Contrary to the assertions in Oscar and Mary Handlin's article "Origin of the Southern Slave System," the status of Africans was quite ambiguous upon their arrival in 1619 and for the first two decades thereafter. It is clear, however, that they were seen in a different light than whites from the very beginning, as disparities in the treatment of black and white servants were manifest from much earlier than the Handlins contend, shifting the Africans' status from one of temporary servitude progressively into one of slavery. In this paper, I will demonstrate that not only were Africans increasingly associated with permanent servitude well before the 1660s, but that this link between Africans and slave status preexisted American colonial society, and was known by the English the moment Africans stepped onto Virginian soil in 1619. As the demand for cheap, permanent labor grew, English prejudice placed Africans in a prime postion to fill this spot, as they later indeed were forced to do. However, the English's prejudices about the African predated their colonial experience with them.

The English view of Africans was negative before and during the time of the first Africans' arrival in Virginia in 1619. However, the Handlins assert in their article that in evaluating the Africans' unequal treatment as compared to whites, "It is not necessary to resort to racialist assumptions to account for such measures;" the Handlins attribute inequalities to "...the reactions of immigrants lost to the stability and security of home and isolated in an immense wilderness..."[1] This view is misinformed. Prejudice on the part of the English towards the Africans was present from the first contacts with the "dark continent" in the middle 1500s, and was to be expected, given the especially ethnocentric nature of the English. The mere fact that Africans were desribed as black, was significant, as Winthrop Jordan clearly points out: "In England, perhaps more than in Southern Europe, the concept of blackness was loaded with intense meaning. Long before they found that some men were black, Englishmen found in the idea of blackness a way of expressing their most ingrained values."[2] By this Jordan means that white was attributed to the English themsleves, with its connotations of goodness and light. When these "emotionally partisan" colors are applied to people, within the dichotomy of black and white lies an implicit comparison of all that is base and evil ("black" people) with all that is whole and pure ("white" people). It is significant that at the time when Africans were discovered, the conception of ideal beauty was a complexion of rose and white. "Negroes seemed the very picture of perverse negation."[3] Further suggestive of English ethnocentrism was the factor of religion (Protestantism) as an integral part of English culture. The view of all non-Christians as heathens is inherently ethnocentric, and was held by most Christians for centuries. This was true for the English as well as the Catholics, especially during the time of Queen Elizabeth's Protestant reforms and England's struggle against Spain. Hence, this was an additional factor in the English's ethnocentrism, as Protestantism was an inseparable element of English patriotism. "Heathenism was treated not so much as a specifically religious defect , but as one manifestation of a general...failure to be English or civilized."[4] Perhaps this was one factor among many in the differential treatment of Native Americans and Africans (although English contact with the two groups occurred in quite different contexts) , for Indians were for a long time viewed by the English as heathen savages to be civilized, while Africans were always furthest from the English in terms of social distance. As Professor Wood points out, not only were they heathens, but they were black as well![5] Whatever the case, the first Africans in the colonies did not enter into a prejudicial vacuum, for the English of the Old World undoubtedly held predispositions against Africans; it is reasonable to assume that these were present in the British colonies in the New World as well. Additionally, these were not the only preconceptions the English had of the African, and not the only ones which may have served to make the African the prime candidate for eventual enslavement.

Blacks had already been associated, to some extent, with slavery well before their arrival in Virginia. However, the Handlins assert in their article "Origins of the Southern Labor System" that "...slavery...was not a response to any unique qualitites of the Negro himself. It emerged rather from the adjustment to American conditions of traditional European institutions."[6] The existence of villeinage as a "traditional European institution" of inheritable servitude has been well-documented, but the Handlins completely fail to take a crucial factor into consideration when they claim that the the first Africans in the colonies should be viewed "within the perspective of these conceptions and realities of servitude" and that Europeans "...developed incidentally the international trade in Blacks."[7] Quite to the contrary, Jordan presents evidence disputing this. Throughout the latter half of the 1500s, stories of Africans bing forced into slave labor were popularized by the Hakluyt and Purchas collection of stories; a clear connection between Africans and slave status was emerging. Indeed, by 1589, says Jordan, Richard Hakluyt referred to Africans brought to England as no more than "black slaves."[8] In addition, the Spaniards were well known for their dealings in African slaves, and although the English were not in the business of emulating Spain, the English could not help but notice Spain's association of Africans with slavery as early as the middle 1500s. Even if this were not true, the very slaves who set foot on Virginian soil in 1619 were captives of the Dutch, who seized them from aboard a Spanish ship; they were not rescued, but brought to the New World for sale to the colonists![9] Contrary to the Handlins' assertions, the link between Africans and slavery must have at least existed in the minds of the colonists, even if the question as to the exact status of Africans in the colonies remains to be answered.

