User:Ssha098/sandbox

= Runaway Slaves and Servants in Colonial Virginia =

Overview
Slave labour and indentured servitude were crucial to the economic functioning of Colonial Virginia. Slaves and servants, both viewed as a commodity for owners, ran away for a range of reasons, including fleeing inhumane treatment and searching for family members. The cases of runaway slaves and servants became a prominent issue for landowners in the colony. This initiated a range of legislative actions to prevent runaways, for example by restricting the movement of servants and consolidating slavery in the law through the Slave Codes. Instances of slaves escaping from their owners further increased as abolition movements grew. Punishments for captured runaway slaves and servants were severe, ranging from beatings to execution. Newspaper advertisements placed by owners seeking the return of their runaway provide further proof of the widespread occurrence of runaways and can be can be used to illustrate valuable details about the lives of slaves and servants in the colony.

Context and attitudes
The first black people arrived in the Colony of Virginia as enslaved people in 1619. Slave status evolved and became hereditary within a generation, existing as an institution for 200 years. Laws applicable in Virginia stated that children born to enslaved women would follow the status of their mothers, akin to the rules surrounding the offspring of farm animals. Being able to achieve freedom via legal measures was almost impossible, and at the mercy of the slaveholders. It also required state approval. It was a system based on fear, keeping the enslaved population under control. The concept that slaves could and would want to escape threatened this establishment.

Particularly in Virginia, the first colony, the ownership of slaves was viewed as an institution that should be praised. The law was seen as beneficial to the slave. Slaves that sought freedom by running away were criminalised and perceived as going against the beliefs and virtues that Colonial Virginia had been situated around.

Institution of slavery
Economic vitality relied upon enslaved labour, resulting in the social relevance of Virginia's slave-owning families and institutions from the 17th to the 18th centuries. Many participated in family-owned plantations, and various forms of profit were based on slave labour. Slavery was a part of the social, political and economic environment. It was a deep-rooted system, a prerequisite to the difficulty of emancipation. Abolitionist demands for immediate freedom without compensation during the 1800s were, therefore, not an attractive option to slave-owning families within Virginia. Consequently, cases of runaway slaves and indentured servitude were an omnipresent concern of white slave owners.


 * Additionally, slave-owning institutions such as education and religious structures were built upon the labour of enslaved people. It was practised by the Anglican and Presbyterian churches and universities, such as the University of Virginia. Slaves in these situations faced unique difficulties. They were hired to raise money for schools or churches, creating a living endowment and making fleeing more difficult.
 * These slaves never had a permanent home and often had many “masters”. Most slaves were hired out, experiencing endless family separation and instability. Their welfare was forgotten. Furthermore, it made white Virginians who did not directly own slaves indirect benefactors of the slave trade. In addition to slave-owning families, these institutions were vital to the economy of colonial Virginia.

Slave owning families
The Yates family was one of the community's most prominent and influential slave owners. A member of the family, Charles Yates, had a letter book that illuminates the treatment of slaves owned by such families. He was a merchant and planter, with the role of merchants being sophisticated and promoting economic development. Yates’ letters corresponded with Virginia, the Caribbean and Britain, reflecting upon the global nature of the slave trade. Such letters portray the attitudes of slave-owning families around the 18th Century.

Slaves incapable of performing acts like hard labour were deemed useless, and total compensation was expected if one was sold a slave they were dissatisfied with. Once Yates bought a slave called Harry, who could not work due to a physical ailment. He demanded to receive the payment back:

“...under these circumstances I would not have given half the sum I passed Bond for”.

Slave owners such as Yates received cargos of slaves to sell, often alongside valuable items such as wheat to increase their value. The influence of slave-owning families and the prevalence of slave-owning institutions shows enslaved peoples were a commodity in Virginia. Losing capital from a slave who could not work, or from runaway slaves, would be detrimental to business and economic success.

Policies and Legislation
Colonial Virginia can be said to have had a huge influence on the formation of political institutions and standards in early modern America, with the Virginia General Assembly becoming the first elected representative body in what would become the United States, in 1619. From this, policies and legislation pertaining to slaves and runaway slaves in particular passed in this institution are incredibly insightful in understanding the history of runaway slaves in Virginia and other colonies. Even before slavery became embedded within Virginia’s economic system, laws regarding the regulation of indentured servitude were already being passed in the assembly’s first session, such as requiring the recording of indentures to enforce labour contracts, and successive assemblies became increasingly focused on the regulation of servitude, including the enshrinement of masters’ property rights.

