Miranda likely visited heavily depended on slave labor. Bergen, for example, counted over 18 percent of its population as slaves at the time. Slaves likewise made up almost 15 percent of Somerset’s population, while Middlesex and Monmouth had a slave population of just under 10 percent.³

While less than 1 percent of New England’s population remained enslaved by 1790, about 6 percent of the population in New York and New Jersey were slaves. Historians have glossed over these differences to argue that, while abolition came later in these two states (1799 and 1804 respectively) because of the larger slave population, the end result was the same: abolition produced a free black North that contrasted sharply with an enslaved South. The idea that abolition crept inevitably across the North after the Revolution leaves out most of the story and indeed many of its best chapters. As one historian put it, “slavery died hard” in the North, but the way it died illuminates far more than the fact that it died at all.⁴

In this book I examine the long life of slavery in New Jersey and how whites and blacks adapted to the changes abolition brought. I see New Jersey and its gradual move toward abolition as part of a much wider web of interconnected relationships that crossed state and national borders as well as the Atlantic Ocean. By the end of the eighteenth century, freedom and slavery had been discussed from Boston to Barbados in the context of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution. New Jersey was part of this conversation by virtue of the trade, politics, and war conducted from its own ports, Burlington and Perth Amboy, and the nearby commercial hubs of New York and Philadelphia. New Jerseyans had a front row seat for imperial discussions over taxation, war, and abolition as the Delaware and Hudson Rivers became vehicles for the exchange of information, goods, culture, ideas, and people.⁵

New Jersey, therefore, is one of the best laboratories in which to test the meaning and influence of abolition in the United States because its prime location exposed it to issues and ideas of freedom from around the globe. The state was significant during the American Revolution, as British and Patriot armies engaged in more battles within its borders than in any other state, and its revolutionary experience made the call for liberty and freedom integral to the state’s birth. Yet for all the patriotic fervor of the revolutionary generation, New Jersey delayed enactment of gradual abolition until 1804, later than any other northern state. This book explores why that delay occurred and how Jersey slaves experienced, or frequently did not experience, freedom after 1804.⁶

In the last twenty-five years, the memory of northern slavery has been revived as many northern states have created Amistad Commissions and mandated that the local history of slavery be taught in their classrooms. The 1991 discovery of the African Burial Ground in New York City likewise spurred debate over slavery’s presence in the North.⁷ Journalists shocked northern readers with stories of slaves living and working in the North, asserting that the North “helped create, strengthen, and prolong slavery in America.”⁸ Likewise, New Jersey’s 2008 official legislative apology for its role in slavery forced residents to begin to integrate slavery into their local history and identity as northerners.⁹ Of course, historians have understood that slavery existed in the North long before the discovery of the African Burial Ground. In the past forty years, they have explored the ways that slavery operated in almost every imaginable locale and time. Recently, the focus on transnational and Atlantic history has encouraged historians to reimagine how slavery in the United States compared to the experience of enslaved Indians in the Americas and the many forms of bondage operating in Africa, South America, the Caribbean, and Asia.¹⁰

Similarly, scholars in related fields have challenged the very definition of slavery. Sociologist Orlando Patterson’s influential Slavery and Social Death, among other works, challenged the binary between slavery and freedom that formed the basis of American scholarship for decades. Patterson proposed that the foundational meaning of slavery differed based on individual societal definitions. Abraham Lincoln’s clear dichotomy between slavery and freedom in his 1862 Emancipation Proclamation, that all slaves “shall be forever free,” stood in sharp contrast to the experiences of slaves around the globe. Most slaves never experienced a clear division between freedom and slavery. Instead, as Patterson argues, each society had a very different understanding of what freedom meant and how that meaning shaped slavery. This nuanced understanding of slavery compelled historian Peter Kolchin to argue that people of African heritage across the Atlantic World experienced many different “slaveries” instead of one monolithic “slavery.” Unpacking the meaning of slavery and freedom in this way has allowed historians to recast everything from indentured servitude in colonial Virginia to concubinage in twentieth-century Northern Nigeria as a form of slavery, mirroring chattel bondage in some ways but differing from it in others.¹¹