There is documentary evidence that blacks were seen in a different light from their earliest moments in the colonies. Jordan says that Africans were from the very first set apart by the word Negro. Early Virginia census reports differentiated them from white men, and he says that often the personal names of the Africans were not recorded in the records, just the fact thaey were black. Obviously, distinctions were being made, and it was likely that they were not set apart because they were higher in status, but because Africans were lower.[10] But was there widespread definition in the colonies of the African as inferior to whites, and were they treated accordingly before 1660? This is a bit more difficult to ascertain.

The Handlins argue that the treatment of blacks in the colonies was the same as the treatment of white servants, and that there were no differentiations made between the two groups until the 1660s, when inequality became apparent through official legislation. They claim that "slavery had no meaning in law, that it was at most a popular description of a low form of service," and it would not be until almost half a century later that slavery would receive legal sanction.[11] The main problem with this argument is that the Handlins view law as a proactive, not a reactive force in society, something which A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. demonstrates is not altogether true. Higginbotham quotes Jordan on the importance of judicial decisions in the evaluation of history: "While statutes usually speak falsely as to actual behavior, they afford probably the best single means of ascertaining what a society thinks behavior ought to be; they sweep up the felt necessities of the day and indirectly expound the social norm of the legislators."[12] Higginbotham agrees with Jordan when he says that there is not evidence to prove conclusively whether blacks were as a group treated like white servants or not. Furthermore, Jordan states that either assertion - that blacks were definitely slaves or definitely servants - are "unfounded." There is too little evidence to be certain.[13] However, there is enough evidence to demonstrate that the treatment of blacks and whites was increasingly unequal in nature as Virginian society matured through the 1660s.

The differential treatment of blacks and whites between 1619 and the 1660s is clear in many of the first court cases involving blacks. The first legislative act involving an African in the Virginia colony was a 1639 enactment which said that "All persons except Negroes are to be provided with arms and ammunition or to be fined at the pleasure of the governor and council." Although this statute did not expressly prohibit Negroes from having firearms, it is clear that blacks were not seen fit to be provided with them by the colony.[14] In 1640, the case Re Sweat, involved a white man, Robert Sweat, who impregnated a "negro womsn servant." The decision was made that that she would be whipped at the stake, while he would do "public penance." Although the word "servant" was used, it is seems reasonable to assume that the difference in treatment was a result of the difference in the color of their skin, assuming as whipping was standard punishment for unwed mothers and fathers, which was the case at the time.[15] In the same year, in a time when fears of an alliance between black and white indentured servants were rising, court decisions began to reflect more differential sentencing, as a calculated effort to divide the servant class along racial lines.[16] The 1640 case of Emmanuel, which involved a conspiracy among one black and six white servant to flee servitude, exemplified this attempt to create division, and also indicated that black "servants" in the colonies were beginning to hold quite a different status than whites held. When the fugitives were caught, some received additions to their sentences, some were required to wear shackles for a year, and some recieved both forms of punishment. But the black man in the group, Emmanuel, was branded with an "R" in his cheek and only required to wear shackles for one year. There was no mention of additional service. Was this because he was held in higher esteem than his cohorts, who were all white and had committed the same crime? This was not likely, given the nature of the society he was in. It is much more likely that he was already a servant for life, and that a sentence of additional service would obviously make little sense in this case.[17] In Re Negro John Punch, a case which occurred the same month as Emmanuel and was also a case involving runaway servants, the condition of perpetual servitude was given as punishment and was clearly unequitable, compared to the sentences of his two white co-conspirators, which were relatively minimal additions to their previouly assigned indentures.[18] Winthrop Jordan also found evidence that many negroes were already serving life terms of servitude around this time. The 1643 inventory list of William Burdett showed that the price of Negroes was much higher than those of white servants. It is a reasonable assumption that black indentured servants were not more desired than white ones, but that they were more expensive because their terms were probably lifetime ones. In the same way, James Stone's 1648 labor records all show higher values for Negroes, and also conspicuously fail to include the length of the Negroes' terms of service. This is almost certainly because their terms of service were unlimited.[19] The Handlins explain the lack of terms of service as existing because terms were of "slight importance," for planters thought it better to hire labor than to be obligated to the servant for a long period of time.[20] However, this argument does not explain the fact that all the terms of whites were included, while all those of Negroes were omitted, and if the terms were of so little value to the master, then why record them at all? In addition, the fact that the inventory records in the same time period concur with the court decisions treating blacks as perpetually servile further discredits the Handlins' claim. The 1641 case of Re Graweere stands in stark contrast to these decisions, for it illustrated how a Negro could have real servant status. Graweere petitioned the court to allow him to buy his son's freedom from the owner of the child's mother. He was allowed to do so, and this demostrated the fact that blacks did have some legal rights, as did white indentured servants.[21] However, it was 5 years later (1646) that Francis Potts sold a black woman and her child into perpetual servitude. Also the same year, a William Whittington sold a ten-year-old girl into what was essentially slavery, as all her children were to become the property of her master as well.[22] The case of Re Graweere seems to be the last time the court acknowledged the African as having a somewhat similar status to that of white servants; it is clear that the status of blacks in the colonies had begun a swift shift in the direction of perpetual servitude at least by the early 1640s, not the 1660s, as the Handlins argue. Their argument painting the law as a defining factor in early colonial society, rather than simply a reflection of it, is full of holes.

