|
|
SLAVERY IN OXFORD
by C. Ronald Wilson.
It
must be pointed out in the very
beginning that slavery existed in Connecticut from 1637. This
slavery
was not Negro slavery, but Indian slavery. Indians taken in
the Pequot
War of 1637 were given to the colonies as slaves. In 1646 a
law was
passed by the New England Confederation which authorized the
seizure
and enslavement of Indians from native villages giving
sanctuary to
fugitives "either to serve or to be shipped out and exchanged
for
Negroes as the cause will justly bear".
Indians proved unsatisfactory as slaves,
the prime
reason being that they could disappear into a neighboring
village and
not be recaptured. Negro slavery grew from 1650 on. The
largest
slaveholder in Connecticut was a Mr. Godfrey Melbone, a
wealthy
gentleman, a graduate of Oxford and a resident of Brooklyn. He
had
between fifty and sixty slaves. There were 5,085 Negroes in
this state
according to a 1744 census.
According to the town and church records,
slavery
was not extensive in Oxford. One reason for this may have been
its
rural nature. The only place where any picture of slavery can
be drawn
from the records of Oxford is from the records of the Oxford
United
Church of Christ, Congregational.
The Congregational Church was the
establishment in
this State until 1818, and its church rules reflect the
general
attitude of the state.
Slavery was based on the Old Testament
model, and
slaves could sue their masters for freedom, and they were
"persons
under the law", both civil and religious law. Slaves could
hold
property and membership in the church. There is no record of
any
statute denying or limiting the instruction of the Negro in
New
England's early history.
The seating of Negro slaves in church in
Oxford as
well as in the rest of the colony was not so much a racial
question as
one of social strata. Each group or class possessed clearly
defined
rights and duties.
In 1738, the Connecticut Association of
Ministers
dealt with the question of slave membership in the church.
The Question:Slaves were considered a part of the family -- not members, but a part of the family unit. They held the same status as did minor children.Whether the Infant Slave of Christian Masters May Be Baptized in Their Master's Right; Provided they Suitably Promise and Engage to bring them up in the Ways of Religion?Resolved:In the Affirmative.
|
|