This new scholarship has largely skirted the northern states, however, as the image of southern slavery has routinely colored understandings of what slavery should look like north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Northern slavery, especially in the Mid-Atlantic, was a flexible and varied institution that differed from the more regimented cash crop agriculture of the South. This flexibility has encouraged historians to argue that abolition was inevitable and easily accomplished in New Jersey. With the exception of a few notable works, the African American experience in the revolutionary and early national North continues to be one dominated not by the narrative of slavery but by the growth of freedom. Interposing New England for the North as a whole, using one state as fully representative of the region, or only teasing out minimal differences between the states has clouded understandings of the slow death of slavery and the incredibly convoluted legal and social relationships that it created for those who lived it and struggled to understand it on a daily basis.¹²

Indeed, the various ways that slavery ended in the North have confused historians for decades as few have really come to grips with the long-term impact of post-Revolutionary abolitionism. Slavery’s end in Vermont used to be the easiest to understand since a constitutional amendment erased slavery before it really had a chance to develop. However, new work has shown that the 1777 constitution “did not end slavery or establish meaningful freedom for African Americans.” Instead, abolition was “contested, contingent, complicated, and messy.” Likewise, historians for decades used the Quok Walker decision in Massachusetts—in which the enslaved Walker sued for and won his freedom in 1781—to show how slavery quickly ended there by 1790, while New Hampshire’s emancipation through brutal attrition over several decades continues to raise scholarly eyebrows. As with the Vermont case, new scholarship has called the Walker case into question, showing that contemporary accounts never claimed it had eliminated slavery—those developed only later in the nineteenth century. If Walker’s legacy can be challenged, slavery’s demise in the rest of the North certainly deserves greater scrutiny.¹³

From 1783 to 1804, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey all agreed to the “gradual abolition of slavery,” while New York approved “gradual manumission.” In each case, these laws freed only the children born to slaves after a certain date and only after a period of service to their mother’s master. Slaves in these states therefore never participated in a true emancipation or the decisive release from a system of control. Emancipation was the process by which an actual slave moved from a state of slavery to one of freedom. Instead, most of these states utilized the term abolition, meaning an end to slavery’s existence by eliminating its perpetuation. It is no coincidence then that New Jersey’s early abolitionists fully embraced the term abolition by supporting a program that mediated black freedom with white supervision, in this case by slaveholders. Throughout this volume, I therefore use the term abolitionist to describe the myriad types of men and women who pushed for a gradual end to slavery. Many of these New Jerseyans, like their contemporaries in New York and Pennsylvania, were routinely racist, believed that blacks could not live free without white tutelage, and, in some cases, still owned slaves or joined the American Colonization Society (ACS) to advance their own negrophobic agendas. However, they all fundamentally disagreed with the institution of slavery, though for different reasons, and hoped to see it end at some future point. Their practices and choices of wording were also motivated by realities on the ground—few slaveholders voluntarily wanted to free their slaves—thus, most Jersey abolitionists preferred that slavery’s demise come through a prolonged ending rather than a quick transformation. Only in the late 1830s did a new breed of abolitionist come forward, one that believed in the immediate end to slavery and actively worked for emancipation both in their own organizations and with free blacks. They appropriated the term “abolitionist” for themselves and claimed the gradualists were actually not abolitionists. I believe both supported abolition, so I use the term to describe both groups. However, since almost all gradualists still operating in New Jersey after 1830 were colonizationists, references to abolitionists after that date refer exclusively to the second generation unless otherwise noted.¹⁴

