Runaways in seventeenth-century Antigua, West Indies

Author(s): DAVID BARRY GASPAR

Source: Boletn de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe, No. 26 (Junio de 1979), pp. 3-13
Published by: Centrum voor Studie en Documentatie van Latijns Amerika (CEDLA)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25675036
Accessed: 29-04-2017 17:33 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25675036?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Centrum voor Studie en Documentatie van Latijns Amerika (CEDLA) is collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Boletn de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Runaways in seventeenth-century Antigua, West Indies*

DAVID BARRY GASPAR

Slavery in seventeenth-century Anglo-America developed far more rapidly in

the Caribbean sugar islands than on the mainland. The islands, Richard Dunn
writes, plunged while the mainland only inched into it.1 Nevertheless, by the end
of the century slaveowners in both sets of colonies had legally defined the position
and role of the slaves, declaring what was objectionable behavior on their part and
surrounding them with various restrictions. Slave resistance of whatever form was
obviously objectionable, but the laws mostly dealt with openly subversive acts, the
most common of which was running away or marronage. This article examines the
hitherto neglected phenomenon of marronage in the small sugar island of Antigua
before 1700.2

Antigua was first settled in 1632 by Englishmen from St. Kitts. With only 108
square miles the island is the largest of the British Leeward Islands, has a very
irregular coastline, and is relatively flat, except in the hilly southwest corner where
the highest peak, Boggy Peak, rises to about 1,319 feet. These hills are the eroded
remnants of old volcanic mountains and comprise one of the island's three structural
regions. The others consist of a broad, gently undulating central plain bordered on
the leeward side by the volcanic hills and limestone uplands which rim the central
plain on the windward side.3
Tobacco was Antigua's first major crop, but sugar gradually displaced it after
1670. The last of the Leewards to switch decisively to sugar, the island experienced
the beginnings of sweeping and relatively rapid socioeconomic change during the
last two decades of the seventeenth century when men with initiative and capital set
themselves up as sugar planters and merchants, and the individualistic, predominantly
white settler society of the tobacco period gave way to one that was racially stratified
into whites and blacks and dominated by sugar and slavery. The slave population
increased slowly at first. In 1672 there were only 570, owned by a few individuals
among the 600-800 English settlers, most of whom were "very mean and lived much

* The author wishes to thank Jack P. Greene and Margaret Rouse-Jones for their helpful
comments on an earlier version of this paper.
1 Richard S. Dunn, Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West
Indies, 1624-1713 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1972), p. 226.
2 The best and most recent works on the early social and economic history of the Caribbean
sugar islands are Dunn, Sugar and Slaves, and Richard B. Sheridan, Sugar and Slavery:
An Economic History of the British West Indies, 1623-1775 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1974). See also David R. Harris, Plants, Animals, and Man in the Outer
Leeward Islands, West Indies: An Ecological Study of Antigua, Barbuda, Anguilla, Uni
versity of California Publications in Geography, 18 (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1965).
3 John Macpherson, Caribbean Lands: A Geography of the West Indies, 3rd ed. (London:
Longman, 1963), pp. 107-108.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
scattered.''' By 1678, the slave population had increased by almost 300 percent, to
2,172. Four decades later, Antigua was developing more rapidly than the other
Leewards, and the number of slaves had swollen to nearly 13,000. At the same time
the white population increased much less dramatically, from 2,308 in 1678 to 2,892
in 1708. After 1678, therefore, slaves increasingly outnumbered whites; the ratio
was about eight to one by the 1730s.4 Admittedly, the big socioeconomic changes of
the sugar revolution occured after 1700, but an atmosphere of great expectations
already prevailed during the last twenty years of the seventeenth century.
In neighboring Nevis, according to Richard Pares, the whites constituted a "small
and close-grained society, surrounded by men of another colour, liable to sudden ruin
from hurricanes, fires or French invasions, and concentrated on getting rich quick
in a trying climate and a strange landscape." He concluded that the white com
munity "must necessarily have lived on its nerves." 5 It was not very much different
in the other Leewards, and from very early on slave resistance provided a test for
the nerves of the white settlers. As early as 1639, whites in St. Kitts were much
alarmed when a band of 60 slaves, including women, revolted in the French quarter
and fled into the hills.6
Antigua's concern over slave fugitives was reflected in its slave laws, which were
largely police regulations dealing with threats to public order. Most probably in
reference to runaways a report of 1666 claimed that "at Antigua they keep strict
guard for fear of the negroes." 7 There were probably fewer than 500 slaves in the
island at the time, but significantly their activities had already given cause for alarm.
In the following years, anxiety increased as the number of slaves grew rapidly and
as many deserted into the as yet uncleared interior, particularly the southern hills,
or as they were called, the "Shekerley Mountains." 8 Reportedly, some even fled to
the Carib Indians of Dominica, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent, islands further south
along the archipelago.9
Desertion was one among the "Divers Treasonable and feilonious acts punishable

