Slavery and Servitude

Slave Runaways in Colonial North Carolina, 1748-1775

BY MARVIN L. MICHAEL KAY AND LORIN LEE CARY^*

[Vol. 63 (1986), 1-39]

When slaves fled, “stole themselves,” they dramatically denied the powerlessness defined by their status and challenged the carefully crafted controls their masters molded to regulate the lives, labor, and destinies of human property.¹ Slaves probably frequently understood the political implications of their actions, no matter how psychologically battered or physically threatened, maltreated, or constrained they might be and no matter how different their individual reasons for flight.² Obsessive reference to runaways in colonial laws demonstrates slave owners’ profound anxiety about the problem.³

The political manifestations of running away had universal significance among New World slaves, but variations in geography, demography, and the social and psychological makeup of individual slave populations affected specific runaway patterns.⁴ A number of scholars have analyzed such factors in other mainland British colonies, but none has done so for North Carolina.⁵ This essay attempts to fill part of this gap by examining the province’s runaways for the years 1748-1775. It compares North Carolina runaways with those from neighboring Virginia and South Carolina to clarify the North Carolina story, to identify broader implications, and to buttress statistics obtained from a too limited sample. Unlike North Carolina, more substantial samples are available for bordering colonies.⁶

Slaves who ran off to or formed maroon settlements best illustrate the importance of setting as well as the political dimensions of running away. At times these slaves settled among Indians or sought the security offered by other European powers such as the Spanish in Florida. Because they were closer to both the Spanish and the Indians in Florida than were the slaves of North Carolina or Virginia, many South Carolina slaves successfully fled southward. As a result, confrontations between runaways and whites frequently occurred. Such tensions, in turn, tended to make South Carolina slaves particularly receptive to open revolt, as was the case in the Stono Rebellion of 1739.⁷ The more limited and dangerously unpredictable chances of escape to the westward and the Cherokee, on the other hand, normally constrained North Carolina’s slaves.⁸

Other distinctive opportunities for maroons in South Carolina led to further differences between slave experiences there and in colonies to the north. The economic immaturity and the relative absence of a political and legal infrastructure in the South Carolina backcountry in the 1750s and 1760s created a milieu in which whites and some blacks, a portion of them runaway slaves, lived as hunters and marginal farmers and joined together to practice social banditry. Through direct action and the establishment of legal and political institutions, the Regulators—more substantial farmers importantly tied to the norms and values of commercial agriculture and the potentialities of slavery—sought to subdue the counterculture that threatened them.⁹ Although divided by other problems during this period, North Carolina’s backcountry ordinarily was made secure against such social banditry, as was Virginia’s, by a well-organized system of county courts, militias, and constabularies.¹⁰

Yet, neither Virginia nor North Carolina was impervious to problems caused by maroons. The Great Dismal Swamp, stretching southward from Norfolk, Virginia, to Edenton in the Albemarle Sound region of North Carolina, was an ideal hideout.¹¹ Runaways deep in the watery isolation of the swamp were “perfectly safe, and with the greatest facility elude the most diligent search of their pursuers,” J. F. D. Smyth noted in 1784, and blacks had lived there “for twelve, twenty, or thirty years and upwards, subsisting... upon corn, hogs, and fowls....”¹² If by chance they were discovered, Elkanah Watson observed in 1777, “they could not be approached with safety” because of their belligerence.¹³

Regions other than those within the Great Dismal Swamp were also threatened by groups of runaways. In September, 1767, the New Hanover County court in North Carolina learned “that upwards of Twenty runaway Slaves in a body Arm’d ... are now in this County....” The court promptly ordered “that the Sheriff do immediately raise the power of the County not to be less than Thirty Men well Arm’d to go in pursuit of the said runaway slaves and that the said Sheriff be impowered to Shoot to kill and destroy all such of the said runaway Slaves as shall not Surrender themselves.”¹⁴ Since the records are silent beyond this report, it is unlikely that a confrontation took place between the runaways and the posse comitatus. Perhaps the slaves escaped or returned to South Carolina.

Still, North Carolina slaves apparently had fewer opportunities than South Carolina slaves to form maroon communities, and this situation helped to restrict the growth of conditions necessary to spark a revolt.¹⁵ But this did not deny political dimensions to running off, or prevent close interrelationships between running away and other forms of slave resistance in North Carolina, or elsewhere.

The matter may be understood even more holistically. Slaves lived organic lives in both a psychological and sociological sense, as do all human beings in touch with reality. To whatever degree they compartmentalized elements of their existence, they integrated their experiences and comprehended the intricate interrelationships that exist among institutions, roles, values, and behavior. Slaves thus interwove in complex, profound, if often hidden ways, patterns of resistance and adjustment that historians commonly view as disparate slave responses to bondage: murder, arson, sabotage, flight, truancy, as well as a sustaining religiosity and powerful marital, familial, and communal ties. Confronted by apparently identical or similar situations, some slaves resisted and others did not; some ran off and others murdered or committed suicide; and the actions of individuals could also vary dramatically over time.¹⁶

Running away, therefore, offers important insights into the psychological and social situations that impelled many slaves to resist bondage. Why, how, when, and to what destinations did slaves try to escape? Quantifying the runaways’ behavior is difficult. There are few extant records for North Carolina that shed light on these fundamental questions. Yet as this analysis will demonstrate, there are several possible explanations for such behavior.