The Ragged Road to Abolition examines this gradual end to slavery and highlights the integral role that black and white New Jerseyans played in defining slavery’s place in their own state and within the larger nation in everything from the Revolution, to colonization, to the internal slave trade, to the sectional crisis. New Jersey was neither peripheral to slavery nor to gradual abolition—it was central. As Daniel Richter has challenged historians to face east from the Indian perspective to better understand the colonial encounter, The Ragged Road to Abolition challenges scholars to stand on the Mason-Dixon Line and look north to better understand the history of abolition. By doing so, New Jersey appears far more dedicated to slavery than if we look south. Reorienting our approach to slavery in this way helps us to see that slaves like Catherine lived in a violent society with slaves. Slaveholding remained at the heart of the white social imagination, determining how New Jerseyans interacted with African Americans until the Civil War. Facing north also places New Jersey at the center of our understanding of what freedom meant in the nineteenth-century United States and the larger Atlantic World. Slavery, as historian Edward Ayers argues, “shaped everything it touched” and even in states like New Jersey, where gradual abolition had begun to limit slavery’s reach, slavery remained slavery to those who participated in it, worthy to be defended even into the 1840s and 1850s.¹⁵

This study examines the process of freedom in three parts. Chapters 1–3 look at the period 1770–1804 and ask why abolition became more popular following the American Revolution. Instead of being motivated by ideological strands of the Revolution as other historians have argued, gradual abolition began in 1804 for political purposes born in the partisan battle between Federalists and Democratic Republicans. While it was rooted in the revolutionary belief of individual freedom, the Revolution in New Jersey did not heighten support for black liberty. On the contrary, the war reinforced slavery by highlighting the dangers white New Jerseyans would face if they supported abolition. The economic destruction caused by the Revolution and fears of a black revolt in the aftermath of freedom calmed abolitionist calls. The two decades after the Revolution, therefore, saw the growth of slavery in New Jersey, which helped keep pace with the worldwide demand for New Jersey’s foodstuffs, even as Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island took steps to eliminate the institution.¹⁶

Chapters 4–7 explore the early abolition period (1804–1830) in four topical chapters and show how slavery became flexible after gradual abolition began. Instead of killing slavery, gradual abolition allowed it to survive until the Civil War in myriad different forms, overturning the idea that northern slavery’s limited numbers sped its destruction. After all, at its core, slavery was an economic institution, one that remained critical for many Jersey whites. The abolition law provided for the freedom of children born to slaves after July 4, 1804, once they served a specified number of years (twenty-one or twenty-five) to their mother’s master. These children, whom I call slaves for a term, were bought, sold, whipped, worked, and separated from their families just like slaves before them. Contemporary New Jersey sources remarked that these children were thought of and treated like slaves, though with the understanding that they would leave that status in the future. The presence of slaves for a term extended bondage in a different form to generations that came of age in the 1820s and 1830s so that in 1830 almost a quarter of the state’s black population remained bound laborers.¹⁷

Of course, this extended servitude dramatically affected enslaved and free black life in New Jersey since each lived in a world where the line between slavery and freedom was thin. Thousands of Jersey slaves born before 1804 and therefore ineligible for gradual abolition negotiated intently for freedom; those who managed to break out of slavery argued for greater political and social rights within their newly formed community. This group failed to advance black rights primarily because of their limited numbers and a general apathy among whites for ensuring black freedom. Slaveholders likewise continually resisted abolition in order to profit from their bound laborers. Indeed, white New Jerseyans routinely sold their slaves and slaves for a term out of state to subvert gradual abolition and support slavery’s overall national expansion. However, the most notorious slave trading ring, which operated in the late 1810s, significantly influenced how white New Jerseyans saw their state’s slavery in a national perspective. With the crisis over the extension of slavery into Missouri coming on the heels of public concern over this slave trading ring, white New Jerseyans began to inculcate a proto-free soil ideology that opposed slavery’s westward expansion into Missouri but supported its continuation in the South and New Jersey. This ideology, though antislavery, was not abolitionist and did little to alter the perceived link between the newly freed and the enslaved, which whites used to prevent their inclusion into the body politic. This was most readily apparent in the 1807 abrogation of voting rights for free black men and women, which began a systematic process of stripping legal and political rights from former slaves. The colonization movement sustained this link between “slavery” and “black” in law and custom. This perpetual tie between slavery and race limited opportunities for black independence and forced black families to live not as fully free people but in multiple gradations of freedom: some could be free, some slave, and some slave for a term. It created a hodgepodge of legal, economic, and social relationships that confused even the state’s most learned jurists. These complex and frequently confusing relationships complicated how both whites and blacks functioned within, and sometimes outside, the boundaries of slavery. A stroke of a pen did not make anyone “forever free” but instead drew a blurry line of demarcation between slavery and freedom, one that whites and blacks struggled to constantly define and redefine.¹⁸