4 W. Noel Sainsbury et al., eds., Calendar of State Papers (hereafter referred to as C.S.P.),
Colonial Series, America and West Indies (London, 1862-), 1669-1674, No. 977, p. 441;
Dunn, Sugar and Slaves, pp. 117-143; C.S.P., vol. XLIII, No. 99, p. 50. For a study of
the population on the Leewards, see Robert V. Wells, The Population of the British Colonies
in America before 1776: A Survey of Census Data (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1975), pp. 207-236.
5 Richard Pares, A West India Fortune (Archon Books, 1968), p. 25.
6 James A. Williamson, The Caribbee Islands under the Proprietary Patents (London: Oxford
University Press, 1926), p. 149. St. Christopher was shared by the English and French, the
English occupying the middle area, and the French the two extremes. By the Treaty of
Utrecht of 1713, Britain gained control of the entire island.
7 C.S.P., 1661-1668, No. 1270, p. 409; No. 1274, p. 411.
8 C.S.S. Higham, The Development of the Leeward Islands under the Restoration 1660-1688:
A Study of the Foundation of the Old Colonial System (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1921), p. 176. In 1671 the governor, Sir Charles Wheler, wrote to the Council for
Foreign Plantations that Antigua could become an important sugar island, but needed
about four thousand slaves, "for by negroes only can that island be planted till it be cleared
of wood for more health for the English." C.S.P., 1669-1674, No. 680, p. 291.
9 For many years the Leeward settlers had to ward off Carib attacks. In 1676, governor Sir
William Stapleton reported that their "treacherous and barbarous murders, rapes, and
enormities discourage the planters in the Leeward Isles more than anything else." C.S.P.,
1675-1676, No. 1152, p. 502. Stapleton said there were about "1,500 Indians in St. Vincent,
Dominica, and St. Lucia, six hundred of these bowmen are negroes, some run away from
Barbadoes and elsewhere." Ibid., p. 499.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
by death" in 1669. Masters were awarded compensation after the slave's value had
been determined by two "indifferent" men. If, however, the master had consented
or was accessory to the crime, or if, knowing about it, he did not make a report
within twenty-four hours, he not only forfeited compensation but also had to face
trial himself.10 This act was not designed specifically to curb runaways, but another
bearing the same date was. To prevent slaves or indentured servants from making
their escape by sea, it obliged owners or masters of small craft to secure sails, masts,
oars, rudders and other equipment while in port and to guard larger craft carefully.
The owner or master of any craft used for an escape had to 4 make good double
damages to the owner of Such Servants Or Slaves So Escaping Or running away,
the which damages are to be recovered in the Courts Judicatory of this Island." 11
But it was not until 1680 that the legislature passed a comprehensive act concerning
runaway slaves, an act that marked a critical point in the evolution of the treatment
of runaways in Antigua.12
Perhaps for the first time, the new act offered rewards for bringing in fugitive
slaves. Whereas "severall Negroes are now Runn away and lurk in the woods to the
greate Detriment of their Owners and all the rest of the inhabitants" and "for as
much as all other Collonyes have wholesome penall Laws for Restrayneing such
Runnawayes," the preamble stated, Antigua should also have its own. The act pre
scribed immediate execution by the order of two justices for any fugitives proved to
have been absent for at least three months and compensation of owners ' out of the
Common Stocke." Any person capturing and delivering a fugitive absent for between
one and three months was entitled to a reward of six hundred pounds of sugar or
tobacco payable by the owner if the slave deserved execution. However, if the justices
sentenced the slave to death, the public paid the reward. All fugitives absent for any
period and killed in pursuit were to be paid for by the public at the fixed rate of
three thousand pounds of sugar or tobacco, while concealment of fugitives deserving
death carried a fine of five thousand pounds.

