There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! --- Massachusetts, like many American colonies, had roots in a scrupulous fundamentalist Protestantism. Christianity was no barrier to slave- ownership, however. The Puritans regarded themselves as God's Elect, and so they had no difficulty with slavery, which had the sanction of the Law of the God of Israel. The Calvinist doctrine of predestination easily supported the Puritans in a position that blacks were a people cursed and condemned by God to serve whites. Cotton Mather told blacks they were the "miserable children of Adam and Noah," for whom slavery had been ordained as a punishment.
A Massachusetts law of 1641 specifically linked slavery to Biblical authority, and established for slaves the set of rules "which the law of God, established in Israel concerning such people, doth morally require." When two Massachusetts slave merchants joined with London slave raiders in a massacre of an African village in 1645, the colonial government registered its indignation, because the two men were guilty of the Biblical crime of "man-stealing" (kidnapping Africans instead of acquiring them in the approved way, in exchange for rum or trinkets) -- and because the slaughter of 100 or so villagers had taken place on a Sunday. Nonetheless, because of its Scriptural foundation, Massachusetts' attitudes toward slaves in some ways were more progressive than those of other colonies. Like Connecticut and Rhode Island, however, Massachusetts had a problem with masters who simply turned out their slaves when they grew too old or feeble to work. Unlike the later Southern system, which took pride in its paternal care for slaves in their old age, Massachusetts masters had to be forced to keep theirs by a 1703 law requiring them to post £50 bond for every slave manumitted, to provide against the slave becoming indigent and the responsibility of some town. There are also instances on record of slave mothers' children given away like puppies or kittens by masters unwilling or unable to support them. There was no law against this. Later reminiscences, long after slavery's end, emphasized the benign nature of Massachusetts slavery, but the laws and statutes of the time show it to be grim enough, and the need for control over even so small a population of blacks as lived in Massachusetts was felt to be great. Fear of an uprising no doubt was behind the 1656 exclusion of blacks (and Indians) from military duty. Concern about fugitive slaves, meanwhile, probably lay behind the 1680 act by which the colony imposed heavy fines on captains of ships and vessels that took blacks aboard, or sailed away with them without permission from the governor. Protection of masters' property from slave theft certainly motivated the 1693 statute that forbade anyone from buying anything from a black, Indian or mulatto servant. Boston, which had the largest slave population, also had its own layer of controls, on top of the province-wide ones. In statutes enacted at various times between the 1720s and 1750s, slaves in Boston were forbidden to buy provisions in market; carry a stick or a cane; keep hogs or swine; or stroll about the streets, lanes, or Common at night or at all on Sunday. Punishments for violation of these laws ranged up to 20 lashes, depending on aggravating factors. Black slaves were singled out for punishment by whipping if they broke street lamps, under a law of 1753, and a special law allowed severe whippings for any black person who hit a white one (1705-6). The colony, along with Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland, punished both races for miscegenation. But Old Testament abhorrence of "mixed natures" may help explain why the Massachusetts statue was more severe than that of any other colony on the continent. The Massachusetts law against mixed marriage or sexual relations between the races [Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, I, 578], dating to 1705, was passed "for the better preventing of a spurious and mixt issue." It subjected a black man who slept with a white woman to being sold out of the province (likely to the cruel plantations of the West Indies). Both were to be flogged, and the woman bound out to service to support any children resulting from the illicit union. In cases involving a white man and a black woman, both were to be flogged, the man fined £5 and held liable for support of any children, and the woman to be sold out of the province. On Mar 22, 2:10 pm, Cold Water <coldwater...@gmail.com> wrote: > Patrick Henry's Address To Congress > God and Liberty | March 23rd, 1775 | Patrick Henry > > No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, > of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different > men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope > that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, > entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall > speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. > > This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful > moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a > question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the > subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we > can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we > hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, > through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason > towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of > heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. > > Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We > are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of > that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, > engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of > the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the > things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? > > For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the > whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp > by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no > way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish > to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the > last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased > to solace themselves and the House? > > Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? > Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves > to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our > petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and > darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and > reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that > force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, > sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to > which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if > its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other > possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the > world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? > > No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. > They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British > ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall > we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have > we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing. > > We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has > been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What > terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I > beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. > > Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is > now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; > we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its > interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. > > Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional > violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have > been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after > these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There > is no longer any room for hope. > > If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable > privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely > to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and > which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of > our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must > fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us! > > They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an > adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the > next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard > shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution > and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying > supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our > enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? > > Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of > nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy > cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are > invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we > shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the > destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for > us. > > The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the > active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough > to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no > retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking > may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it > come! I repeat it, sir, let it come! > > It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! > Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale > that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding > arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is > it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so > sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, > Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me > liberty, or give me death! > > Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775 > > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2211998/posts > > __._,_.___ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