Chapters 8 and 9 examine the later abolition period (1830–1860) and place familiar nineteenth-century issues—race riots, abolitionism, fugitive slaves, and sectional antagonism—in the context of slavery’s slow death. The 1830s represented a major shift in the freedom process and black life in New Jersey as that decade was a transitional one in which free blacks began to stay in New Jersey in larger numbers. Their numbers grew due to simple reproduction by those freed earlier and were joined by the first generation of slaves for a term who had just gained freedom. This demographic shift allowed blacks to more readily establish independent households, move out of white-controlled churches and schools, and develop their own institutions designed to fight persistent racism and its link to slavery. This decoupling of race and slavery also occurred in law when, in 1836, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that blacks were no longer prima facie slaves; freedom became the default legal category for African Americans. Of course, this development of an identity outside of slavery initiated reprisals from whites as they also felt, for the first time, threatened by the economic and social changes underway. Race riots rocked New Jersey in the 1830s and 1840s, when whites feared economic competition, racial amalgamation, and an increasingly smaller role for themselves in politics and society.¹⁹

The Ragged Road to Abolition closes by shifting focus back to the nation at large and examining how the uptick in fugitive slaves and the rise of the immediate abolition movement in the 1830s propelled New Jersey’s slave system back into the spotlight. It shows how slavery’s constant presence in New Jersey shaped the role, status, and history of African Americans in a way that historians have as yet failed to grasp. Slavery’s survival in New Jersey confronted state, regional, and national politicians as the nation moved toward the Civil War since the state’s border position allowed southern fugitive slaves to encounter a still functioning slave system. The constant interaction with fugitive slaves forced white and black New Jerseyans to question how the state’s legal and judicial system would deal with both Jersey-born slaves and southern fugitives. New Jerseyans never left slavery behind either in practice or in how it influenced their ideological identity. Their refusal to pass stronger personal liberty laws after the Supreme Court’s 1842 Prigg decision, which allowed states to restrict their own courts from hearing federal fugitive slave cases, abolition’s weak presence in the state, and the state legislature’s wholesale rejection of black political rights were all influenced by New Jersey’s past and continuing support of slavery. Even by 1846, when the state abolished the legal term “slave” and transformed its remaining slaves into “apprentices for life,” yet another form of slavery, white actors consistently supported a gradual approach to abolition and resisted slavery’s immediate end. Even in a society with slaves where gradual abolition was well underway, slavery proved resilient.

This consistent engagement with and appreciation of the state’s past and current slave system stands in stark contrast to portrayals of New Englanders at the same moment in time. New England’s prominent role in the abolition movement allowed abolitionists there to disown slavery from their own history and reinterpret it as a minor institution that resembled apprenticeship far more than chattel bondage. They used this New England identity to demarcate the entire North and define the two regions as in mortal combat over slavery.²⁰ New Jersey’s embrace of slavery, not its disownment, has significant ramifications for historical understandings of the coming of the Civil War by showing how antebellum northern whites were influenced by their state’s past and continuing relationship with slavery. Although white New Jerseyans repeatedly opposed slavery’s expansion in the West, slavery’s continuation forced a ready acknowledgement of the state’s role in ensuring the return of fugitive slaves and in not interfering with the institution in the South. Indeed, Jersey politicians constantly reminded their northern and southern counterparts of their experience with slavery as they dealt with sectional tensions. Slavery’s persistence therefore not only shatters the rather simplistic dichotomy between a slave South battling a free North but shows how those New Jerseyans who lived in a slave state used their slaveholding experience to create peace and order on the southern border over fugitive slaves, embraced a general anti-abolitionism and support for interstate comity to get that peace, and respected southern economic and social interests in keeping slavery more than their radical northern neighbors who opposed fugitive recoveries and courted southern distrust.