Before and after the passage of this act most fugitives absented themselves only
temporarily, a form of slave resistance which has been called petit marronage. Escape

10 Public Record Office, London, Colonial Office (hereafter CO.), 154/2, "An Act for
publique recompense to the Masters of Slaves putt to death by Law," October 28, 1669, pp.
281-282. The act was repealed thirteen years later because it had "been found by Experience
to be very prejudicial to the Interest of all the Inhabitants," of Antigua. CO., 154/3, "An
Act for repealing an Act, intituled, An Act for Publick Recompence to Masters of Slaves
put to death by Law," May 24, 1682, p. 71. Nevis passed an act similar to the Antigua
act of 1669 entitled "An act for preventing ye barbarism of negroes" (January 14, 1677),
but part of this was also later repealed, withdrawing compensation payable to masters.
CO., 154/2, "An Act for repealing one clause of the Act intituled An Act for Preventing
ye Barbarism of Negroes," March 26, 1681, pp. 83-84.
11 CO., 154/2, "An Act declaring the dutys of all Masters of Shipps or Small Vessels Tradeing
To this Island & for the Carefull Lookeing after Theire Vessells Whilst they Stay & for
the preventions of fugitive and transportation without Tickett," October 28, 1669, pp.
284-285. Montserrat had a similar act. CO., 154/2, "An Act against Small Boats, Basque
loggs and Canoes," March 19, 1672, pp. 220-221. In 1677 the Antigua legislature passed
a separate act against runaway servants that recognized that these people often encouraged
or forced slaves to leave with them. CO., 154/3, "An Act against Run-away Servants,"
July 5, 1677, pp. 327-329. The title of a similar Montserrat act was more explicit: CO.,
154/2, "An Act against freemen and Servants Runing away with theire combination with
Slaves or attempting to doe ye same," October 8, 1670, pp. 212-213.
12 CO., 154/2, "An Act for bringing in Runaway Negroes and Incouragement of such who
shall bring them in," July 9, 1680, p. 349.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
may have been prompted by a desire to avoid work, to visit friends or relatives, or
to defy the master's authority. As in other colonies, petit marronage at its most
serious "remained a personal conflict between master and slave," and slaveowners
grew to accept it as unavoidable;13 but they decided where to draw the line between
misdemeanor and felony. The 1680 fugitive slave act, for example, defined a "short"
absence as one not extending more than a month. Anything beyond that was a
felony. Potentially far more subversive to the security of the colony was grand
marronage or the desertion of slaves who had no intention of returning.
A number of these fugitives established a maroon camp in the Shekerley hills.
In 1684 the deputy governor and council called for the quick suppression of
"Severall Runn away Negroes whoe doe much Mischief in this Island they being
all ready in a great body together which may prove of Very ill Gonsequence to all."
The legislature agreed to the appointment of suitable persons to track them down,
offering bounties of five hundred pounds of muscovado sugar for any taken alive and
two hundred pounds for any killed, payable, however, not by the public but by the
owners of the fugitives captured. They also recommended that all slaveowners be
obliged to submit a list of missing slaves.14 Three years later there were maroons
still at large, however, and they were responsible for what is believed to have been
the only genuine slave insurrection in the Leewards during the seventeenth century.15
In February 1687, the legislature claimed the slaves were hatching a plot to revolt
and that many had already fled to the maroons. They appointed a four-man com
mission to "Enquire and Make due Inspection into the plott and Contrivance said
To be now on foote Amongst the Negroes on the south seid the Island or Else where
and to Cause all such Negroes as they shall finde Worthy to bee Apprehended, and
putt into safe Custody It being absolute Necessity that Severitie be used Amongst
such as shall bee found to have done noe more but to have Discoursed of ariseing
or Any thing Else Tending To such practices." Weekly reports were expected from
the commission. At the same time, the legislature also ordered Captain Carden to
lead two or three units of armed men against the maroons in the southern hills. As
incentives to these men and any others who might later be sent to relieve them, the
legislature posted a bounty of one thousand pounds of sugar for fugitives taken alive,
"then they may Keepe such Negroes until they shall bee sattisfyed the same." The
bounty for killing a fugitive was six hundred pounds of sugar. Slaveowners mean
while were instructed not to allow their slaves off the plantations on Saturdays and
Sundays except if they were on the owner's business and carried a pass. Significantly,
they were also not to allow "any Drumming or such Like Noyse" which the slaves
might use to communicate with the maroons. Owners who failed to comply with
these instructions faced court proceedings.16

