AHC/WI: African-American kingship in New England continues after emancipation

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Among the more unusual features of New England slavery was that, on election days, the slaves would hold a parallel election and choose a colony-wide (and later statewide) leader. These elections combined features of West African elected kingship with the civic ritual of colonial America. In Massachusetts and New Hampshire, the leader held the title of king, while in Connecticut and Rhode Island, he was governor. These leaders' authority was not officially recognized, but they often had considerable unofficial power, and took responsibility for resolving disputes and punishing offenses between African-Americans.

IOTL, these parallel elections faded away as slavery did - as far as I can determine, the last "governor of the blacks" held office in Connecticut around 1820, and a Hartford essayist in 1853 considered them a curiosity of the past. What I'd like to explore here is the possibility of this institution continuing after emancipation - say, if the growing free black communities decide that they need someone to speak for them collectively in political affairs. There does seem to have been some free participation in the elections IOTL - a couple of the Connecticut governors were free or became free during their terms - so it's at least possible for them to carry over.

A possible POD might involve the 1779 emancipation petition to the New Hampshire legislature by then-king Nero Brewster and 19 other slaves. The legislature debated the petition but decided to kick the issue down the road. Suppose, though, that the petition had been submitted in 1783, after the courts of neighboring Massachusetts had held slavery unconstitutional. At that point, enough legislators might have viewed the end of slavery as inevitable to be open to a compromise, possibly in the form of gradual emancipation. If this had happened - if the elected king of New Hampshire's slaves had been the one to secure their freedom - then that might have lent his office enough prestige to keep it going.

So what would be the effect of New England having semi-official kings within the republic, somewhat like many African countries do today? The kings would have influence due to their ability to deliver black votes in the regular elections (even before the Civil War, African-Americans could vote in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and after 1842 Rhode Island), and might have de facto power comparable to a mayor or state legislator. But how would these semi-traditional kings get along with the educated African-Americans who began participating in politics in their own right during the mid-19th century? Could the institution of kingship survive to the 20th century, and what would it take for that to happen?

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

Could some sort of compromise for the end of slavery involve the creation of "Negro reservations" in these states, whether a single location or apartheid-style racially segregated neighbourhoods? If black citizens are physically separated but allowed to participate in politics, that might lead to separate communal political leadership.

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Could some sort of compromise for the end of slavery involve the creation of "Negro reservations" in these states, whether a single location or apartheid-style racially segregated neighbourhoods? If black citizens are physically separated but allowed to participate in politics, that might lead to separate communal political leadership.

That wasn't something the New Englanders ever wanted to do, possibly because African-Americans were a small enough minority not to be seen as threatening, and I doubt they'd want to segregate black people far from their jobs.

You've hit on a key issue, though - black New Englanders will only want to keep their governors and kings if there's a reason. African-Americans in Massachusetts and New Hampshire could use the state courts, petition their councilmen and assemblymen directly as constituents, own property, and work at any job. They didn't face the kind of collective legal restrictions that were common in the South, the Midwest and the Mid-Atlantic states. So if they could use the regular legal and political system, why keep their own private one?

I think they'd need either a record of success showing that they can use the political system more effectively if they speak with a common voice (which is why I mentioned the New Hampshire petition as a possible POD) or else an important issue or threat that requires them to speak as a community. Maybe if there were a movement afoot to ban them from owning land or holding certain jobs (as was the case in Connecticut), and if votes organized by the king made the difference in a close election, that could solidify the institution. But again, there doesn't seem to have been any real desire to impose such restrictions in upper New England, so I think that a positive success might have more potential as a POD.

Maybe, as a wild card, the slavery-era communal institutions could survive as a sort of early labor union, fighting for better conditions for black workers and helping the unemployed. There were other African-American civic institutions that did these things without the king, though, so a notable victory might still be necessary to have the king be the one to do them.

 

[Hawkeye]

This sounds like a really interesting PoD, unfortunately I don't know enough to add much to this conversation. Perhaps this could spread to other states? The South would likely be a no go because of previous legislation but it I could see this catch on in the northern states, might stir up controversy when freedmen are captured and taken south.

 

[TFSmith121]

Sounds like an early version of "bossism" in terms of

That wasn't something the New Englanders ever wanted to do, possibly because African-Americans were a small enough minority not to be seen as threatening, and I doubt they'd want to segregate black people far from their jobs.

You've hit on a key issue, though - black New Englanders will only want to keep their governors and kings if there's a reason. African-Americans in Massachusetts and New Hampshire could use the state courts, petition their councilmen and assemblymen directly as constituents, own property, and work at any job. They didn't face the kind of collective legal restrictions that were common in the South, the Midwest and the Mid-Atlantic states. So if they could use the regular legal and political system, why keep their own private one?