Several excellent works on slavery’s demise in the North laid the groundwork for my understanding of slavery’s place in nineteenth-century New Jersey. Gary Nash and Jean Soderlund’s pioneering work on slavery’s slow death in Pennsylvania showed that, like in New Jersey, masters “were more notable for shrewd calculations of how to extricate themselves at little cost from an involvement in owning fellow human beings than for a rise in their moral sensibilities.”²¹ Likewise, Shane White’s expertly crafted Somewhat More Independent, which focuses on New York City, demonstrated slavery’s growth there after the Revolution in the same way it grew in New Jersey. Graham Hodges’s work is perhaps one that most emphasizes the role of African Americans in their own abolition and the growth of the free black community, which did much to move African Americans to center stage and advance northern slavery studies from its ideological and political foundation established by Arthur Zilversmit in the late 1960s.²² Yet this resurrection of African American agency frequently directed the focus to a fully free black community and focused primarily on institutional life, not to the reality that gradual abolition created multiple gradations of freedom for blacks to inhabit daily in their work, family, religious, and social lives. Instead, my work here aligns more closely with Joanne Pope Melish’s and shows how the gradual abolition process actually affected enslaved as well as free black and white lives on the ground.²³

Focusing on the expansive reach of slavery does not mean an abandonment of African American agency. On the contrary, the enslaved remained key actors especially in the nineteenth century when they navigated a difficult terrain where slaves, slaves for a term, and free blacks all lived in overlapping layers of freedom. Jersey’s enslaved did, as historian Ira Berlin has shown again and again, negotiate for better lives despite the fact that the institution’s slow death “handicap[ed] the efforts of black people to secure households of their own” and “encouraged the notion that black free people were no more than slaves without masters.” In this way, Berlin is correct in arguing that “slavery hardly behaved like a moribund institution” after gradual abolition began, remaining important in many areas of the North, most notably New Jersey. I build on Berlin’s insights as I unpack the slow death of slavery to show how it shaped the state, nation, and New Jersey’s nineteenth-century black communities.²⁴

However, Jersey blacks did not only, as Berlin argues, “owe their liberty to the changes unleashed during the Age of Revolution,” but instead to a much longer and convoluted process of freedom. It is within that longer freedom process that African American agency becomes somewhat limited. Jersey blacks faced insurmountable odds in the early nineteenth century, perhaps greater than anywhere else in the North. They had no white allies as the state abolition society quickly disbanded after gradual abolition began, lived under a legal system that was firmly controlled by slaveholders or those supportive of their interests, and saw most free blacks who could have assisted them leave for the larger black communities in New York or Philadelphia. For those reasons, the negotiations and interactions between the enslaved and white masters that resulted in freedom were fewer than in other northern locales. From the available sources, I show the integral role of Jersey blacks in gradual abolition, but far too often could not capture the extent of these negotiations, largely due to the rarity of sources recording Jersey slaves, especially after 1840.²⁵

This book then is about a tug of war with a wide variety of protagonist voices. It engages the ideology of the Revolution, religious commitments to abolition, economic interests of slaveholders, familial bonds and community networks of slaves, the law’s role in creating and sustaining slavery, and, most important, how whites and blacks dealt with the transition from slavery to freedom. It delves into a number of different historiographical arguments and pieces together how New Jerseyans and other northerners struggled with defining slavery’s end. Above all, it shows that Catherine’s 1856 sale was not a historical anachronism. Instead, her sale reflected the experience of slaves and slaves for a term in antebellum New Jersey. The “Garden of America” was a place of inequality and unfreedom, worked by slaves such as Catherine just like so many other gardens in the United States.

