For Their Trusty Service: Slavery, Conditional Freedom, and Manumission in Colonial Boston

When Peter Butler died in 1699, he manumitted Tidy, his family’s enslaved African domestic, in his will. Her freedom, however, was neither immediate nor guaranteed. Tidy had to remain in the service of Butler’s widow and daughter for 12 years and provide faithful service to the family before being freed. Tidy’s path to manumission was not that unusual for slaves in Boston as freedom was always conditional, usually awarded for “faithful” service or trustworthiness, and bestowed by a master. In a world full of multiple forms of dependence, freedom was not guaranteed or universal, but something to be awarded by one’s social betters.

            Using notarial and probate records and placing slavery in the context of this unfree world, this study argues duty and obligation were more significant motivating factors for freedom than universal, abstract notions of human liberty and dignity. Like most other early modern Euro-American societies, contractual agreements structured most relationships in Boston. Marriage was a civil contract, apprenticeship and servitude sealed with an indenture, and slavery created by a bill of sale. These structured relations required both parties to fulfill certain obligations to one another. Only when those requirements were fulfilled did the contract expire. Slavery was especially onerous because the enslaved had no control over the agreement that required them to serve. Instead, they were completely reliant upon their master to dissolve the contract. While some slaves could be burdensome and belligerent enough to force their owners to free them, most had to meet the arbitrary conditions set by the master class to be manumitted. By examining the conditional freedom contained in Boston manumission records, we have a better understanding of how slavery and freedom functioned in an Atlantic World characterized by dependency and unfreedom.