1. Nathaniel Bradford of Accomack County, Virginia - Lower ...

In 17 th century Virginia slavery was not the primary system of labor used in the southern colonies. Though
introduced early in Virginia’s history, slavery did not begin to have the permanence of an institution guided
by its own laws and special justifications until around 1662, when a Virginia law assumed that Africans
would remain servants for life. 217 In the years thereafter the importation of Africans increased greatly. 218
But for most of Nathaniel’s life, slavery had not yet replaced indentured servitude as Virginia’s dominant
system of labor and the percentage of Africans in the labor pool was small compared to what it would
become. 219 For a brief time in the beginning there was also room for ambiguity in the relations between the
Africans and the English, since the entire society was accustomed to varying levels of servitude, white or
black. After the expiration of their indentures or upon gaining their freedom, a handful of Africans even
ended up adopting the Virginia planter lifestyle, themselves becoming owners of servants and slaves. 220
However, the overwhelming majority of Africans in Virginia ended up becoming the permanent property of
Englishmen and by the early 1700s in the public mind a hard distinction had developed between African
slaves and European servants. 221
One record pertaining to Nathaniel Bradford sheds light on the business of the slave trade in 17 th century
Virginia. In 1676, Nathaniel was sued by Matthew Scarburgh over a verbal bargain the two of them had
struck for a black woman. Perhaps the deal had gone badly for Nathaniel and he was attempting to get out
of it since it had not been in writing. But William Nock had witnessed the bargain and was called upon to
describe it for the court, whereupon a jury found for Scarburgh and ordered Nathaniel to pay the full
amount discussed in the bargain:
Deposition of Wm. Nock aged about 32 years: About last March 10, Nock was at the house of
Nath. Bradford with Mathew Scarburough when he was asked to witness a bargain between them
concerning a Negro woman for whom Bradford was to give Scarburough 3000 lbs of tobacco –
half this year and half the next. If three hogsheads would not equal 1500 lbs this year, then
Bradford would make it up the next. Scarburgh was to give Bradford a bond saving him from
anyone in England or Barbados that might lay claim to the woman. Except for her baptism and the
laws of the county, Bradford was to have no security; Scarburgh was to give Bradford “an
assignment for five years and ever after if he could keep her.” Signed by Wm. Nock, in open court
20 April 1676, before Jno. Washbourne. 222
This record illustrates the sheer ordinariness with which human lives were bargained over in the same way
one bargained over livestock. This was normal in colonial Virginia with respect to white servants as well,
with the important difference that for an African it was not a term of years but an entire lifetime for which
they could be sold. Even the longest-bound of white servants were allowed their freedom at some point in
their lives, assuming a variety of obligations had been fulfilled. The most extreme cases of prolonged white
servitude were the bastard children of servants – these children essentially became the property of the
mother’s master, and did not gain their freedom until they reached the age of 21. 223 In that respect the legal
status of a white bastard was not appreciably different from a bastard of mixed race, provided the mother
was white. Other white servants were sometimes forced to remain in servitude for longer than their original
contract due to a variety of reasons – e.g., as penalties for attempted escapes, because their master or
mistress paid a fine for them, or due to other indebtedness– but even these men and women only had their
independence postponed. For African slaves there was no hope of independence except through escape or
by the whim of their owner.
* * * * *
Henry Bradford
In 1676, Nathaniel’s servant John Reeves petitioned for his freedom. Nathaniel had purchased Reeves as an
indentured servant from a Henry Bradford, and in a deposition before the court on 18 July 1676 Joseph
Thorne related that, while at the house of Robt. Hutchinson on 25 March of that year, he heard Henry
Bradford say to Reeves: “[I] brought [you] in for the term of four years and no more and had sold [you] but
for four years and no longer should serve, and if Nath. Bradford had an assignment from [me] for any
longer time, [I] will give him his ear.” 224
Nathaniel, who claimed another year of service from Reeves, was instead forced to let him go, paying him
600 lbs tobacco for extra time served as well as the bushel of corn and suit of clothes customarily given to
servants upon the expiration of their indenture. 225 Apart from the details it contains, this record is also
Page 39 of 74 Copyright 2008 Adam M. Bradford