* * *

A study of slavery’s slow demise in the nineteenth century needs first to be grounded in how the institution became an integral part of New Jersey society, since slavery’s colonial beginnings had massive ramifications for how the institution sustained itself later on. Slavery’s beginning in New Jersey cannot be divorced from its interaction with the Atlantic World and its relationship with neighboring New York. In 1626, the first African slaves arrived in New Netherland to work for the Dutch West India Company and soon became incredibly important since the new colony suffered chronic labor shortages as few white immigrants chose to settle there. This first generation of slaves quickly became integrated into society as the astute creoles understood that slavery was a form of clientage that they could use to their advantage. The paltry numbers of Europeans likewise gave slaves power as their labor became increasingly needed by the company in its bid to stabilize itself against Indian, Spanish, English, and Swedish threats. By 1630, Dutch and Walloon settlers had established themselves on the west bank of the Hudson River in present-day Bergen County and brought the first enslaved Africans to what would become New Jersey. However, continued Indian conflicts restricted how far the Dutch moved across the river and caused most Dutch settlements to be short-lived, such as Pavonia, which was destroyed by Indians, or founded in the last years of Dutch rule, as was Bergen after Indian threats had dissipated.²⁶

Like in other colonies, New Jersey’s charter generation lived in a society that had neither firmly delineated laws on slavery nor used race to determine enslaved status. Instead, freedom in New Netherland was flexible, with small free black neighborhoods growing in the 1630s, formed by blacks who managed to negotiate with the company or their individual masters for freedom. Some used religion to claim freedom since the Dutch Reformed Church mandated slave baptism and encouraged masters to establish pathways to freedom for their slaves. Others used the daily interactions they had working with whites to negotiate with masters to let them purchase or otherwise secure freedom. Yet, black labor remained at the core of New Netherland’s labor force and the colony’s growth did much to transform slavery into the main tool of agricultural expansion, especially in northeast New Jersey.²⁷

Slaves in New Netherland were jacks-of-all-trades, feeding not only the agricultural base of the colony but performing artisan trades, building colonial infrastructure, and completing hundreds of other tasks to establish and maintain the colony. By 1664, one out of every eight white New Netherland residents owned slaves. At the same time, the enslaved also intertwined their creole and African roots with Dutch culture. Pinkster, a celebration of Pentecost, first was celebrated in 1628 and saw African music and dance come alive in the New World. This African influence was sustained by new slaves imported directly from Africa and from Spanish and Dutch Caribbean traders.²⁸

After the Dutch surrender at New Amsterdam in 1664, Charles II’s brother James, duke of York, gained title to the region and quickly granted New Jersey to two proprietors, George Carteret and John, Lord Berkeley. Unbeknownst to them, New York’s military governor, Colonel Richard Nicolls, transferred large tracts of land to New England Puritans, Quakers, and Baptists who eagerly moved into the eastern part of New Jersey and established Elizabethtown, Newark, Piscataway, Woodbridge, Middletown, and Shrewsbury between 1664 and 1666. These overlapping land grants caused havoc in determining land ownership in early New Jersey and eventually led to a series of land riots and proprietary revolts in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The proprietary period’s conflicts also diminished the profits that Carteret and Berkeley reaped from New Jersey. After settlers in East Jersey established an independent assembly, ejected the proprietary governor, Carteret’s cousin, and allied with the Dutch in the Second Anglo-Dutch War, the costs and headaches of colonial administration proved too much for the now bankrupt Berkeley. In 1674, he sold his share in the colony to a group of Quaker investors, including William Penn, who formed the West Society of Proprietors and established a separate colony called West Jersey. Carteret, left with East Jersey, sold to Quaker investors, who would eventually sell to Scottish businessmen, in 1682.²⁹

