Chesapeake rebellion

In the early fall of 1730, a rumor spread among African slaves that George II of Great Britain had issued an order to free all baptized slaves in the American colonies. The exact source of the rumor was unknown, but it's believed to originate among slaves since colonial officials were not able to explain its origin and no such order had been issued. James Blair, the commissary of the Virginia Colony, described the cause of rebellion as following in his letter to Bishop of London, Edmund Gibson: "There was a general rumor among them that they were to be set free. And when they saw nothing of it they grew angry and saucy, and met in the night time in great numbers, and talked of rising."[2][3]

In 1724, in response to a questionnaire sent by Bishop of London on the conversion of infidels, eleven out of twenty-eight of the respondents noted that they were interested in obtaining slave conversions.[4] Despite a relatively-high portion of British-American clergymen expressed interest in bringing African slaves into the Anglican churches, baptized Africans were not treated equally in comparison to whites in even the most aggressive clergyman's parish in order to maintain the hierarchical relationship between masters and slaves. Baptized slaves believed that slavery was not compatible with Christianity, triggering rebellion.

As early as 1693 Spain offered sanctuary in La Florida to runaway British slaves who converted to Christianity.[5] However, news of this policy did not spread to British territory until the late 1730s, but still inspired many slaves from North Carolina to Boston to seek freedom in the Spanish territory.[3] Spain would keep this policy in place for as long as it held the territory, only amending it to remove any compensation to owners of runaway slaves and stipulate that fugitive slaves must serve a 4 year term of service to the local militia.[5]

The European Enlightenment led to increased religious revival in both Europe and the United States. Colonists embraced both deism and Pietism, as introduced by European migrants in the early 16th century. Religious revivalism and the Great Awakening forced colonists to rethink worship and also kindled greater interest in the conversion of slaves. Many slave owners at the time feared that a slave’s conversion to Christianity could infringe on property rights as referring to chattel slavery, and slaves themselves hoped that Christianity might lead to their freedom. However, beginning in the 1660s the Virginia legislature repeatedly passed laws that confirmed that conversion to Christianity did not change a slave’s hereditary status. [6]

Although slaves sought to gain freedom after converting to Christianity, slave-holders and colonial officials did not share the same opinion. In September 1667, the Virginia officials passed the following law to prevent baptized slaves from gaining freedom:

September 1667

Whereas some doubts have risen whether children that are slaves by birth, and by the charity and piety of their owners made partakers of the blessed sacrament of baptism, should by virtue of their baptism be made free, it is enacted and declared by this Grand Assembly, and the authority thereof, that the conferring of baptism does not alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or freedom; that diverse masters, freed from this doubt may more carefully endeavor the propagation of Christianity by permitting children, through slaves, or those of greater growth if capable, to be admitted to that sacrament.[7]

Until 1730, slave holders still hadn't learned to communicate the compatibility between slavery and Christianity to the converted slaves. Therefore, those aforementioned practices of inequality outraged baptized slaves, and they planned their insurrection on a Sunday morning in October, when the whites were attending church meetings.[4]

The rebellion was successfully suppressed in a short time period due to help from native tribes. Since early 1700s, concerns of slave insurrection let colonial officials seek help from Native Americans. Attempts were made many times with different outcomes. The Iroquois / Haudenosaunee had long been asked by colonial officials to return the fugitive blacks that they had heard were among them, but without result; the Iroquois stated many times that returning fugitives was not part of their jurisdiction.[8] On the other hand, the Cherokee agreed to the fugitive slave clause in 1730 Cherokee Treaty with British.[9]

The majority of slaves imported were between 10 to 24 years old, 14 percent were children, 30 percent were young women and 56 percent were young men. The slave population made up around 25 percent of the general population. This created an imbalance in both the age and gender demographic as older slaves were seldom sold, and the number of male to female slaves was almost 2 to 1. The annual amount of new slaves imported in a year was between 2,000 to 4,000.[6]

Upon arrival slaves were drained both mentally and physically from their trek across Africa and the Middle Passage. Planters sought to break their spirits even further by stripping them of all ties to their homeland and native culture. This was done by giving them new names, making them do the most repetitive and backbreaking work, and paying little attention to their basic needs like food, shelter, and clothing. Slaves were also often separated from their families and friends leaving them alone and isolated due to language barriers between overseers and other slaves.[6]