Talk:History of slavery in Massachusetts

Untitled

The article "History of slavery in Massachusetts" is superficial, unbalanced, and misleading. It must be read with caution and skepticism.

The article cites no sources for its various statements, except for the one fact, two sentences, about exchanges of Indian captives with West Indian slaves. It apparently relies entirely on the web article by Douglass Harper, which itself cites no sources except to acknowledge three direct quotations.

The article entirely ignores the 18th century, merely having two sentences asserting numbers for the population of slaves.

It says that Samuel Maverick had the first African slave in 1624 (it seems so, from indirect references), but does not address the interesting question -- how that could have happened just 4 years after the Pilgrims landed.

It is hardly worth saying that most of the 17th century slave trade in New England was based in Massachusetts -- it had most of the people and especially most of the ships then. More significant is the much larger but completely-ignored slave trade of Massachusetts in the 18th century, when it was second only to Rhode Island among the colonies.

On the numbers given for the population of “slaves”:

(1) The round numbers for 1676, 1708, and 1715 are unreliable, certainly not census figures but rather estimates sent back to England by English agents such as Randolph (1676) or by governors, both likely to underestimate the numbers of blacks. And ignored is the most reliable figure before the first Federal census of 1790, that from an actual census of 1763-1765.

(2) The article claims that there was “a larger free black population [than slave in Massachusetts], with about 10% of the population of Boston being black in 1752." First, there is no reliable information on what proportion of blacks in Massachusetts or Boston were free vs. slaves in colonial times. See Greene, Negro in Colonial New England, 297-8.

Second, this appears to be a statistical misinterpretation of its source, the on-line article by Douglass Harper, which reads "It reached its largest percentage of the total population between 1755 and 1764, when it stood at around 2.2 percent. The slaves concentrated in the industrial and seaside towns, however, and Boston was about 10 percent black in 1752." As this says, most slaves were in Boston, and it is perfectly possible that Boston's (alleged) 10% blacks could *all* have been slaves and still blacks comprise but 2.2% of the total Massachusetts population. (The 2.2% does agree with the 1763-5 census.) Harper does not say anything about *free* blacks in Boston. The Wikipedia article appears to assume that if 2.2% of the Massachusetts population was black and slave, then 2.2% of Boston's population was also slave, meaning most of Boston's blacks, comprising nearly 8% of its total population, must have been free. Impossible, in the 1750s.

Third, data from reliable sources indicates that the percentage of Boston’s population that was black was 6-7%, not 10%. See Historical Statistics of the United States ... Millennial Edition, and Greene and Harrington, American Population before the Federal Census of 1790.

The article says "As for slaves imported to Massachusetts, operators preferred to trade Africans for more experienced slaves in the West Indies." They might have "preferred", but I doubt that they "traded for". West Indian plantation owners would hardly trade away "experienced" slaves, nor those who had been "seasoned" and survived. Slaves that came to Massachusetts via the “triangle route” were the “refuse” slaves of the West Indies, those too ill, aged, etc. to be accepted by the West Indian planters.

On emancipation, it merely says "In 1783, slavery was ruled illegal based on the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution". True as far as it goes, but the history is much more complex, including the facts that this was a judicial interpretation of the Constitution and that many at the time believed the 1780 Constitution did not free slaves.

The section on “Law” is inadequate, and misleading. It mentions only two laws, of 1641 and 1703. There were of course many laws about blacks and slaves during the colonial peiod, many of more interest and significance than how towns were protected from the costs of supporting indigent slaves. The article says that the 1641 law “linked slavery to Biblical authority and created a set of rules for slaves.” This leaves the one-sided impression that the laws were severe; they were not, compared to all the other colonies. The laws of Massachusetts also used Biblical authority to establish rights of slaves. As one example of the protection of slaves, the same laws of 1641 penalized the maiming or disfiguring of a slave (at that time, the term “servant” included slaves), and there were other protections.

The author(s) of this article must broaden their knowledge and revise it. Three excellent books are:

• Greene, Lorenzo Johnston. The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620--1776. 1942; reprint with new preface 1969.
• McManus, Edgar J. Black Bondage in the North. 1993.
• Moore, George H. Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts. 1866. (Available full view, Google Books.)

On emancipation, there is (to cover Massachusetts):

• Melish, Joanne Pope. Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and “Race” in New England, 1780--1860. 1998.

A couple of the many relevant articles:

• Breen, T. H. “Making History: The Force of Public Opinion and the Last Years of Slavery in Revolutionary Massachusetts.” In Through a Glass Darkly: Reflections on Personal Identity in Early America, ed. Ronald Hoffman, Mechal Sobel, & Frederika J. Teute. 1997.
• Deyle, Steven. “‘By far the most profitable trade’: Slave Trading in British Colonial North America.” Slavery & Abolition, vol. 10, no. 2 (Sept., 1989).

68.166.236.155 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Vermont's constitution in the lead?

Why does Vermont's constitution merit mention in the introductory sentence or even anywhere in this article? Jojalozzo 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society

I have proposed merging Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society into this article since both pages could use more content and this page lacks material covering the 19th century. Jojalozzo 03:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There's been no movement on this and as I look at the situation, it seems that:

• The articles that should be merged are the New England Anti-Slavery Society and the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, because the New England organization was formed first, but then it "gave up its regional jurisdiction and reorganized into the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society." There's also history to include from the Massachusetts General Colored Association, which essentially rolled into the organization as well.
• The History of slavery in Massachusetts is underdeveloped. I've added some material, but there's a lot more that can be added, such as:

• The aspects of the slavery trade in Massachusetts
• Causes of the growth of freed African Americans and reduction of the number of enslaved people
• Societal viewpoints about racism, equality
• Abolition movement
• Underground Railroad
• Legislation, such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
• Dynamics with federal government and southern states

It doesn't seem that there's interest in the topic, so I thought I'd start restructuring of the Anti-Slavery Society articles and see how that takes shape... and if there are any strong opinions about having that included in the History of Slavery article or keeping it as a separate article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Since there's been no feedback, I'm going to go ahead and remove the merge templates. I've finished with the Massachusetts/New England article merger... and I put a bit into the History of Slavery of Massachusetts, but much more can be done in time.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of slavery in Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040128112051/http://www.slavenorth.com/massemancip.htm to http://www.slavenorth.com/massemancip.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)