Even though East and West Jersey operated as separate proprietary colonies for only twenty-eight years (1674–1702), the division had massive repercussions for the growth and eventual decline of slavery in New Jersey. West Jersey quickly became linked to Quaker dominated Pennsylvania and colonists swarmed into the region, picking up where the failed New Sweden colony had left off. Likewise, as the Caribbean embraced sugar, planters pushed out because of the sugar boom from Barbados in the 1660s and 1670s sought new homes in both Carolina and East Jersey. Barbadian planters, turned off by the harsher climate and disease around Charleston, saw New Jersey as a fertile and relatively untapped land ripe for settlement. They and their slaves came in droves to both East Jersey and New York so that by 1700 Barbadian immigrants owned the largest concentrations of slaves. They used them to work large estates granted by the proprietors since each settler received 150 acres and an additional 150 acres for each male slave and 75 for each female slave. These Barbadians quickly established towns such as New Barbados in northeastern New Jersey and made East Jersey a colony strongly attached to a slavery informed by years in the Caribbean. This experience also influenced non-Barbadians and led East Jersey to quickly outlaw the harboring of fugitive slaves, trading with slaves, and prohibiting slaves from carrying guns. This East Jersey identity sharply contrasted to the Quaker dominated West. While colonial-era Quakers certainly utilized and relied on slave labor just as their East Jersey neighbors did, they never fully embraced it to the extent of their Caribbean neighbors. More important, though, the establishment of a separate Quaker colony in West Jersey ensured that almost all Jersey Friends gravitated there instead of to East Jersey for the remainder of the colonial period. Therefore, when the Society of Friends banned slaveholding immediately before the American Revolution, the colony and later state became bifurcated again, this time not by a political boundary but by slavery. West Jersey’s Quaker majority freed its slaves and led that area to become mostly free by 1790, while a non-Quaker influenced East Jersey retained its slaves far longer.³⁰

New Jersey’s slaves during the proprietary period provided white settlers (Dutch, Puritan, Quaker, or Barbadian) with a labor supply to fulfill the growing demand for foodstuffs from New York, Philadelphia, and the Caribbean. Although no single crop came to dominate Jersey agriculture, the rotation of crops (grains, fruits, vegetables, and grasses) ensured that slaves could be used throughout the year on various agricultural projects. Additionally, if demand for slaves’ services decreased, masters hired them out to artisans, shipbuilders, and tradesmen to produce additional revenue streams. Jersey slaves therefore continued to work alongside whites and became incredibly important to both the rural and urban economies in the Mid-Atlantic. Most slaveholders, however, owned few slaves—normally no more than two. Thus, those slaves’ freedom of movement became incredibly important in sustaining their identity and community connections.³¹

The relative flexibility of the colony’s charter generation began to wane in the early eighteenth century as the slave population grew and Barbadian planters from East Jersey increasingly influenced the colonial legal system. In 1702, East and West Jersey reunited as a Royal Colony and in 1704 passed its first omnibus slave code using the 1694 and 1695 East Jersey statutes as a model. This law began the transition from charter to plantation generation in New Jersey as it included provisions likely influenced by the Barbadians who had prompted similar legislation in South Carolina. The 1704 law mandated castration for slaves who fornicated with or raped a white woman or child, though this was later disallowed by the Privy Council in London. It also imposed restrictions against harboring fugitives, prohibited slaves and free blacks from owning property, disallowed baptism as grounds for freedom, and instituted harsher punishments for slaves convicted of theft. Since Pennsylvania passed a similar law in 1700 and New York in 1702, Mid-Atlantic whites likely had a “common awareness” that slavery was becoming an increasingly important part of their society and needed these restrictions to ensure order. In 1712, New Yorkers and New Jerseyans saw the true dangers that their reliance on slavery could cause when a slave revolt rocked New York City on the night of April 1. Eight whites were killed and twelve more wounded, likely a reaction by slaves to the new restrictions on black liberties.³²

The firmer restrictions of the plantation generation took hold after the 1712 conspiracy with the passage of a new slave code in 1713–1714, which became the core of New Jersey’s slave system and responded to the fears of many whites who saw the destructiveness of the revolt in New York. The new law reiterated the prohibition against free blacks owning property and, since legislators felt “free Negroes are an Idle Sloathful People and prove very often a charge to the Place where they are,” owners who wanted to free their slaves had to pay a two hundred-pound bond to the colonial government and twenty pounds per year to each former slave. This requirement essentially ended manumissions, already depressed after 1664, and stripped slaves of almost any chance at becoming free in colonial New Jersey. The disappearance of black access to freedom had much to do with the Barbadians as their Caribbean experience influenced the legislative debate. Their most visible impact came in the form of a special court of justice for slaves accused of capital crimes, which replicated South Carolina’s slave court that had been built to mirror Barbados’. The strong Barbadian lobby therefore not only wanted slavery but hoped to ground New Jersey firmly in an Atlantic system that relied on restricting black freedoms for white economic gain.³³

