assigned to this period, since the majority of them fall chronologically within its limits, though they are scarcely more characteristic of it than they are of either of the two periods preceding. All of these laws imposed restrictions upon the actions of negro slaves in matters in which white people were restricted also, but the restrictions were embodied in special sections of the laws, because of the negro’s inability to pay a fine: the law imposing corporal punishment upon the slave, whenever it exacted payment in money or imprisonment from others.

Thus, an act forbidding the use of fireworks without the governor’s permission, states that the slave instead of being imprisoned shall be publicly whipped. Another provides that if a slave set fire to any woodlands or marshes he shall be whipped not exceeding twenty-one lashes. As far back as 1700 whipping had been made the punishment of a slave who carried weapons without his master’s permission. In 1750–1751 participation in a horse-race or shooting-match entailed first fifteen lashes, and then twenty-one, together with six days’ imprisonment for the first offense, and ten days’ imprisonment thereafter. In 1760 hunting on Indians’ lands or on other people’s lands, shooting in the city, or hunting on Sunday, were forbidden under penalty of whipping up to thirty-one lashes. In 1750–1751 the penalty for offending against the night watch in Philadelphia was made twenty-one lashes and imprisonment in the work-house for three days at hard labor; for the second offence, thirty-one lashes and six days. Sometimes it was provided that a slave might be punished as a free man, if his master would stand for him. Thus a slave offending against the regulations for wagoners was to be whipped, or fined, if his master would pay the fine.[104]

So far the slave was under the regulation of the state. He was also subject to the regulation of his owner, who, in matters concerning himself and not directly covered by laws, could enforce obedience by corporal punishment. This was sometimes administered at the public whipping-post, the master sending an order for a certain number of lashes.[105] But the slave was not given over absolutely into the master’s power. If he had to obey the laws of the state, he could also expect the protection of the state.[106] The master could not starve him, nor overwork him, nor torture him. Against these things he could appeal to the public authorities. Moreover public opinion was powerfully against them. If a master killed his slave the law dealt with him as though his victim were a white man.[107] It is not probable, to be sure, that the sentence was often carried out, but such cases did not often arise.[108]

Such was the legal status of the slave in Pennsylvania. Before 1700 it was ill defined, but probably much like that of the servant, having only the distinctive incident of perpetual service, and the developing incident of the transmission of servile condition to offspring. Gradually it became altogether different. To the slave now appertained a number of incidents of lower status. He was tried in separate courts, subject to special judges, and punished with different penalties. Admixture with white people was sternly prohibited. He was subject to restrictions upon movement, conduct, and action. He could be corrected with corporal punishment. The slave legislation of Pennsylvania involved discriminations based both upon inferior status, and what was regarded as inferior race. Nevertheless it will be shown that in most respects the punishments and restrictions imposed upon negro slaves were either similar to those imposed upon white servants, or involved discriminations based upon the inability of the slave to pay a fine, and upon the fact that mere imprisonment punished the master alone. Moreover, what harshness there was must be ascribed partly to the spirit of the times, which made harsher laws for both white men and black men. The slave code almost never comprehended any cruel or unusual punishments. As a legal as well as a social system slavery in Pennsylvania was mild.

CHAPTER III.

Social and Economic Aspects of Slavery.

The mildness of slavery in Pennsylvania impressed every observer. Acrelius said that negroes were treated better there than anywhere else in America. Peter Kalm said that compared with the condition of white servants their condition possessed equal advantages except that they were obliged to serve their whole life-time without wages. Hector St. John Crèvecœur declared that they enjoyed as much liberty as their masters, that they were in effect part of their masters’ families, and that, living thus, they considered themselves happier than many of the lower class of whites.[109] There is good reason for believing these statements, since a careful study of the sources shows that generally masters used their negroes kindly and with moderation.[110]

Living in a land of plenty the slaves were well fed and comfortably clothed. They had as good food as the white servants, says one traveller, and another says as good as their masters.[111] In 1759 the yearly cost of the food of a slave was reckoned at about twenty per cent. of his value.[112] Likewise they were well clad, their clothes being furnished by the masters. That clothes were a considerable item of expense is shown by the old household accounts and diaries. Acrelius computed the yearly cost at five per cent. of a slave’s value.[113] In the newspaper advertisements for runaways occur particularly full descriptions of their dress.[114] Almost always they have a coat or jacket, shoes, and stockings.public@vhost@g@gutenberg@html@files@44579@[email protected]#Footnote_115"