13 Franklin W. Knight, The Caribbean: The Genesis of a Fragmented Nationalism (New

York: Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 69. For a discussion of the two types of marronage
in the Caribbean see, for example, Gabriel Debien, "Le marronage aux Antilles Francaises
au XVIIIe siecle," Caribbean Studies, 6, No. 3 (1966), 3-43. A considerably edited English
translation is in Richard Price, ed., Maroon Societies: Rebel Slave Communities in the
Americas (New York: Anchor Books, 1973), pp. 107-134.
14 CO., 1/50, Minutes of Council in Assembly, July 14, 1684, ff. 21-22.
15 Dunn, Sugar and Slaves, p. 259.
16 CO., 155/1, Council Minutes, February 14, 1687, f. 58. The commission included Col.
Rowland Williams, Capt. John Frye, Capt. Henry Simes, and Henry Winthrop. Rowland
Williams himself was later listed as a big slaveowner in 1693; he owned about 203 slaves.
CO., 155/2, Council Minutes, January 19, 1693. John Frye was a relatively big planter
in the parish of St. Mary, owning 70 slaves in 1688. Dunn, Sugar and Slaves, p. 142.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reports of the authorized investigations into the alleged slave plot have not been
found, but it appears that the maroons persisted in resisting and harassing the whites
and fomenting slave rebellion. A report of March 9, 1687 stated that there were
between forty and fifty fugitives in the maroon camp, some armed with guns, and
that they had sent "their Emisaries and Agents to severall Plantacons, To Excite
and stirr up the Negroes To forsake theire Masters, and to Come and Joyne with
them To the End they may Enable themselves to withstand the power of the
Christian Inhabitants and to Cutt off and Destroy them by firing the plantacons
To amuse them and withe Hurry to fall on them To Make themselves Masters of
the Con try.5' Faced with such dire possibilities, the Antigua legislature dispatched
more men to hunt down the fugitives, and also organized horse patrols for duty on
Saturday afternoons and Sundays with authority to apprehend all slaves at large
without a permit. On March 17, 1687, they learned that Captain Carden and some
of his men had attacked a maroon camp fortified with "Bull Works and Pallysadoes"
in which there were about twenty houses. Several whites were wounded during the
attack, the maroon leader killed, and another wounded. The rest of the maroons
escaped, but later another patrol caught up with them and killed several.17
These actions may have put an end to the maroon problem for the rest of the
century. Those maroons who survived either remained in the hills, keeping on the
move, or tried to return to the plantations. Henceforth, those who remained at large
must have lived precariously, always on the lookout for patrols sent to follow up
Carden's success by combing the hills aided sometimes by black guides. Those who
left the hills found that orders for their arrest had been issued. The legislature had
meanwhile also caused a number of other slaves to be taken up either for colla
borating with the fugitives or for suspected involvement in the alleged plot to revolt.
One of these was George, a Papaw slave belonging to Major Borraston. Reman
ded in custody, George was alleged to have summoned the slaves in his neighborhood
to meet on a Saturday afternoon to instate him as "governor" of the quarter where
he lived. Three witnesses later gave evidence against him. Joseph Borraston, the
major's sixteen-year-old son, testified on March 19, 1687 that about a year earlier
George had attempted to throw him into a boiling sugar copper, but that on the
advice of his mother he had never told his father. Young Borraston went on to
testify that a few days previously while he was in the boiling house, George's wife,
Bese, blocked his way. When he slapped her, George appeared and struck him in
the chest declaring that "It was not for strength hee knocked his Wife Bes." What
ever may have been his feelings towards young Borraston, George was obviously not
a submissive slave.
Another witness, Thomas Smith, aged thirty-six years, stated that around
December 28, 1686, he saw George riding on the shoulder of another slave. Upon
questioning Robin, a Papaw slave, about what this meant, Smith was told that
George had been made "a grandy Man thatt he was to bee their Govr." So Smith,
pipe in mouth, went up and asked George if this was true. He "struck my peip, out
of my mouth," said Smith, "and tould me that I might goe about my Business."
Thus provoked, Smith "took up a stick and Broake his head, in soe much yt hee
went and made his Complaint to his Master." Later, after George's head was
attended to, Smith reported "hee Told mee that by and by for mee and shaked his
fist." Smith also claimed that some months later, about the beginning of March