Indeed, Africans were being associated with perpetual servitude in the colonies, as the usage of the very word "slave" indicated, beginning around the 1640s. Oscar and Mary Handlin assert that "Slavery had no meaning in law; at most it was a popular description of a low form of service." They do not see official acknowledgement of slavery as a perpetual condition of servitude until after 1660. However, slavery did indeed have meaning in the law, and additionally, its meaning was quite racialized at the time of its usage. In 1639 was a Maryland statute which said that "`all the Inhabitants of this Province being Christians (Slaves excepted) Shall have and enjoy all such rights and liberties imunnities priveledges and free customs within this Province...'" In the same year in Maryland, a law stated that "all persons being Christians (Slaves excepted)" who were above eighteen imported without indentures would serve for only four years.[23] These laws had little meaning unless they referred to a specific group of people, namely Africans, as slaves. The 1640 case of John Punch, which I mentioned above, had meaning for Jordan as the first example of explicit enslavement of Africans in any of the colonies, and Punch's lifetime term of servitude was never given to a white servant.[24] Now that it is clear why and how blacks were treated progressively differently from white servants, there leaves one issue left to address: Under what circumstances were Africans placed into a permanent slave status, and was their demise inevitable?

It was the increase in the demand for labor in the southern tobacco colonies, combined with the denigrated view of the Negro in English eyes which made Africans the perfect candidates for enslavement. A major factor in the ever-increasing growth of a demand for labor in the south was the rise of the tobacco crop, requiring labor which was cheap, plentiful, and permanent. In the Chesapeake area, there was not only an abundance of land, but a shortage of labor.[25] At the same time, there was also a decline in white immigration into the New World afer the 1660s, as well as the end of the importation of black slaves from the Carribbean. After 1690, the importation of slaves from Africa began in earnest.[26] Labor demand, in conjuntion with the devaluation of Africans as human beings throughout the 17th century made this almost inevitable: "Englishmen did possess a concept of slavery, formed by the clustering of several rough but not illogical equations. The slave was treated like a beast. Slavery was inseparable from the evil in men....Enslavement was captivity, the loser's lot in a contest of power. Slaves were infidels or heathens. On every count, Negroes qualified."[27]A. Leon Higginbotham concurs:

"Through the decisions of the colonial courts in Virginia during the first fifty years, the message became increasingly clear: the court's intent to promulgate legal doctrines was predicated on its assumption of the social standard that blacks were particularly inferior. By keeping its decisions consistent with that assumption, it made the legal sanctioning of slavery possible if not probable."[28]

The evolution of the blacks status from one of ambiguity into one of slavery was gradual and unpremeditated, even if the society was unknowingly predisposed, through economic conditions and racial attitudes, towards that direction. The Africans who stepped onto Virginian soil in 1619, as well as those who would later enslave them, had no idea what was in store for them and their people.

Handlin, O., Mary F. Handlin, "Origins of the Southern Slave System," in Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development . Stanley N. Katz, John M. Murrin, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983), 230-250

Higginbotham, A. L. In the Matter of Color: Race and the American Legal Process - The Colonial Period . (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978)

Jordan, W., "First Impressions: Libidinous Blacks," in From Different Shores . Ronald Takaki, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 43-54

Jordan, W. D., "Enslavement of Negroes in America to 1700," in Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development . Stanley N. Katz, John M. Murrin, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983), 250-289

[1]Colonial America, p. 239

[2]From Different Shores, pp. 43-44

[3]From Different Shores, pp. 44

[4]From Different Shores, pp. 47

[5]lecture, 11-3-92

[6]Colonial America, p. 231

[7]Colonial America, pp. 232-233

[8]Colonial America, pp. 262-262

[9]In the Matter of Color, p. 20

[10]Colonial America, p. 272

[11]Colonial America, pp. 234-235

[12]In the Matter of Color, pp. 7-8

[13]Colonial America, p. 272

[14]In the Matter of Color, p. 32

[15]In the Matter of Color, p. 24

[16]Colonial America, p. 244

[17]In the MAtter of Color, p. 27

[18]In the Matter of Color, p. 28

[19]Colonial America, pp. 274-275

[20]Colonial America, pp. 239-240

[21]In the Matter of Color,p. 25

[22]In the Matter of Color, p. 26

[23]Colonial America, p. 273

[24]Colonial America, p. 273

[25]Colonial America, pp. 270-271

[26]lecture, 11-3-92

[27]Colonial America, p. 260

[28]In the Matter of Color, p. 30