Newspapers are the richest source of information on runaways in every colony. Unfortunately, the surviving issues of colonial North Carolina newspapers are scattered unevenly across the years, are not properly representative of the several regions in the province, and account for under 7 percent of the issues published between 1748 and 1775.¹⁷ The practices followed by masters to recapture their runaways compound the problem. First, owners living closest to where the existing newspapers were published were most likely to advertise.¹⁸ Second, owners wherever they lived tended to advertise as a last resort, except when they lived near a newspaper and thought their runaways were lurking about the neighborhood. Generally, owners first relied upon their own devices and the services of the county courts to retrieve runaways.¹⁹ Jacob Wilkinson of Wilmington typified this approach. In November, 1766, he wrote Colonel Alexander McAllister that his “Negro Fellow Jack” had run off and was probably headed for Cumberland County. Wilkinson, who had purchased Jack there, urged McAllister to “Scheame so as to have him apprehended” and promised to pay the costs involved.²⁰ For these reasons it is impossible to extrapolate from the 134 cited runaways to determine approximately how many slaves actually ran off during this period.

Data deficiencies also prevent a quantitative determination of the effects of the growing Revolutionary crisis upon runaway patterns in the colony. Since 30 percent of the runaways between 1748 and 1775 escaped during the last three years of the survey, for instance, it might be concluded that the crisis prompted slaves to run off in greater numbers. A more plausible explanation is that 37 percent of the extant North Carolina newspapers date from these same three years, 1773-1775.²¹

Whatever diachronic trends actually occurred, the paucity of available data also hinders a social and psychological description of the runaways. The most detailed information appears in formal outlaw notices for 10 runaways and in advertisements placed by masters of 61 runaways. Newspaper notices for 39 captured fugitives and 1 advertisement placed by a sheriff about an escape contain much less information but are more detailed than the brief references to 23 other runaways that appear in county court minutes, records of the colony’s Committee of Public Claims, private correspondence, an inventory, and a newspaper story.

Information most often included in these diverse sources concerns readily observable characteristics—sex, ability to speak English, and age, in that order. Masters and captors alike also noted traits such as family ties, scars, height, color, and demeanor and often commented in varying detail upon motives for flight and possible destinations. Occupations were listed when they distinguished particular runaways from others and hence served as important clues to identification.²² Occasionally, bits of detail about the runaways’ perspectives appear in these sources.

At times African origins are cited in the notices, but most often one must infer African nativity from a combination of characteristics such as scarification and the degree of facility in English. Masters noted origins other than African only when that information might lead to capture. For instance, a Virginia-raised slave might be thought to be headed for his home plantation. The origins of less than half of the runaways could be learned.²³

Despite the limitations of the data, it is likely that the resultant samples fairly accurately reflect for the years 1748 to 1775 the runaways’ actual ages, sex distribution, occupational characteristics, and geographical origins. The ages of North Carolina runaways correspond with the pattern in other colonies: they were disproportionately young adults, 20 to 35 years of age (see table 1). Forty-four (62 percent) of North Carolina’s runaways were in this age category, although this population group comprised only about 30 percent of the colony’s slave population. Slaves 36 years of age and older ran away slightly more frequently than their percentage of the population would indicate: 24 percent of the runaways and 20 percent of the colony’s slave population. At the other extreme, slaves under 20 comprised about 50 percent of the slave population but only 14 percent of North Carolina’s runaways (see Table 1).²⁴

The vast majority of slave runaways in North Carolina, 89 percent, were males. This is identical with Lathan A. Windley’s and Gerald W. Mullin’s estimates for Virginia, but Windley, Philip D. Morgan, and Daniel C. Littlefield compute percentages for males in South Carolina that range from 7 to 11 percentage points less than was the case in the two more northern provinces (see Table 2). Whatever the cause of these differences, since male preponderance among runaways is far greater than sex ratios would suggest in all the surveyed colonies, other factors must substantially explain this disparity. Indeed, South Carolina with

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

the highest sex ratios also had the lowest discrepancy between male and female runaways.²⁵

Familial considerations influenced many runaway slaves, inducing some to flee in order to join spouses, families, or prospective mates. The death of an owner or a direct sale of slaves, both of which often led to the separation of spouses or, more likely, children from parents, was significantly related to slave runaway patterns. The effects of such uprootings are suggested by the fact that over a third of the skilled slaves and 17 percent of the field-hand runaways had been owned by more than one master.²⁶