17 CO., 155/1, Council Minutes, March 9, 1687, f. 60; March 17, 1687, f. 61.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 1687, George had warned him that "I should not bee safe in my house but yt a
Little stick of fire would burne my house and I should bee the first yt should bee
killed."
The third witness was Richard Lynch. A man "of full Age," he testified that
sometime in 1684, while he was on his way to Rendezvous Bay on the Northeast
coast, he had cause to strike George, who drew his knife in retaliation and slashed
at him before being restrained by two other slaves. On the evidence contained in the
depositions against him, George was declared guilty "of all the outrages" and
sentenced to be "burned to ashes."
Also in custody was Governor Nathaniel Johnson's slave, Phillip, who was accused
of aiding and entertaining runaways at his house. Allegedly, he intended to join
them. The legislature ordered that "one of his legs should be Curt of, and that if
the governor should afterwards see Cause he should Cause his Toung to be cutt out
and that hee might remaine as a Living Example to ye rest." Some other slaves also
in custody were more fortunate and were discharged for lack of positive evidence
against them. A few, such as Robin belonging to Mr. John Sampson, were still kept
behind bars, but Robin himself was later pardoned for serving as guide and informer
against the maroons,18 who continued to defend themselves against all parties sent
after them.
Although the maroons' activities primarily endangered the lives and property of
whites who lived on plantations immediately bordering on the Shekerley hills, in the
eyes of the legislature, they also threatened the safety of the whole island. Fearing
the worst consequences if the number of maroons increased, the legislature continued
to send patrols into the hills and to increase surveillance of slaves on the plantations
to prevent collaboration with the fugitives. At a meeting on March 24, 1687, the
legislature agreed that all maroons should be condemned to death when captured,
"unless the Governor and Council shall upon due Examination Thinke any of them
fitt objects of Mercy." Also, all slaves who collaborated with them were declared
accomplices. White collaborators were declared enemies of the country and were to
be proceeded against as such. Finally, slaveowners were ordered to seize any fugitives
they met and hand them over to the magistrates even if such slaves were their own.19
Detailed lists of fugitives captured or killed have not been found, but there are
isolated references to captives. One female fugitive called Jacke, belonging to
Mr. Burrowes, was brought in by John Atkinson. There was also the interesting case
of another captured woman belonging to Mr. Charles Gosse. She was spared
execution because she promised to help, and the authorities made her a guide. But
one day, after returning from the hills with a patrol, she escaped back to the
maroons. For this and also for threatening to kill her master, the legislature con
demned her to death if caught.20 Beyond a reference to compensation for fugitives
killed or executed in the legislature's minutes of April 7, 1687 21 there is no further
mention of the maroons, which probably means that they had been effectively routed.
The existence of a maroon camp in the Shekerley hills of. Vntigua indicates that
the maroons were able to establish some kind of settled life, albeit for a relatively
short period of perhaps six or seven years, before the patrols caught up with them.

18 CO., 155/1, Council Minutes, March 17, 1687, f. 61; March 24, 1687, ff. 62-64.
19 CO., 155/1, Council Minutes, March 24, 1687, ff. 64-65.
20 CO., 155/1, Council Minutes, March 31, 1687.
21 CO., 155/1, Council Minutes, April 17, 1687.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
That the camp did not last much longer must be attributed largely to the inadequate
cover provided by the hills. The Antigua hill country could not be compared in
extent or ruggedness with the "extreme" environments in other New-World slave
colonies where maroon communities lasted much longer. In the Greater Antilles
such communities existed in the Cockpit Country of western Jamaica where the
limestone terrain presented an imposing spectacle of deep canyons and countless
sinkholes; along the steep slopes of the Blue Mountains in eastern Jamaica; in the
dense forests of the Sierra Maestra in eastern Cuba; and in the very rugged massifs
and cordilleras of Haiti and Santo Domingo respectively. In the Guianas and
Brazil also, the maroons took advantage of the jungles there. "To be viable," Richard
Price has observed, "maroon communities had to be almost inaccessible, and villages
were typically located in inhospitable, out-of-the-way areas," which not only made
it difficult for colonial authorities to destroy them but also taxed the resourcefulness
of the maroons themselves.22 Where geography did not provide suitable refuge for
maroons, as in some of the Lesser Antilles, petit marronage rather than grand
marronage prevailed; however, before these islands became fully developed sugar
colonies it was possible for small maroon communities or camps to exist for a few
years, as in the case of Antigua.

