Slavery In The North American Colonies Essay Example

New Amsterdam or New Netherlands. In 1664 or 1665, after British control replaced that of the Dutch, the colony became known as New York.

While the Europeans living in the settlement carried on with their usual business, the British occupation had a profound impact on the African New Yorkers, whether they were enslaved or free. The rules governing slavery changed and, under British rule, all Africans were considered slaves, regardless of their previous status as freed people or slaves under Dutch rule. The British also enacted more stringent laws, and the slave trade shifted from the West Indies to direct trade with Africa, resulting in an influx of more slaves.

The settled slaves in Greenwich Village were likely shocked and offended when their treatment, though limited under the Dutch, became harsher under the British empire. The new universal slavery imposed by the British allowed masters to whip their slaves without consulting an organized council, denying African slaves recognition as human beings. This debasement was reflected in restrictions on legal and social rights bestowed upon free and enslaved Africans under the Dutch rule.

Historian Edgar McManus compares the methods of Dutch and British rule. He explains that during the English occupation, both government and private interests collaborated to create a profitable slave system. In contrast to the Dutch West India Company, which used slavery as part of its colonial policy, the British Royal African Company used the colony as a means to implement slavery for capitalist gain. In 1709, Wall Street in New York saw the opening of the first British slave market. The British did not distinguish between freed Africans and slaves and considered all Africans to

be slaves in their official records. Unlike the Dutch who recognized Africans as individuals with legal rights and who could purchase their freedom, the British viewed them solely as economically valuable objects for labor, with limited freedom and no encouragement to attain it.

The African community in New York was undoubtedly angered by the British implementation of laws regarding freed slaves. Even though some Africans were already free under British rule, the complex laws and delayed recognition of their freedom added complexity to the previously established Dutch system. In the early 1700s, 15% of New York's population was African, but the British did not recognize them as anything but slaves until almost half a decade later. They established many rules concerning their employment and punished freed Africans for harboring runaway slaves while complicating the ways in which existing slaves could be freed. This encroachment into the lives of existing Africans who enjoyed freedoms under Dutch rule was probably unpleasant, to say the least. Nevertheless, many slaves and freed slaves lived together in Greenwich Village and openly expressed their grievances against the new British laws with their neighbors.

Unlike many southern plantations, where slaves were usually kept separate from the surrounding society, the situation in New Amsterdam was different. Although an outside society was present, it did not necessarily promote rebellion but instead expanded its scope. Therefore, the 1712 revolt was inevitable due to the new and harsh British rules that were a significant change from the previously established status quo in New Amsterdam that was unequal but comparatively non-violent and hopeful. Twenty-three Africans armed themselves with guns, clubs, and hatchets after meeting in a tavern and set

fire to a centrally located building in New York. When Europeans arrived to extinguish the blaze, some were killed and injured.

As part of retaliation, local militias gathered twenty-seven slaves, out of which six chose to end their lives upon being caught and the remaining slaves were mercilessly murdered. This led to the introduction of stern laws that prohibited gatherings of more than three black slaves and imposed a punishment of twenty lashes for any slave found with a firearm. Public whipping was prescribed for anyone involved in gambling and execution was the consequence for conspiring to kill or committing rape.

A law existed that discouraged masters from liberating a slave; in fact, the master was only allowed to free a slave if they provided a bond of 200 pounds. The inflexible nature of these new laws generated a pessimistic outlook for the times ahead. The rebellious actions taken in 1712 did not promote their campaign through violent means, rather they contributed to a new ambiance marked by distrust and suspicion within New York. This atmosphere fostered further rebellious activities, which remained subdued for three decades before resurfacing in 1741.

Over a period of thirty years, the African population in New York increased from eight hundred to over two thousand. The rebellion of 1741 took place in an atmosphere of paranoia; a young servant was summoned to name names, leading some historians to compare the events to a witch-hunt. While the cause of the panic that sparked numerous building fires over several months remains unclear and a matter of disagreement among historians, the use of the witch-hunt metaphor is not unwarranted.

In response to the threat,

a substantial reward was offered and ultimately claimed by Mary Burton, a white indentured servant. She proceeded to accuse her employers and associates of participating in a conspiracy and arson. It is uncertain if any Africans were involved. Despite this uncertainty, almost fifty Africans were punished through hanging, burning or deportation for the alleged crime without regard for their guilt. Today, historians are still debating whether this occurrence resulted from paranoid white fears, an organized conspiracy or both.

Regarding the trials, there is indisputable evidence of their outcomes.