The further tightening of legal and social restrictions against blacks came at the same time slavery became the “single most important source of labor in the North’s most fertile agricultural areas.” By the early 1720s, the shift to the plantation generation was complete as slaveholders realized that slaves “were no longer an adjunct to an agricultural economy” but central players. Between 1718 and 1738, the slave population of East Jersey doubled (now at 3,071) and by 1750 male slaves were more numerous than landless white males in most of the region. Hunterdon County, in West Jersey, likewise saw a massive increase in its slave population as it provided most of the wheat, barley, and corn to the Philadelphia market. Slaves therefore became key partners in ensuring that the North’s breadbasket fed both Caribbean and northern markets, yet remained jacks-of-all-trades on small slaveholdings. Neither a gang nor a task system developed. However, the reliance on slave labor changed how slaves came to New Jersey. Originally purchased in small numbers on consignment or traded internally from other mainland colonies or, more likely, from the Caribbean, increased demand dictated that slaves needed to come directly from Africa. By mid-century, 70 percent of slaves arrived from Africa, a reversal from the first half of the century when only 30 percent did so. These new slaves became integral to the continued development of the Anglo-Atlantic World and, though they could be found disproportionally in agriculture, slaves living in New Jersey’s cities worked in artisan shops, as sailors, or as shipbuilders just as in New York or Philadelphia.³⁴

As legislators in the plantation generation increasingly stripped rights away from enslaved and free blacks and racialized slavery became firmly set into New Jersey society, the enslaved in the plantation generation successfully negotiated for some freedoms within the institution. Just as in the charter generation, slaves in the 1730s and 1740s valued their freedom of movement since it was essential in establishing communities among small slaveholdings strewn across rural New Jersey. Slaves routinely congregated with other blacks in the woods or more likely in local taverns that flouted the prohibition against providing liquor to slaves to secure a new customer base. These taverns, however, bred not only community but also dissention and revolt. Two slave revolts rocked New Jersey in the first half of the eighteenth century and tested white resolve in keeping the institution. The first, in 1734, involved a plot to set fire to white homes in Somerset County, kill their masters, rape their wives, and escape to either Indian or French territory. Although the plot was discovered before its execution due to a slave’s liquor lubricated lips, the apprehension of thirty conspirators fueled fears that revolt was a real danger. Likewise, the 1741 New York Conspiracy, also hatched in a tavern, was even more frightening as it involved an alliance between whites, most notably tavern keeper John Hughson, and the enslaved. The burning of New York’s Fort George and its auxiliary fires in both New Jersey and Long Island reinforced the dangers of slave revolt. New Jersey convicted and burned several slaves at the stake in Hackensack and Newark for arsons thought to be part of the conspiracy.³⁵

In response to the conspiracy, slaveholders cracked down on slave movement and the colonial legislature almost passed a duty on slaves imported from the Caribbean to dissuade bringing more blacks into New Jersey who were thought to be prone to rebellion. By 1751 the legislature prohibited slaves from meeting in groups larger than five but took no decisive steps to halt the colony’s reliance on slavery. The institution had simply become too important to eliminate as it had become the primary labor supply across rural New Jersey. It had also begun to infiltrate other areas of the economy, including mining operations in Bergen County. The Schuyler mine, for instance, employed over two hundred slaves. With a colonial slave population of over 7 percent colony wide, the ratio was between 12 and 15 percent in some areas of East Jersey. On the eve of the American Revolution, despite fears of rebellion and an increasing number of fugitive slaves fighting against the system, New Jersey stood as a society with slaves that had fully embraced the institution and integrated it into their colony’s economy and society.³⁶