A list of fugitives believed to be still in the hills on March 24, 1687, shows that
their number had been reduced to twenty-seven, identified by name, owner, and
ethnic group or place of origin. Most probably compiled from owners' reports of
missing slaves, the list should not be interpreted as evidence that the fugitives lived
together as a group. While helpful in other respects, it does not indicate any pattern
of flight; nor is there any other evidence which touches on this. Indeed one of the
many questions on marronage in Antigua for which answers cannot readily be found
is whether in general the slaves ran away more often individually or in groups.
The sex and names of the fugitives in Table 1 show that the number of males
(17) was nearly twice that of females (10), but we do not know their ages or how
long they had been at large. While the sex ratio is interesting, in the absence of
supporting evidence, questions still remain about whether females fled on their own,
left with males, or were simply carried away in raids on plantations. The presence,
for example, of "Betty and her husband" is intriguing. But perhaps even more so,
for another reason, was the inclusion of the free black, John Premeer. How did he
find himself classified among fugitive slaves? Although a specific law had not yet
been passed by 1687 defining the place of free blacks in the society, custom and
opinion had most probably already limited their freedom. A decade later the slave
act of 1697 spelled out these limits, declaring for example, that "all free people (not
being white) who have not free holds of their owne, or who do not live with parents
(being freeholders) shall be obliged in thirty days after the date hereof, to choose
some master or Mistress to live with, who shall be owned by them, and with whom
they shall live, and take their Abode, to the intent, that their lives, and conversations
may be knowne And their aboade, where to be called to their respective duties." 23
It is possible that John Premeer was already "owned" by a guardian, in which case

22 jn different parts of the Americas, maroon camps were known variously as quilombos,
palenques, macombos, cumbes, ladeiras, or mambises. Price, Maroon Societies, p. 1. For
discussions of the type of physical environment in which the maroons lived, see the extracts
in ibid., and especially the introduction by Price, pp. 5-12.
CO., 8/3, "An Act for the better Governmt of Slaves," December 16, 1697.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
he was virtually a slave, and for whatever reason he must have cast his lot with the
runaways. It is also possible that Premeer had fled from justice, but there does not
seem to be any evidence that he had.
Table 1 also throws light on some of the African groups enslaved in Antigua at
this early period, showing a mixture of six Mallegasco or Magasco fugitives, four
Collomantee and Lampo, one Lampoe, three Ibbo, one Collomantee, one Papa, and
two Angola.

TABLE 1
Runaways in the Antigua Hills, March 24, 1687

Ethnic Group
or

Name Place of Origin Owner

(a) Tony, Tom, Joane Mallegascos Jona

(b) Will, Phillip ? ?
(c) Robin, Garret, Nany, Collomantee and Lampo
Sarah, Mare, One More
(d) Sarah Lampoe Lucas
(e) Will Magasco Governor
(f) Joan Ibbo Lingham
(g) Betty & her husband Collomantee & Angola ?
(h) Four Negro Men Angola ?
& One woman
(i) Sham Ibbo Bushway
(j) John Premeer A free man ?
(k) Abraham & Molly ? Belchamber
(1) Mary Papa Bramble
(m) Robin Ibbo ?
Source: Public Record Office, London, Colonial Office, 155/1, Cou
1687, f. 63.

Mallegasco or Magasco slaves came from Madagascar. Southeast Africa and

Madagascar supplied a number of slaves to the English colonies, especially between
1675 and 1690.24 Collomantees (Coromantees, Kormantyns) ? a generic term
adopted after the Dutch fort at Kormantin ? referred to natives of the Gold Coast
and hinterland in West Africa, where the largest ethnic group were the Akan (Fanti,
Ashanti).25 In time the Coromantees earned the reputation in Antigua and other
British sugar islands as good and cooperative workers, but they were also noted for

24 Philip D. Curtin, The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census (Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1969), p. 125; Elizabeth Donnan, Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave
Trade to America, 4 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1930-1935), I, pp. 93-95, 274.
25 Orlando Patterson, The Sociology of Slavery: An Analysis of the Origins, Development and
Structure of Negro Slave Society in Jamaica (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1967), p. 119;
Ivor Wilks, "The Mossi and Akan States 1500-1800," J. F. A. Ajayi and M. Growder, eds.,
History of West Africa, 2 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972-74), I, pp.
344-386.