Slave trade and the economy
As the influence of the slave trade grew upon the Virginian economy, the implementation of various policies enshrining the legalisation of slavery and the protection of property rights for slaveowners became gradually more clear and was enabled via the political institutions of colonial Virginia. In 1661, the General Assembly first legalised the ownership of slave labour, followed in 1672 by laws which facilitated the suppression and apprehension of runaway slaves. During this period in the late 17th century, there was a marked shift from planters from using indentured servitude to slaves as a primary source of labour. As such, legislation in this period pertaining to slavery was characterised by a loosening of “how they managed their enslaved black labourers…” and a tightened restriction and regulation of the rights of those enslaved.

Slave codes
Perhaps the most significant set of policies to come through the Assembly were the Slave Codes of 1705, which marked a significant step forward in the consolidation of slavery in Virginia and the cracking down on runaway labour. Although laws had been passed previously concerning the legalisation of slavery, these codes are seen to have served as the foundation of Virginia’s slave legislation and may be interpreted as influential on other forms of slave legislation throughout colonial America. Not only did they consolidate the legislation of slaved labour via establishing new property rights for slaveholders, allowing for the legal, free trade of slaves with protections granted by courts, establishing separate courts of trial and so on — but they particularly regulated the movement of slaves and criminalised the action of leaving one’s owner by allowing for the apprehension of suspected runaways and prohibiting slaves from being armed without written permission.


 * The Virginia Slave Codes of 1705 (otherwise known as ‘An act concerning Servants and Slaves’) constructed and cemented the legal apparatus through which the action of seeking refuge as a slave or running away become a crime which was severely punishable. The Codes lay out the punishment which would be applicable to runaway slaves if caught:"“it shall and may be lawful for the county court, to order such punishment to the said slave, either by dismembering, or any other way…as they in their discretion shall think fit, for the reclaiming any such incorrigible slave, and terrifying others from the like practices….That for every slave killed, in pursuance of this act, or put to death by law, the master or owner of such slave shall be paid by the public….”"

Background
The first indentured servants of the United States arrived in the colony of Virginia in 1609. The concept of indentured servitude was not unknown to seventeenth-century Englishmen; it was embroiled in their feudal past. The Master-Apprentice relationship promoted by England's craft guilds was present throughout the middle ages. After Parliament enacted the Statute of Artificers in 1562, the system of apprenticeship was applied to almost all industrial occupations. This law outlined the policies behind the 'indenture' of apprentices or household servants. The policy of indentured servitude would become integral to the labour and immigration needs of the Colony of Virginia. During Virginia's early years, men outnumbered women three and a half to one. As a result, the colony depended almost entirely on immigration to keep their population of labourers to an acceptable standard. This need was worsened by the Colony's high death rates. Between 1607 and 1624, six thousand people immigrated to Virginia. By 1624, Virginia's population was 1,200.

Runaway servants
Indentured servants who immigrated to Virginia would be required to work for a set amount of time until the cost of their transport was paid off. The initial working conditions were extremely deprived. One observer claimed, "The hard work and scanty food, on public works kills them, and increases the discontent in which they live." Many fled to live with Native American tribes instead of continuing with their indenture. The retribution for these transgressions were harsh, including staking and burnings. An observer, remarking on the punishments endured by indentured servants, claimed that they were needed to discourage others from fleeing.

As the Colony continued to develop, so did the issue of runaway indentured servants. Additional laws were introduced to counter this issue. In March 1660, the General Assembly passed an act, titled 'English running away with negroes', that added years of service to the indentured of white servants who were caught running away with an African slave. Further, the General Assembly sought to restrict the mobility of indentured servants by legislating that no servant may own a horse of waterborne vehicle without written permission from their master. Indentured servants were also unable to leave their master's property or meet other servants without a written pass. If a servant was found without a pass, they were assumed to be a fugitive. For this reason, a forged pass was extremely valuable to runaway servants as it allowed them freedom of movement, along with the ability to acquire food and lodging on account of their master.