Many owners acknowledged that slaves ran off to be with mates or families.²⁷ George Moore advised readers of the Virginia Gazette, for example, that Bristol, a field hand, “is supposed to have made his way for Richmond county, in VIRGINIA, where he has three brothers, whom the subscriber sold to Col. Tayloe, one of his Majesty’s Council.” Jacob Wilkinson of New Hanover wrote a friend in Cumberland County that his field hand, Jack, whom he had recently purchased, was “undoubtedly” headed in that direction as “I was told When I bought him that he was about getting a molatto wench of Jeff Williams for a Wife....” Five other North Carolina field hands fled, their masters indicated, chiefly for family reasons. Another 17 North Carolina field hands ran off as familial groups: 3 couples, a father and son, and 2 families consisting of 4 and 5 members respectively. Presumably family reasons also played important roles in prompting their escapes.²⁸ Among field hands, therefore, at least one fifth of the slaves who ran away probably did so to maintain family relationships. Yet, this already high figure is clearly an underestimate. Given the masters’ desire to pinpoint where the runaways might be, it was logical for them simply to designate where the slaves’ previous owners lived without including information about the slaves’ families. This practice apparently explains why, in the small available sample for nonfield slaves, advertisements for 6 of these runaways (35 percent of the sample) list information about the slaves’ previous owners, while in only one instance involving a domestic, did the master imply that familial ties might have motivated flight.²⁹

The great importance of marriage and the family to slaves and the consequent large number of slaves who ran away to rejoin spouses and kin also help to explain the predominance of males among runaways. Since husbands and fathers usually were the ones separated from their families, it was they who most often ran off to be reunited with wives and kin. The converse was also true. Marital and familial obligations limited the number of female slaves who ran away. Since females most frequently remained behind with those members of slave families not sold or sent off, that which drove males to run away prevented females from doing so.

Males also ran away in greater numbers because their experiences tended to enhance their knowledge of the countryside and their social sophistication to a greater extent than was the case among females. Males probably were hired out more frequently, and only males worked on the roads and were boatmen, ferrymen, guides, porters, and teamsters. Particular job skills, especially artisanal, often made it easier for males to be hired as “free laborers” than for females who, on the average, had fewer marketable skills. Male field hands even could pass more readily as free blacks because employers were more inclined to hire them than female hands. The possibilities, therefore, either prompted or favored male runaways in what was at best an extremely risky enterprise.

While North Carolina’s small runaway sample makes suspect an analysis of the frequency distribution of various occupations among the colony’s runaways, most of the findings in this article appear plausible when comparatively analyzed with those for colonies for which larger samples have been compiled. Field hands in North Carolina ran away in numbers slightly less than their proportion of the colony’s slave population would suggest, comprising about 87 percent of the runaways and perhaps 90 percent of the slave population (see tables 3 and 4). Although some of the sex-specific details between the two colonies differ, these figures closely parallel what occurred in South Carolina where field slaves ran away in numbers about 1.5 percent less than one would predict from their proportion of the slave population (see tables 5 and 6).

Domestics ran off in North Carolina in relatively few numbers, comprising 0.8 percent of the colony’s runaways and 3.7 percent of the slave population. This ratio of about 1 to 5, however, is suspect because of the especially small sample involved. South Carolina’s statistics, obtained from a much more substantial sample, reveal that domestics ran away roughly in proportion to their percentage of the colony’s slave population. Perhaps, then, too much should not be made of the discrepancy revealed by North Carolina’s statistics.

It is essential that a sex-specific analysis be used for artisans because almost all were males, and it was preponderantly male slaves who ran off. In North Carolina male artisans fled in slightly greater numbers just under 11 percent of the male runaways) than their proportion of the male slave population (10 percent). A substantially smaller percentage ran off in South Carolina: there they totaled about 8 percent of the male runaways but 12.3 percent of the colony’s male slave population.

These findings do not substantiate Gerald W. Mullin’s arguments that acculturated slaves, especially those with skills, chose to flee slavery in disproportionately large numbers because of greater chances of escaping successfully. Moreover, it is questionable if his figures for Virginia’s artisans and domestics, equaling respectively 14.8 and 7.8 percent of the slaves who ran away during the period 1736-1801 (see table 7), actually support his contentions, for he does not estimate the two groups’ numbers in the colony’s slave population. Indeed, given Virginia’s comparative economic maturity and the fact that Mullin calculates occupational patterns for runaway male slaves only, it is quite possible that his reckonings—at least for the runaway artisans—are commensurate with their proportion of the slave population. Such a conclusion is less likely for domestics who ran off; it is doubtful that they comprised as much as 8 percent of the male slave population.

An investigation of watermen who fled slavery adds to the element of doubt. North Carolina’s statistics are again suspect because of the small sample. Since watermen were males, a sex-specific analysis is once more required, with only 1.3 percent of the colony’s slaves reckoned as watermen in contrast with 2.5 percent of its runaways. These findings, however, are similar to those for South Carolina, where watermen comprised 1.7 percent of the male slave population but 4.3 percent of the colony’s runaways (see tables 5 and 6). Despite the lack of comparative figures concerning the percentage of slaves who were watermen in Virginia, Windley’s and Mullin’s percentages for these runaways, 5.2 and 7.5 respectively, are sufficiently high to suggest that watermen there also ran off in disproportionately large numbers (see table 7).