I think they'd need either a record of success showing that they can use the political system more effectively if they speak with a common voice (which is why I mentioned the New Hampshire petition as a possible POD) or else an important issue or threat that requires them to speak as a community. Maybe if there were a movement afoot to ban them from owning land or holding certain jobs (as was the case in Connecticut), and if votes organized by the king made the difference in a close election, that could solidify the institution. But again, there doesn't seem to have been any real desire to impose such restrictions in upper New England, so I think that a positive success might have more potential as a POD.

Maybe, as a wild card, the slavery-era communal institutions could survive as a sort of early labor union, fighting for better conditions for black workers and helping the unemployed. There were other African-American civic institutions that did these things without the king, though, so a notable victory might still be necessary to have the king be the one to do them.

Sounds like an early version of "bossism" in terms of ethnicity-based voting blocs (as opposed to geographic ones); even so, as you point out, the numbers are not very large...

Interesting question.

Best,

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

This sounds like a really interesting PoD, unfortunately I don't know enough to add much to this conversation. Perhaps this could spread to other states? The South would likely be a no go because of previous legislation but it I could see this catch on in the northern states, might stir up controversy when freedmen are captured and taken south.

I think it would have a hard time spreading outside New England, even to the Mid-Atlantic states. There were more slaves in the Mid-Atlantic and they were more feared - there were slave revolts in New York in the 18th century, so a statewide slave leader would probably be seen as a threat rather than someone who makes the government's job easier. Also, the Mid-Atlantic states are geographically larger, which would make the logistics of slave elections more difficult, and their civic culture was different and less participatory than New England. Connecticut might have been the limit of where this kind of institution would work.

Although... what if, after the British conquered New Amsterdam, the Dutch slave laws were preserved? Dutch law gave slaves certain personal rights including ownership of property (albeit not real estate), the right to sue, and the ability to purchase "half-slave" and then free status. Maybe if the legal system in New York gave slaves more personhood, there would be room for a "slave mayor" or king with status similar to the New England leaders. Maybe this would also lead to New York enfranchising black voters after the Revolution as the upper New England states did, rather than doing so only in 1821 with high property qualifications. That would allow the king to evolve into a political boss, and if there's any place where a political boss can entrench himself, it's New York City.

In the South, of course, any such institution would be a non-starter - a statewide slave leader was absolutely the last thing that Southern planters wanted.

Sounds like an early version of "bossism" in terms of ethnicity-based voting blocs (as opposed to geographic ones); even so, as you point out, the numbers are not very large...

They don't necessarily have to be large - even a modest number of votes can swing a close election, and any politician would like it if he could do a few favors for the boss and have hundreds of votes in the bank. Also, the African-Americans were a distinct enough community that they could form a non-geographic bloc of voters even at an early time. If the kings were still around in the 1800s, political candidates would seek their blessing - they might do so under the table, but they'd still do it.

As I mentioned above, the kings could have status similar to what traditional kings have in Nigeria today. But the trick is getting them to stick around long enough to become an established feature of New England politics.

 

[Quimporte]

If some combination of factors led to the British maintaining the Dutch slave laws for whatever reason, it could be a great way to spread the institution beyond Connecticut. It would be far back enough that you could make several little adjustments on the way, including a more successful/more timely version of Nero Brewster. Manage to retain Dutch slave laws, and the ensuing butterflies would make for a perfect POD in my eyes.

That said, I can't see the "King" title lasting for long after the Revolution, at least not if they want to be taken seriously. If the white authorities took the elected representatives of the African-Americans seriously, "king" would be seen as a dangerous pretension. They'd have to make fun of it to allow it, because power makes people assholes. C'est la vie. So they'd probably go by "governor" instead.

Now, as to it spreading to the South, there's no way the official institution would make it past the Mason-Dixie. But if there's a tradition of African-American elected officials wielding actual power in the North, it's going to inspire the slaves in the South. From what I read about Nero Brewster from the source you gave, he was well-informed of the Revolution's ideas, and the governors that followed him would be too. Once abolitionism gains steam, you can bet that the black governors would be a big part of it. They'd be invested in educating and communicating with the people yearning for freedom down South. The slaves might unofficially elect governors to help lead them to freedom. I could see them forming a backbone of the underground railroad.

Actually, if you have slaves illegally electing leaders like this, I can see them calling their leaders Kings. After all, they're not allowed to cooperate with the authorities, so why bother appeasing them?

Anyway, thanks for posting this up. I hope the conversation continues. This is a fascinating quirk of history, and I'd never seen hide nor hair of it before.

 

[Hawkeye]

I think it would have a hard time spreading outside New England, even to the Mid-Atlantic states. There were more slaves in the Mid-Atlantic and they were more feared - there were slave revolts in New York in the 18th century, so a statewide slave leader would probably be seen as a threat rather than someone who makes the government's job easier. Also, the Mid-Atlantic states are geographically larger, which would make the logistics of slave elections more difficult, and their civic culture was different and less participatory than New England. Connecticut might have been the limit of where this kind of institution would work.