Captured Servants
Captured servants would be transferred from one county sheriff to another until they were returned to their master and were whipped by each sheriff along the way. This meant that the farther a servant ran, the worse their punishment would be. It was also likely that one's sentence would increase depending on how far they escaped. Runaway servant James Revel stated, "If we run away, for every hour we must serve a day... For every day a week, for every week a month". A sentence could be extended indefinitely, such as in the case of John Casor, an indentured servant who ran away from Anthony Johnson after claiming to be unjustly held as a slave instead of a servant. Casor was declared a slave for life following a civil suit in which the Northampton County court ruled in favour of Johnson.

The execution of escaped indentured servants was conducted when one had stolen a firearm as part of their escape or had tried to take refuge among Native Americans. The non-indentured were not all without sympathy for the servants and would occasionally hide runaways from their persecutors. If a Freedman was caught in this activity, they would be required to compensate the master twenty pounds for each night their servant was not returned.

Advertisements
From 1746, advertisements for runaway slaves and servants were placed by landowners in the colony's first newspaper: The Virginia Gazette. Several newspapers, all titled the Virginia Gazette, were printed in Williamsburg up till 1780 under different publishers. The advertisements in the paper describe over 3,500 runaways.

Ads were primarily placed by owners seeking the capture and return of their runaways. Although less common, ads were also placed by sheriffs and county officials requesting owners to reclaim captured runaways who were locked up in county jail.

Identity Construction
The runaway notices in the Virginia Gazette constitute a relatively small portion of the total slave and servant population, however, they provide a useful lens through which details about Virginian runaways can be perceived. The ads document both, solitary and joint escapes, including slaves and servants who ran away together.

Ads placed by owners featured a highly detailed description of the runaway, including their complexion, the clothing they took or were last seen wearing, and any scars on the runaway. Many ads described marking given to slaves and servants by their owners through punishment, such as whipping, or branding. For example, a 1768 ad describes Annas, a 'very white Mulatto'  who was branded by owner Edward Rutland with an 'E' on her right cheek and 'R' on her left.

The advertisements also document the skills runaways possessed. Skilled slaves and servants were more likely to be featured in the notices as they were viewed as valuable investments for owners. The ads demonstrate that slaves and servants in colonial Virginia were engaged in a range of vocations, including blacksmithing, carpentry, and woodworking. In particular, sailing and boat handling were common skills among Chesapeake runaways. By practising and earning a living from their trade, skilled runaways might have been able to pass as a Freeman without even leaving their colony.

In addition, owners often indicated the literacy level of the fugitive as runaways who could speak and write well could avoid detection by changing their name and forging a travel pass. An examination of runaway notices in Virginia reveals that alongside the growth of slavery, the number of literate fugitive slaves grew over time in the colony. For example, out of 33 notices published between 1740-49, only one runaway was identified as being able to read and/or write (approximately 3% literate). However, in the 1760s, 16 out of 233 runaways in the advertisements were described as literate (approximately 6.9% literate), indicating a rise of almost 4 percentage points. Further, runaways who were classed as 'Virginia born ' were more likely to speak fluent English, and therefore, were generally more likely to be socially integrated with colonial society than slaves and servants born elsewhere.

Runaway advertisements often concluded with the owners guessing the possible direction their runaway was headed. Most runaways fled towards Maryland, with some even escaping to places further north such as New Netherland and New England.

Rewards
The reward stipulated by the owner in a runaway advertisement indicated the value they placed on the slave or servant. Rewards were either presented as a discreet offer of compensation at the foot of the notice or printed in a bold headline to capture readers' attention and create alarm. By law in colonial Virginia, the capture of a runaway entitled the captor to 100 or 200 pounds of tobacco, however, owners often agreed to add up 10 pounds in Virginian currency.

Thomas Jefferson's runaway ad for Sandy
In 1769, Thomas Jefferson ran an advertisement in the Virginia Gazette for the return of Sandy, a 35-year-old Mulatto slave, who he inherited from his father, Peter Jefferson. Jefferson describes Sandy as a shoemaker, carpenter, and horse jockey who is "greatly addicted to drink, and when drunk is insolent and disorderly". Jefferson suspects that Sandy, who escaped with his shoemaking tools, will use his trade to find employment. Sandy was captured and, in 1773, subsequently sold by Jefferson to Colonel Charles Lewis for 100 pounds.