Special characteristics prompted watermen to run away in large numbers and to do so with relative success. As with artisans and domestics, they had the advantage of being relatively acculturated, and like artisans they were able to sell their skills on the free labor market more readily than most other slaves. Even so, because of their preferred jobs and status, all three groups—watermen artisans, and domestics—had more to lose than did field slaves if they ran off. Although the skilled slaves’ very knowledge of whites added to their capacity to escape successfully, it could paradoxically raise their level of apprehension. Skilled slaves understood precisely the power of whites and whites’ willingness to use it, if pressed, without stint of violence. The special talents of watermen, their boating skills, and especially their geographical sophistication, nevertheless mitigated those inhibitions and enabled them to run off with uncommon frequency. Lastly, there is some evidence to suggest a high incidence of Africans among watermen.³⁰ Because Africans tended to run off with disproportionate frequency, the probability of watermen absconding was compounded.

Field slaves in the Carolinas, despite slender chances of success, fled in numbers only slightly less than their proportion of the slave population. Perhaps they chose to flee in such large numbers because they were less cognizant of the full scope of white power, had fewer material advantages to lose than skilled slaves, and had only limited legal alternatives to relieve harsh circumstances. But perhaps of even greater significance, a large number of field hands were Africans.

African-born slaves in the Chesapeake declined from about one third of the adult slave population in the 1750s to one tenth in the 1770s. In North Carolina during these years the proportion dropped from two thirds to one third. In South Carolina Africans constituted 45 percent of the adult slave population in the 1760s and 49.1 percent in 1775. During the years 1730-1774, Windley estimates that about 31.5 percent of Virginia’s runaways were Africans, suggesting a comparatively high propensity for flight. Mullin presents a considerably lower estimate, 11 percent, which perhaps can only partially be explained by the different time span he reviews, 1736-1801 (see table 7). North Carolina’s percentage of African runaways between 1748 and 1775, 54.1 percent, accords with the province’s larger African slave population and the relative frequency with which Africans escaped (see table 8).³¹ Although estimates for South Carolina vary somewhat with the investigator and the time span studied—40.4 percent to 68.5 percent for the period 1732-1787—the high percentages also tend to reflect the comparatively large number of Africans in the colony’s slave population and their greater propensity than creole slaves to abscond (see table 9).³²

Africans, then, despite their greater difficulties of traveling in a strange land, communicating, and passing as free, still ran off in relatively large numbers. They did so because of the especially wrenching separations and traumas they had experienced. Torn from their families, parents, and spouses, shipped to a foreign continent, treated as objects, sold to masters who could not understand them, often isolated within the slave community, they reacted predictably. If opportunities existed, they fled. When they did, they fell back on their African sense of communality and family and tended to run away in groups.

One third of the North Carolina runaways, all of them field hands, escaped in groups, and 88 percent of the group runaways whose origins are known were African.³³ The presence of so many Africans among the group runaways accounts for the fact that few of these slaves had facility in English. Among the group runaways whose linguistic abilities could be determined, half spoke some English, and fully 36 percent spoke none, while only 14 percent spoke good English (see table 10).

The experience of five Africans, possibly shipmates, who fled from Edward Batchelor of Craven County illustrates both the limits confronting such Africans and their tenacity in the face of adversity. Kakchee, Beebum, Ji, and Sambo Pool, all males, and Peg Manny, an aged female, ran off early one Sunday morning in February, 1775; none spoke English. Batchelor advertised for them the following day, an unusual step but one that produced immediate results. The five managed to travel only ten miles before being captured by William Gatling of Break Creek. But matters did not end there. Two months later two of the men, now described as Kauchee and Boohum, fled again. In the interval, William Gatling had purchased Peg Manny, perhaps with the reward money, and Batchelor thought that Kauchee and Boohum would be “lurking about” Gatling’s farm.³⁴ The runaways’ fate is not known.

The bulk of North Carolina runaways, 67.2 percent, including 11 identified as African-born field hands, fled alone (see table 10). Caesar, an Angolan, and Jack, an African of unidentified tribal origins, were more experienced with whites than the other Africans who escaped in this fashion: both had had prior owners, Caesar in South Carolina and Jack in Pennsylvania. The other Africans had been in the colony long enough to learn some English, but they undoubtedly shared with those imported more recently the distinct disadvantage of unfamiliarity with whites and their ways. Still, the Africans used their knowledge of the natural world to good advantage, if only temporarily. A Coromantee slave owned by John Dunn of Rowan County, for example, made his way to Wilmington, more than 200 miles to the southeast, before he was captured in August, 1759. Jikowife displayed similar capabilities, escaping after being captured with a “French musket” in Chowan County near Mattacomack Creek in June, 1774. Late that August he was recaptured in Hyde County, across Albemarle Sound. Quamino, the only individual runaway who clearly spoke no English, may have had more success. Only 4 feet, 10 inches tall, this dynamic thirty-year-old African with filed teeth and country marks fled in August, 1774, with “a Collar about his Neck with Two Prongs, marked P.G. [Public Gaol], and an iron on each leg.” Ten months later Henry Young of Wilmington gave up hope that Quamino would falter in his bid for freedom and placed an advertisement in the North Carolina Gazette.³⁵