You're probably right but I think a case could be made for Michigan. It was settled by Yankees and didn't have a large black population for it's early history.

 

[Quimporte]

You're probably right but I think a case could be made for Michigan. It was settled by Yankees and didn't have a large black population for it's early history.

Would black governors even arise without a significant enough population of slaves and former slaves to represent? The few blacks in Michigan may eventually decide to elect a governor in imitation of the Northeastern institutions, but I doubt they'd hold comparable political power.

I do wonder if we might see a tradition of Black Kings in Canada, especially if Britain focuses more on freeing and recruiting slaves during the Revolutionary War. If those blacks who move to Canada are inspired by the governors in their native states, they might import the practice further North.

 

[TFSmith121]

Certainly true...

They don't necessarily have to be large - even a modest number of votes can swing a close election, and any politician would like it if he could do a few favors for the boss and have hundreds of votes in the bank. Also, the African-Americans were a distinct enough community that they could form a non-geographic bloc of voters even at an early time. If the kings were still around in the 1800s, political candidates would seek their blessing - they might do so under the table, but they'd still do it.

As I mentioned above, the kings could have status similar to what traditional kings have in Nigeria today. But the trick is getting them to stick around long enough to become an established feature of New England politics.

Certainly true... not all that different from what (presumably) was a pretty standard element of politics, at least in towns and cities, at the time, except for the "title."

According to this (not the greatest, but easy to access absent a JSTOR sub) source, there were at least a few men of AA ancestry (presumably biracial) elected to public office in the US before the Civil War:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/51808

Best,

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

That said, I can't see the "King" title lasting for long after the Revolution, at least not if they want to be taken seriously. If the white authorities took the elected representatives of the African-Americans seriously, "king" would be seen as a dangerous pretension. They'd have to make fun of it to allow it, because power makes people assholes. C'est la vie. So they'd probably go by "governor" instead.

True, not to mention that the African-American leaders at the time of the Revolution were themselves informed by American civic ideals. They tended to be the slaves of powerful men, and as such were well up on the political currents of the time and were in a position to call out the hypocrisy of those principles not being applied to them. A surviving communal leadership in the 19th century might aim to be more revolutionary than anyone, and as you say, would probably prefer "governor" over anything that sounded like a title of nobility.

Once abolitionism gains steam, you can bet that the black governors would be a big part of it. They'd be invested in educating and communicating with the people yearning for freedom down South. The slaves might unofficially elect governors to help lead them to freedom. I could see them forming a backbone of the underground railroad.

Well, some of them would be. Others would be time-servers interested mainly in power. But there would be enough of the first kind that they would indeed be players in the abolition movement, especially since the black civic organizations closer to the trenches would look to them for protection and coordination. I could imagine the leader in Massachusetts, for instance, bringing together the black professionals, the churches, and even white abolitionists, and building contacts with Underground Railroad people all the way to the South. And if this method of organization is established up north, I agree that Southern slaves might adopt similar methods under the table.

Anyway, thanks for posting this up. I hope the conversation continues. This is a fascinating quirk of history, and I'd never seen hide nor hair of it before.

I had no idea either until I was in Hartford the other day and saw a monument to "five black governors" in the Ancient Burying Ground. It sometimes amazes me how much regional variation there was in American slavery, just as in everything else American.

You're probably right but I think a case could be made for Michigan. It was settled by Yankees and didn't have a large black population for it's early history.

Would black governors even arise without a significant enough population of slaves and former slaves to represent? The few blacks in Michigan may eventually decide to elect a governor in imitation of the Northeastern institutions, but I doubt they'd hold comparable political power.

Detroit had a considerable number of slaves, and slavery in Michigan lasted into the 1830s. An institution similar to the New England governors and kings could have taken root there. But the New England institutions were already fading by the time Michigan became heavily settled, so it doesn't appear that anyone was interested in carrying them over.

On the other hand, if the New England kings/governors didn't die out, then maybe Michigan would have one.

According to this (not the greatest, but easy to access absent a JSTOR sub) source, there were at least a few men of AA ancestry (presumably biracial) elected to public office in the US before the Civil War:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/51808

All three of the people mentioned were biracial, but were considered black by the standards of the time. I think there may have been others, but I don't have the sources at hand now: there were also appointed officials, such as John Rock who was a justice of the peace in Massachusetts (and who, as far as I know, wasn't biracial).

There might be conflict between the leaders of communal institutions and those who become civic officials in their own right - they would represent alternative centers of power. On the other hand, there would also be alliances, depending on how effective the local black political machine was and how much the new generation of political figures owed to it.