THE GREAT NEW YORK CONSPIRACY OF 1741: SLAVERY, CRIME
AND COLONIAL LAW, by Peter Charles Hoffer. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas
Press, 2003. 190 pages. Cloth: $29.95, ISBN: 0-7006-1244-9; Paper,
$14.95, ISBN: 0 7006 1246-7.
Reviewed by Lawrence M. Friedman, Stanford Law School, Stanford University, Stanford California. E-mail: lmf@stanford.edu
Peter Charles Hoffer is one of the very best historians of colonial American
law. He is also the editor,
together with his wife, Natalie Hull (another first-rate legal historian),
of an extremely useful series of short books, published by the University
of Kansas Press, Landmark
Law Cases and American Society. Some of these have been books about famous
Supreme Court issues and cases, cases that reached the highest levels of
the judicial pyramid—the BAKKE
case; LOCHNER v. NEW YORK; the flag-burning controversy. But Professor Hoffer, himself, contributed
a fine book on the Salem witchcraft trials; and now author Hoffer has added
another book to the series put together by editor Hoffer. This time it is a study of a series of
trials in New York City in 1741, arising out of a supposed conspiracy of
New York City slaves.
The main object of the book, of course, is to tell the
tale of the trials, and perhaps of the conspiracy (real or imagined) that
lay behind them. But the book,
short as it is, does a lot more. It
contains a brief but excellent discussion of criminal procedure in colonial
New York. It also contains a concise, illuminating
account of the early years of slavery, and about how the courts of New York
dealt with slaves who came before them. When we think of slavery, we think (not unnaturally) of the
southern states, and particularly of the period between the Revolution and
the Civil War. It is easy to
forget that during the colonial period, there was slavery in every single
colony. In some northern colonies, New York for
example, there were considerable numbers of slaves. In 1731, according to Hoffer, almost 1,600 slaves lived in
New York City and Long Island, and blacks made up about 18% of the city's population (p.44). To be sure, slavery did not play
so vital a role in the north as in the south; in New York City, Hoffer points
out, most masters only owned one or two slaves, and these slaves labored
in workshops or as domestic servants rather than in gangs on plantations. The northern states quite generally abolished
slavery after the Revolution; and it is from that point on that a truly
sharp divide opened between slave states and free states—a divide
that widened, of course, until the country split in two.
New York City in the 18th century was a crowded and unsanitary
place. Fires were frequent
and very much to be feared.
Slave uprisings were also an object of dread. A slave rebellion took place in 1712, beginning with some slaves
setting barns and outhouses afire at the edge of town. Neighbors and townspeople came to fight
the fire, whereupon slaves killed some twenty of them. The rebellion was soon put down, and 18
slaves were executed (pp.47-48). But
the memory never faded. In
1741, consequently, when a fire broke out at Fort George, followed by a
series of other suspicious fires, the idea quickly took hold that the city
was facing another hellish conspiracy.
Shortly before the fire, a group of whites and blacks,
who hung out at a tavern owned by one John Hughson, had been suspected of
a cluster of robberies and burglaries.
The authorities began to investigate.
A 16 year-old girl who worked for the tavern-keeper testified about
a mysterious conspiracy; then the fires broke out, and the worst fears seemed
to be confirmed. This was not
merely burglary and theft! The
gang must have more sinister aims.
Accusations, confessions, executions followed in rapid order; the
whole matter escalated wildly, in some ways spiraling out of control. The public was convinced of a deadly conspiracy:
a conspiracy of slaves and some depraved white people to pillage,
murder and burn. In the end, more than seventy slaves,
in addition to some white confederates, were convicted of terrible crimes. Some were hanged; others were burned at
the stake. In the course of
the trials, some of the accused confessed, threw themselves on the mercy
of the court, and begged for their lives.
Their only hope was cooperation, and cooperation consisted of implicating
other people. The city was
in a kind of paranoid fury, not at all unlike the Salem witchcraft episode.
The series of trials thus had a snowball effect, and as more and
more people were accused, it seemed obvious that the conspiracy was deeper,
more dangerous, and more widespread than the public previously imagined.
This is a powerful narrative, powerfully told. I have only one minor bone to pick.
The narrative is strong and convincing; and the work is careful and
balanced in its treatment of the sources (which leave a lot to be desired).
At the end of the book, however, I found Hoffer's treatment a shade
too balanced. One question
haunted me during my reading: was there actually a slave conspiracy in New York City? How many of the defendants were
guilty of taking part in a murderous conspiracy? How many were guilty of anything? Some of the defendants were surely low-lifes, thieves, and
the like. But beyond that? Nobody today would argue that the women
who died in the Salem hysteria were actually witches, who had sold their
souls to the devil. I had the
impression, on reading Hoffer's
book, that most of the confessions in New York in 1741 were coerced, or
were somebody's desperate attempt to
save his or her neck from the gallows. One accused slave, for example, Bastian
Varick, could hardly contain himself
in his eagerness to reveal what he had previously concealed. Confessing
and accusing others had
replaced stubborn silence as the slaves'
common posture. Varick described a dastardly plot to take
over the city. For his valuable
service in naming names, he received a pardon (and was sold out of the state,
to Hispaniola) (p.110).
One can only imagine what a shrewd defense lawyer today
would do to the sort of testimony Varick gave; it would probably be child's play to rip it to shreds. But there was no such opportunity in the
18th century, and the climate of opinion in any event would not have allowed
it. Was Varick lying to save
his neck? Possibly B maybe probably. Reading this book, I had the distinct
feeling B maybe suspicion
would be a better word B
that, in reality, there was no conspiracy at all. It was all hype and paranoia. I would love to know whether Professor Hoffer, who has immersed
himself so deeply in the sources, in the period, in the material, would
agree with this assessment. But
on this particular point he is somewhat coy and reserved.
No matter. This
is a fine piece of scholarship, a fine addition to the Kansas series, and
a fine contribution to American legal history. It would also be useful reading for social scientists and others
concerned with what we might call social epidemics. The Salem witchcraft trials are among
the most famous examples, but, as this book clearly shows, it was in some
ways no aberration. The Great New York Conspiracy of 1741" may be
another example of the same kind of mass hysteria.
CASE REFERENCES:
LOCHNER v. NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
************************************************************************
Copyright 2003 by the author, Lawrence M. Friedman.