Quamino, Jikowife, and the other Africans were atypical of the 90 North Carolina slaves who fled as individuals. Most were either American-born and spoke English well or had distinctive qualities or needs. In all, 16 nonfield slaves and 33 field hands handled English easily among the 101 slaves whose facility with English could be determined. Another 15 slaves, all of them field hands, spoke some English. Thus, over 70 percent of the slaves who ran off individually either spoke English well or could make themselves understood. Similarly, 64.5 percent of the individual runaways whose origins can be determined were born in the Americas.

The national origins and linguistic patterns that prevailed among runaway artisans, in turn, necessarily reflect how slave artisans were selected to pursue their trades and their subsequent special characteristics as slaves. Chosen from those who apparently were best equipped to learn and benefit from their experiences, slave craftsmen tended to be young creoles who handled English with relative skill and quite possibly often had fathers or other relatives who already were artisans.³⁶ Thus, the records reveal that even the youngest of the skilled runaways spoke English well. Eighteen-year-old George, for instance, was so proficient with the language that William Person described him as “a very artful Fellow” who would “impose upon any Person that will credit what he says,” a lesson his master must have learned firsthand. Over time the varied work experiences of such slaves, who were often hired out, and their relative freedom to move from place to place further enhanced their command of English, their knowledge of geography, and their ability to deal with whites. Along the way they sometimes picked up other skills that would facilitate escape. Thomas Boman, for instance, could “read, write, and cypher.”³⁷

Understanding whites, language skills, and the consequent capacity to deceive whites obviously enlarged the chances of nonfield slaves for successful escape. Yet, many field hands shared such qualities. Since about 75 to 85 percent of the slaves outside the Cape Fear region lived on units of less than 20 slaves during the years 1748-1775, interracial contact must have been common.³⁸ Field hands also were hired out, worked on road gangs, or acquired experience with whites as a result of a change of owners. These diverse experiences help to account for the differences in the patterns among individual and group runaways. Only 2 of the 21 field hands identifiable as American-born fled in groups, both of them children who ran off with their parents.³⁹ The other 19, all of whom spoke good English, ran off by themselves.

Why some field hands fled alone related not only to origin or facility with English but also to how they perceived their situations. As already seen, at least 7 fled to be with mates or families. Two others, both of whom spoke good English, fled after their masters died. One headed back to his home plantation and the other, a middle-aged male who had been hired out, was thought to be “lurking about.” Two young men, also believed to be “lurking about,” fled at times of peak work. Two other males went “visiting” friends or relatives.⁴⁰ Seven of the field-hand runaways, however, set out to pass for free, a goal that must have seemed easier to achieve as an individual.

This last clustering of field-hand runaways, all but one clearly American-born, was unique in several respects. Included were one Negro born in Virginia, a mustee woman, a mustee male, a full-blooded Indian male, and a woman born in New England.⁴¹ Because of their distinct backgrounds and experiences, they undoubtedly confronted the prospect of passing for free in a white-dominated world with a greater self-confidence than most field hands. Each of them had social and verbal skills similar to those of all non-field-hand runaways. Like artisans, they had a better chance of succeeding in passing for free than did the bulk of field-hand runaways. Not all eluded capture, of course, but their decision to run off and the methods they used to escape reflected a rational assessment of the risks involved balanced against their talents and needs.

Artisans normally were acculturated, but along with mariners, riverboatmen, and other skilled slaves who were not field hands, they also possessed highly salable expertise. Since their success in passing as free workers hinged upon not calling undue attention to themselves, all 16 artisan runaways as well as all the riverboatmen and sailors ran off as individuals (see table 5). Although information is not available for most runaways, many artisans and sailors made use of their special abilities by seeking sanctuary in the relative anonymity of towns and at considerable distances from their homes in order to ply their trades.⁴²

In puzzling over the question of why some slaves chose to flee enslavement, it is not surprising that some white North Carolinians, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, doubted that slaves could plot their own escapes. Edward Batchelor, a merchant in New Bern, Craven County, for instance, announced with opaque if familiar certainty that the five “newly imported” slaves who escaped from him in February, 1775, had not done so on their own. “As they are incapable of muttering a word of English, have [been] extremely well fed, and very little worked,” he observed, “it is surmised they have been invegelied away by some infamously principled Persons, of a fairer Complexion, but darker Disposition than theirs.” Robert Snow of Cape Fear lacked Batchelor’s gift with words but shared his unwillingness to attribute self-motivation to slaves. When London and Bess ran off in the fall of 1755, Snow concluded that they had been “decoyed away” by a former overseer.⁴³

However soothing such fantasies may have been to whites, slaves almost invariably determined when they would run off, under which circumstances, and what goals they would pursue. If often goaded by anger and despair, they nonetheless attempted to evaluate rationally their options and then plot the particularities of their escapes. This is not to suggest that slaves were not open to examples set by others. They were, and fleeing indentured servants and apprentices may have animated some slaves, just as the converse may be true. Several slaves fled from owners who also had runaway indentured servants. For instance, the Rowan County court in August, 1769, ordered Paul Crosby to serve former sheriff Francis Locke for four extra years after his indenture expired “for absenting himself 2 years....” Two months after Crosby’s sentencing three of Locke’s slaves also fled.⁴⁴ Perhaps the only relationship between these two escapes was the shared resentments against a disliked owner. But it would be strange if the behavior of one group did not affect that of the other. Even where such clear juxtapositions are not evident, slaves undoubtedly were well aware that servants regularly fled from their masters, that in some cases they were never captured, that others—like Crosby—managed to stay out for long periods of time, and that some who were caught fled again.⁴⁵ Servants were similarly aware of slave escapes.

Servants and slaves, therefore, acted as role models for one another, and each group affected its peers. Slave runaways by their actions compounded the burden of bondage felt by other slaves while heightening a sense of the possibility of escape. Still, slaves fled for specific reasons. Some sought freedom for its own sake. But they also fled as males or females and within the context of their occupational backgrounds and situational possibilities. Calculating their particular situations, some slaves ran off with designs to obtain more negotiable economic rewards for their labor. Newly imported Africans fled the terrible traumas of slavery, while many slaves escaped to reestablish marital and familial ties. This last, in turn, was related to slave discontent with changes of ownership. What prompted particular slaves varied, but they constantly assessed their situation and the opportunities available to them before deciding on a course of action. For the decision to flee was not an easy one. It involved considerable risk, and perhaps as often as it was spawned by a desire to rejoin families or friends, it heartrendingly demanded departure from a familiar community peopled by friends and family.

The brutality of enslavement at times could offset all other considerations. Evidence of how individual masters treated their slaves appears in a number of newspaper advertisements. Referring with equanimity to marks left by punishments, owners revealed the cruelty to which they subjected their human chattel. Samuel Johnston, noted Revolutionary leader, advertised that his field hand Frank was “branded on the left Buttock with a P,” while another master wrote that Bess was “branded in the breast.” In such cases the assumption that this information would be useful in identifying the runaways is a revealing commentary on a system designed to strip blacks of personal dignity.⁴⁶ Nor did highly prized skilled slaves, for whom larger rewards were tendered, escape such cruelties. Riverboatman Frank’s back had “frequently undergone the Discipline of the Whip,” as his wealthy master Richard Quince observed.⁴⁷

It is nonetheless not clear in each case that punishment prompted flight. Any number of additional reasons could spark running away, which no amount of punishment could deter. Field hand Frank was an “old Offender and a great thief,” who presumably had fled before. Charles’s master specified that the brands on his cheeks “were fresh given him by the Person of whom I bought him, and not cured when he left me,” raising the possibility that Charles was not only “incorrigable” but that he also fled because of a desire to return “home” to relatives and friends—however brutal his past master.⁴⁸

Bondage also produced psychological scars. Behind the decision to flee, indeed, there sometimes lay a festering frustration born of an acute sense of self-worth and knowledge of the inherent limits of slavery. None of the riverboatmen displayed behavioral traits such as stuttering that could be interpreted as outward signs of such turmoil, but Thomas Boman, a blacksmith, was “slow of Speech” and Rob, a cooper, had a “flaw of speech, as if he had an impediment....”⁴⁹ It is possible, of course, that these “flaws” stemmed from physiological rather than psychological reasons. Other runaways, in any case, both field hands and artisans, bore expressions such as “an ill look,” which could indicate buried hostility.⁵⁰ Ned, a “good sawyer and hewer, and part of a carpenter” with a “very good sense,” retained a “bold look” even after repeated brandings before he fled from James Barnes of Halifax County in April, 1768.⁵¹

Whatever inner conflicts existed, slaves often tried to conceal their animosities. Outward appearance and behavior could be deceptive. As numerous masters learned all too well, slaves could hide their innermost thoughts behind deferential, dissembling, even stuttering masks. The “Negro Wench” Joan, for instance, had “a smiling Countenance” “outlandish” Jack “a pleasant countenance,” and a slave who called himself Tom Buck “an uncommon flippant Tongue, full of Complement.”⁵² All were runaways.