10

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
the many rebellions they led.26 The Lampo slaves came from Allampo or Lampi,
just east of the Volta river. In the late seventeenth century, the Barbadians regarded
them as the worst of all their slaves.27 Papas or Papaws were from Dahomey or
Whydah on the Slave Coast. Writing at the end of the eighteenth century, the
Jamaican planter-historian Bryan Edwards described them as "unquestionably the
most docile and best-disposed Slaves that are imported from any part of Africa,"
taking to field labor without too much trouble. They and the Coromantees, in fact,
were the most highly regarded slaves in Antigua during the 1700s. From the Bight
of Biafra came the Ibbo or Ibo slaves, while further down the coast, from south
central Africa, came the Angolans.28
From all of these areas Antigua received slaves, some of whom fled to the hills
preferring freedom, however precarious, to enslavement. This early in the island's
history the majority of fugitives would have been Africans, among whom must have
been represented a wide range of values and perceptions related to marronage that
had been influenced both by their tribal affiliations and adaptations as slaves.
According to Richard Price, "Marronage was not a unitary phenomenon from the
point of view of the slaves, and it cannot be given a single locus along a continuum
of 'forms of resistance'." 29

During the final decade of the seventeenth century, curbing runaways continued
to be a big concern of Antiguan authorities, but there was no further mention of
maroon camps. In 1692 their attention was focused for a time on the "danger of
Negroes riseing." 30 Far more important as a source of anxiety, however, was the war
between England and France (1689-1697), and the possibility that slaves earlier
captured from the French would rebel.
"Wee may reasonably expect the Enemie Spedily to attack us," the members of
the assembly warned in 1694, and prepared to take "Some Effectuall way" to keep
"French Negroes from doing any Mischiefe upon any Attack ye French may make
on this Island." The governor and council were at first reluctant to comply, arguing
that the slaves would cause no harm if the islanders behaved like men and prevented
a French landing, but later changed their minds because some French slaves were
reportedly deserting to the enemy, most likely at Guadeloupe. The report came
originally from Captain Samuel Home who, complaining that he had lost several
such slaves, introduced a motion in the assembly: "That of late hath been Severall
plotts contrivances & Combinations of the French Negroes to run from this Island
to ye French some have made Escape others been discovered and the masters of said

26 CO., 9/20, Assembly Minutes, November 8, 1750; Bryan Edwards, The History Civil and
Commercial of the British Colonies in the West Indies, 2nd. ed., 2 vols. (London, 1793-94),
II, pp. 63-73; Monica Schuler, "Ethnic Slave Rebellions in the Caribbean and the
Guianas," Journal of Social History, 3, No. 4 (1970), 374-385; "Akan Slave Rebellions in
the British Caribbean," Savacou: A Journal of the Caribbean Artists Movement, 1, No. 1
(1970), 8-31. The Coromantees in Antigua helped spearhead an island-wide slave plot in
1736. See David Barry Gaspar, "The Antigua Slave Conspiracy of 1736; A Case Study of
the Origins of Collective Resistance," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd. series, 35 (1978),
308-323.
27 William Bosman, A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea (London: Frank
Cass and Co., 1968), pp. 326-329; Donnan, Documents, I, pp. 260 note 3, 398.
28 Edwards, History of the West Indies, II, pp. 73-78; Donnan, Documents, I, p. 398 note 26;
CO., 9/20, Assembly Minutes, November 8, 1750.
29 Price, Maroon Societies, p. 23.
30 CO., 155/2, Council Minutes, November 24, 1692, f. 10.