The timing of departure is further evidence of how slaves rationally assessed their opportunities as runaways and often carefully planned their escapes. Masters did not always specify when their slaves had absconded. Indeed, slave owners generally took their time placing notices. But some observations can be drawn from the pattern evident for 58 slaves for whom escape dates were given (see table 11). The most popular periods for running away were the harvesting season of September to November, when 23 slaves (or 40 percent of the 58) fled, followed by February-April, the months during which the slack season ended and spring planting began. Seventeen slaves, or 29 percent, ran off at this time. Another 15 fled during the four months of May to August, and only 3 ran during the winter months of December and January. No significant variation in the timing of escape set nonfield runaways apart from field hands who fled. Most North Carolina runaways thus timed their departures to avoid both work and bad weather. This pattern, however, differs somewhat from the timing of flight among both Virginia and South Carolina runaways (see tables 11 and 12).⁵³

What runaways wore and took with them not only hinted at prior planning, but it also reflected the varying conditions of slaves. Typically, skilled runaways were better clothed and equipped than other runaways. Blacksmith Thomas Boman, however, was unusual even among skilled slaves. He carried away with him “about fifty or sixty Pounds in Cash, and a grey Roan horse, Bridle and Saddle, a Pair of Money-Scales and Weights, and one Pair of Sheets, three Coats, one a Broad-Cloth or Sarge, one a Bear-Skin Cape Coat, of a grey Colour, one a Home-spun Coat, a Blue Jacket, and a great many other Cloaths....”⁵⁴

Some field hands, including Africans, wore more than the stock issue, dressed in finery, or carried extra clothing with them to guard against inclement weather and to disguise themselves.⁵⁵ Usually, however, field hands fled wearing only the seasonal issue of clothing. Thus, Will wore “Negro Cottens” when he ran off in the spring, whereas Peter and Abraham, who fled in November, wore woolen jackets and trousers and osnaburg shirts. Most recent immigrants had the least clothing of all. This lack of clothing could mean that they discarded what they regarded as cumbersome garments, that they had not had time to accumulate clothes, or that their owners provided a minimal amount of clothing to them, perhaps in the belief that it would hinder their escape. Two Africans captured in Craven County in July, 1767, wore “nothing ... but an old Negro cloth jacket, and a blue sailors jacket without sleeves,” and four other Africans each had nothing on but a “striped Dutch blanket” when captured in October, 1769.⁵⁶

Whether they took little or considerable clothing, North Carolina runaways usually traveled sparely. Quantities of goods would have attracted too much attention. Jemmy, an Ibo, and Jikowife, an African whose tribal origin is not indicated, were atypical: both fled with guns.⁵⁷ Wishing not to appear too unusual and lacking access to other forms of transportation, the overwhelming majority of runaways fled on foot. Only two slaves rode off on stolen horses, and apparently two Africans were the only ones who escaped by canoe.⁵⁸ Many runaways, whatever their occupation or origin, used the waterways as escape routes and as means of sustenance. Sambo, who fled from a Moravian owner in Wachovia and “had wandered for several weeks in the wilderness along the Catawba River,” for instance, “had suffered much from hunger” and was “willingly taken and brought back here.” At least twelve other runaways were captured or sought to escape captors near rivers, lakes, or other bodies of water. Sam displayed considerably less willingness than Sambo when he was captured in Craven County; while being taken back to his Johnston County master he “broke out of Custody ... near the South-West Bridge.”⁵⁹

The determination of slaves is also apparent when one considers their destinations. Thirty-six of the 100 runaways who were captured or for whom a destination was given tried to or did escape from the province. Included were 29 field hands and 7 nonfield slaves.⁶⁰ Whatever their exact purposes may have been, collectively these 36 runaways shared many characteristics. Fifteen can be identified as American-born, and they as well as 8 other slaves spoke fluent English. The one identifiable African in this group had had two previous masters in South Carolina, and a West Indian-born slave had been owned in New York. Eleven of the 36 runaways who fled the colony left in groups, and all of them were captured—a family of 4 in South Carolina, a family of 5 in Williamsburg, and 2 males in Middlesex, Virginia.⁶¹ In all, 163 of these runaways, or 46 percent of the 36, were actually captured outside of North Carolina.

The 64 runaways known to have remained in North Carolina stayed for various reasons and displayed no less resolution than those who actually crossed into neighboring colonies. Twelve were thought to be headed for or were actually captured in locations outside, and sometimes at quite a distance from, their home counties. Another 22 slaves were apprehended in North Carolina, their home counties unknown. Finally, 10 of the 64 were thought to be “lurking about” their home plantations or seeking to get to other places within the same county. Whether they lived as outliers or were harbored by relatives and friends, those who stayed close by risked more than recapture. They might also be declared outlaws, which subjected them to possible summary execution. Eleven of the 18 runaways caught in their home counties were killed or committed suicide.⁶²

While place of capture is not proof of where runaways intended to go, the 64 slaves who remained in North Carolina differed sharply from the 36 runaways who escaped from the province. All but 2 were field hands, and 17, all Africans, fled in groups. The others—including 7 Africans and 4 American-born slaves, 2 of them artisans—fled alone. Only 4 others, besides the American-born, spoke English well. Twelve spoke some English, and 14 could not speak it at all. Neither the origin nor the facility with English of the remaining slaves could be determined.

In all, 61 field hands and 3 artisans were captured or killed, 48 percent of the 134 North Carolina runaways. Twenty-four of the 33 African-born runaways, or 73 percent, were among those who failed in their bid for freedom. Among the 40 captured or killed field hands whose ability to speak English could be determined, only 5, or 9 percent, spoke it well. That Africans and those who spoke little or no English stood a poor chance of escaping is hardly surprising. Those slaves who could manipulate the language and their environment and most readily market their skills stood the best chance of eluding captors.⁶³

Slaves in the Americas who ran off, as masters and slaves alike knew, seriously threatened the authority of slave owners and the order necessary for a smooth-functioning and productive labor system. Flight from bondage thus necessarily had significant political implications, which were most evident when slaves joined or formed maroon settlements.

The ability of slaves to flee to maroon communities, however, varied with each region’s particular geographic, political, economic, and demographic circumstances. Slaves in North Carolina and Virginia had fewer opportunities than did South Carolina’s slaves to establish maroon settlements because they were a minority of each colony’s population, were less concentrated on large plantations than slaves in South Carolina, lacked an outlet for escape commensurate with that of Florida, and had county governments organized in their provinces’ western regions. Thus, despite frequent escapes to the fastness of the Great Dismal Swamp, North Carolina’s and Virginia’s slaves, unlike those in South Carolina, did not foment significant eighteenth-century colonial rebellions or seriously become involved in social banditry.

Ecology also helped shape other slave runaway patterns. Males, for instance, heavily predominated among slaves who ran away in all three colonies and probably for similar reasons. Their training prepared them better than female slaves to run off successfully. And since males most frequently were separated from mates or families, it was they who normally escaped to rejoin wives and relatives. Conversely, familial ties and obligations frequently prevented females from absconding. Sex ratios perhaps played some role in explaining this phenomenon; although in South Carolina where sex ratios were highest, males made up a smaller percentage of the runaways, between 78 and 82, than in either North Carolina and Virginia, where 89 percent of the slave runaways were males.

Occupational patterns among runaways in the three colonies, if perhaps less predictable than those concerning gender, do not sustain the argument that acculturated slaves, especially those with marketable skills, ran off in disproportionately large numbers because their chances of escape were greater than those for other slaves. Except in the case of watermen in each of the colonies and domestics in Virginia, skilled slaves in the Carolinas and Virginia did not escape in disproportionately large numbers. Despite their acculturation, marketable skills, and greater capacity to deal with whites, such slaves were inhibited from running off by their relative well-being and their detailed comprehension of the white power apparatus. Nevertheless, the special characteristics of watermen—their boating and geographical skills and the comparatively large proportion of Africans in this occupation—enabled them, more than either artisans or domestics, to transcend the fears and inhibitions all three groups shared.

The large number of field slaves who absconded casts further doubt upon an analysis of occupational patterns among runaway slaves that simply stresses the greater proclivity of acculturated and skilled slaves to flee because they more readily could make good their escape. Field hands, at least in North and South Carolina, fled in numbers that were only slightly less than their respective proportions of each colony’s total slave population. Despite overwhelming odds against successful escape, field hands were often emboldened to run off because of oppressive conditions aggravated by a comparative lack of lawful means to rectify problems and consequent desperation or heightened frustrations. Moreover, the large number of field hands who were Africans exacerbated the situation, for Africans tended to run off more frequently than did American-born slaves.

Africans, despite the most limited chances of success, fled in disproportionately large numbers in the Carolinas and probably in Virginia because of the special problems that beset them as an uprooted folk. The shock of being enslaved, instead of immobilizing them, spurred many to escape or to resist in other ways. And given their keen sense of communality and desperate need for family and friends to sustain them in the trials of escape, they frequently ran off in groups.

Another major theme in this story is that slaves, in spite of fears, frustrations, or desperation, rationally sensed their situational possibilities and planned their escapes accordingly. Skilled slaves in North Carolina, for instance, fled with the most ample stock of clothes and Africans with the least. Within these two extremes, which were obvious manifestations of the varying conditions of slaves, field hands usually escaped with only the seasonal issue of clothing. The province’s slaves, to avoid attracting too much attention, ordinarily took little besides clothing and fled on foot, although waterways often served as effective escape routes.

Records do not reveal the statistical relationship between ill treatment and runaway patterns. Undoubtedly, if some slaves were deterred from running off by maltreatment or the threat of harsh reprisals, others were impelled to leave by the same conditions. Slaves shrewdly chose the most opportune times for flight. They ran off during the seasons when work was hardest and the weather most propitious. In so doing, the skilled and acculturated, more frequently than other runaways in North Carolina, covered long distances, many attempting to leave the colony.

Though their chances of success remained dubious, all slaves ran off seeking to protect what was sacred or inviolable. The fact that they often ended up captured, whipped, tortured, or dead only sadly testifies to the strength of their dreams and the indomitableness of their wills.

Footnotes