11

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Negroes therein concerned takeing noe notice to have them made Examples, it is
necessary that some course be taken that Examples may be made to deterr the sd.
Negroes from the like for the future." Home recommended strongly "that the
Inhabitants of this Island kee[p]ing any boats Perriagoe or Cannooe may be dblidged
to bring them under the care of the next guard whenever they have them not in
actual use or that they be stowed to peires." Home's motion was carried and the
governor and council supported the passing of a special act.31
Other runaways never left the island. Compensation claims which register their
existence throw only a glimmer of light on these slaves because the information they
give is limited to the owner's name, amount of compensation awarded, and the
slave's crime. Only four claims have been found for the 1690s and none before that,
but these small numbers may reflect unsystematic record keeping rather than very
few runaway executions. Three thousand pounds of sugar were awarded to Captain
John Roe in 1695, Alexander Cranford in 1696, and Walter Sampson in 1697, in
compensation for the execution of their runaway slaves. Dennis Macklemore got the
same compensation in 1697, but his runaway had been killed in the hills. Another
"Mounteneer Runaway Negroe" was killed by Nathaniel Sampson's overseer in 1694,
for which he got a reward of six hundred pounds of sugar.32
After many years of piecemeal legislation to control the slaves, Antigua followed
the example of Barbados (1661), Jamaica (1664), and South Carolina (1696), and
finally enacted a comprehensive slave act in 1697 which contained several regulations
aimed at runaways that reflected the lawmakers' appreciation of the problem these
slaves created.33 Enacted to be in force for only two years initially, the act was
extended for a further seven years in 1700, but in 1702 it was superseded by a new
act.34 Legislation, however, seems not to have deterred the slaves from escaping for
a combination of reasons, including lax enforcement of the laws and the slaves' own
determination to defy authority. By the 1720s, runaways again gave cause for great
anxiety, and in 1723 the legislature again passed a new slave act largely devoted to
them.Because of the expansion of the plantations and the consequent deforestation
of even the hill country, these fugitives, led by Sharper, Africa, Papa Will and Frank,
may not have established semi-permanent camps, as their seventeenth-century pre
decessors had done. Still, they took refuge in the hills, and raided neighboring
plantations for provisions and arms.35

31 CO., 155/2, Council Minutes, February 21, 1694; February 22, 1694.
32 CO., 155/2, Minutes of Council and Assembly, March 30, 1694; February 19, 1695;
March 10, 1696; December 28, 1697.
33 CO., 8/3, "An Act for the better Governmt of Slaves," December 16, 1697. Faced with a
growing problem of slave resistance, the legislature three years earlier had passed an act
governing slave trials. CO., 154/3, "An Act for the Trial of Criminal Slaves," May 10,
1694, p. 84.
31 CO., 8/3, "An Act for reinforcing Several Acts vizt. An Act for the Better Government
of Slaves and An Act for regulating the townes and harbours and Settling of Marketts in
this Island, the first Dated the Sixteenth Day of December 1697, And the other Dated the
twenty second Day of April in the said Yeare abovementioned," March 22, 1700, f. 103;
The Laws of the Island of Antigua consisting of the Acts of the Leeward Islands, 1690
1798 and Acts of Antigua 1668-1845, 4 vols. (London, 1805-46), I, Act No. 130, "An Act
for the better Government of Slaves, and Free Negroes," June 28, 1702.
35 Laws of Antigua, I, Act No. 176, "An Act for attaining several slaves now run away from
theire Master's Service, and for the better Government of Slaves," December 9, 1723. The
problem of runaways during this period is treated in David Barry Gaspar, "Bondsmen and
Rebels: Slave Resistance and Social Control in Antigua 1700-1763," unpublished ms.,
pp. 114-121.

12

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The sources on which this article is based are admittedly scanty and make it
extremely difficult to explore many questions which might be raised about runaways
and their activities, but they have yielded a picture of marronage in seventeenth
century Antigua and how the authorities dealt with it. Runaways, making use of
whatever cover was offered by the Shekerley hills, hid there and resisted attempts
to dislodge them. They founded at least one maroon camp, but after it was destroyed
in 1687, maroons were no longer so great a threat as they had been before. Yet their
challenge to established authority had left an uneasiness about the possibilities of
slave resistance. By escaping when others in the hills threatened life and property,
runaways who did not seek refuge there helped nevertheless to create the impression
that the fugitives in the hills were increasing in number and might overwhelm the
whites if not captured or killed. While marronage occurred on a much greater scale
in other parts of the Americas where geography was more favorable, under certain
conditions it could happen even on a small and relatively flat island like Antigua
where the small efforts of the fugitives obviously increased the slaveowners' an
xieties for the safety and future of investments they were making in sugar and
slavery as they transformed the island into a sugar colony.

13

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms