CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Nassau, Bahamas, November 9, 1841.
Personally appeared before me, John. F. Bacon, consul of the United States of America at Nassau, Bahamas, William H. Merritt, who, being sworn, deposeth and saith: That he was a passenger on board the brig Creole, which sailed from Hampton roads on the 27th October, 1841, bound to New Orleans.1 That he had no interest in the vessel or cargo, but in consideration of his attending to the slaves during the passage, he was to be charged nothing for his passage. That, on Sunday evening, November 7th, about 9 o’clock, was called by Mr. Gifford, the chief mate2; that, on going to the cabin door, Mr. Gifford stated there was a man in the mainhold with the females. Deponent went to the grate of the hatch, where he remained until Mr. Gifford got the lamp and matches; then had the grate taken off; entered the hold, and struck the light, and discovered that the person was Madison Washington, who was head cook of the slaves, and said to him: “Doctor, you are the last person I should expect to find here, and that would disobey the orders of the ship;” to which he only replied, “Yes, sir.” He then got out of the hold, deponent trying to prevent him by laying hold of his leg, but having the lamp in one hand, could not hold him. After getting on deck, he ran forward and called for his men to assist him. Deponent blew out the light, and attempted to get to the cabin; but as soon as he got on deck was attacked by one of the slaves, and held by the shoulder, while another came up with a piece of wood, with two or three more following, who said, “That is he, kill him, by God;” which the one that had the piece of wood attempted to do, but hit the one that held deponent, on the head, on which he made his escape and retreated to the cabin; also heard the report of a gun or pistol forward. Does not know whether the mate had previously been to the cabin. Saw the captain go on deck. Saw Mr. Hewell3 come out of his state-room with a musket, and go to the cabin door, and forbid the slaves from coming down, at the same time trying to prevent them with the musket, which had no bayonet on it. The slaves attempted to force their way, and hove a handspike into the cabin, on which, Mr. Hewell fired off the gun to intimidate them, as he thinks there was nothing but powder in it; thinks no one was hurt by the discharge. The slaves then obtained possession of the musket, when Mr. Hewell seized the handspike, and made the same show of defence; on which, one of the slaves said, “He has another gun,” and Mr. Hewell replied he had. The slaves then returned from the cabin door, and Mr. Hewell went on deck, but soon returned to the cabin, took hold of the side of the table, and said, “I am stabbed;” on which he sidled away, and fell apparently helpless on the floor. Did not see Mr. Hewell afterward. Deponent then attempted to get out of the skylight, but on account of the noise on deck, and the number of slaves there, desisted, and attempted to conceal himself in one of the after berths, where he was covered over with some bedclothes, and two colored females sitting on him. While there, deponent heard persons come down in the cabin, and some say, “Take it on deck,” when some seemed to go on deck. Soon they returned, and the cabin seemed to be full of slaves, searching for persons, and saying, “Come out here, damn you.” Heard them say, “Don’t hurt the steward—don’t hurt Jacob, or Mrs. Ensor.”4 Some one said, “Where is Merritt? bring him out.” Those discovered were taken on deck, to wit, Mrs. Ensor, the steward, and Jacob. The women that concealed him then becoming alarmed, left him, and he got under the mattress. Deponent was soon after discovered, hauled out, and menaced with instant death, by a man called Ben Blacksmith,5 holding a bowie-knife over him, in company with others. Madison Washington, however, interceded for him, and his life was spared, on condition he would navigate the vessel to any port they might require. He supposed, and the slaves seemed to think, also, that the captain and mates were all murdered. Their treatment was afterward kind toward deponent, and they desired him to take charge of the vessel. After the slaves had discovered the captain and mates were aloft, they said they should be killed, but deponent persuaded them to save their lives. Gifford was the first that came down, and subsequently the captain was brought down; second mate, also. The captain, his wife, and second mate, were confined in the forehold. The first mate was allowed to do duty, at deponent’s solicitation. As contradictory orders were given by the slaves in reference to the destination of the vessel, and in navigating her, he desired that certain persons might be selected for that purpose; on which, Madison Washington, Ben Blacksmith, and Doctor Ruffin, were selected for that purpose.6 Deponent can identify, by sight, several others besides those named by him, as taking an active part in the murder and mutiny.
WM. H. MERRITT.
Subscribed and sworn to, this 9th November, 1841, before me,
JOHN F. BACON, U.S. CONSUL.
1. The “Protest,” the third document in this section, states that the Creole left Hampton Roads on 30 October. This official Senate document probably has the correct date, since it stems from depositions by the ship’s captain, Robert Ensor; the first mate Zephaniah Gifford; and the second mate Lucius Stevens.
2. Zephaniah Gifford.
3. John Hewell, who with William Merritt oversaw the slaves on the Creole.
4. The wife of the captain, Robert Ensor. Jacob Lietner was the ship’s Prussian cook. In the “Protest,” he is listed as Jacob Miller.
5. Ben Blacksmith is listed as Ben Johnstone elsewhere in the Senate Report and other documents.
6. Madison Washington, Ben Blacksmith (or Ben Johnstone) and Doctor Ruffin (also listed as D. Ruffin) were three of the four leaders of the mutiny. The fourth leader was Elijah Morris.
“Madison Washington: Another Chapter in His History”
In the spring of 1842, stories began to circulate about Madison Washington’s whereabouts before the Creole rebellion. Articles based on oral accounts appeared in the Friend of Man, the National Anti-Slavery Standard, and the 10 June 1842 issue of the Liberator, the source of the text below (which drew on the earlier pieces). In these articles, Washington is presented as a loyal husband who, after escaping to Canada, chose to return to Virginia in search of his wife. Some recent critics are suspicious of these stories, claiming that the domestic tale may have been invented to make Washington more appealing to a wider audience. But similar stories about Washington were told by three men who claimed to have helped Washington on his way back to Virginia: Hiram Wilson (1803–1864), an abolitionist from New Hampshire who worked with fugitive slaves in Canada; Lindley Murray Moore (1788–1871), a Rochester-based Quaker abolitionist; and Robert Purvis (1810–1898), a prominent black abolitionist of Philadelphia. For Purvis’s 1889 account of Washington’s return for his wife, see “A Priceless Picture” in part 4.
This name will be remembered as belonging to the leader of the ‘Immortal Nineteen,’ who fought for and obtained their liberty on board the Creole. Madison was the ‘very large and strong slave’ found in the after cabin, who being seized by both the master and mate, shook them off, and in spite of their endeavors—together with those of a third sailor who stood over the hatchway—forced a passage, and rushing on deck, cried, ‘We have begun, and must go through!’1
This scene on the Creole deck was but one chapter in the history of Madison Washington. Nothing could be more absurd than to suppose that this occasion made Madison, and not Madison made the occasion. A new clue to the character of this hero of the Creole has just been furnished us.
About eighteen months since, Madison was in Canada. He there bore this same name. He staid awhile in the family of Hiram Wilson, who describes him, like the ‘Creole protestants,’ as a very large and strong slave. Madison had been some time in Canada—long enough to love and rejoice in British liberty. But he loved his wife, who was left a slave in Virginia, still more. At length, Madison resolved on rescuing her from slavery. Although strongly dissuaded by his friends from making the attempt in person, he would not listen, but crossed the line into this State.2 At Rochester, he fell in with friend Lindley Murray Moore, who collected ten dollars to aid him in his journey towards Virginia.
So strong was Madison’s determination, that at this time he assured his friends he would have his wife or lose his life.
As he passed along, he was heard from at Utica and in Albany. The next account, he stands a freeman on the deck of the Creole—the master-spirit of the noble nineteen!
We infer, of course, that Madison, in attempting to liberate his wife, was himself re-enslaved. And as it is the custom with slaveholders in the more northern slave States, to send the fugitive when secured by them to the extreme South—lest he escape again—lest he communicate to other slaves the incidents of his day of freedom—as an example that shall strike terror to the breast of his fellows—he is sold to the southern market. So Madison, we suppose, was captured, and as a dangerous slave, sold for New-Orleans, and shipped with his 134 fellow sufferers.
The sequel we all know. Madison Washington is again a freeman under the dominion of Queen Victoria.3 Long may he remain free! One question, however, we greatly wish to have answered. Is he still without his beloved wife? Remember it was Madison’s visit ‘aft among the women’ that led to the first act of violence on the Creole. Might not his wife have been there among the women?4 Yes, and this grave Creole matter may prove to have been but a part only of that grand game, in which the highest stake was the liberty of his dear wife. Will not some British abolitionists obtain for us the story from Madison’s own lips?
1. The quotations in this selection are from the New Orleans “Protest.”
2. New York.
3. In Nassau, Bahamas. Queen Victoria (1819–1901) was monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1837 to 1901.
4. These are the questions the novelist Pauline E. Hopkins takes up in “A Dash for Liberty” (1901), her fictionalized account of the Creole rebellion. The story can be found in part 4 of this volume. In The Heroic Slave, Washington’s wife is shot and killed as Madison tries to free her; Hopkins imagines her joining the rebellion. There remains no known documentation about whether she joined Washington on the Creole.
DANIEL WEBSTER
Letter to Edward Everett
On 29 January 1842, Daniel Webster (1782–1852), secretary of state under President John Tyler (1790–1862), wrote to Edward Everett (1794–1865), the U.S. minister to Great Britain, to elaborate the official position of the United States on the matter of the Creole. Webster and Tyler believed that the British had acted illegally in freeing the slaves, whom they regarded as murderers, and thus wanted the British to indemnify the slaves’ owners for their loss of property. At the time, Webster was in the midst of the negotiations that would result in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, so he was especially concerned about resolving the Creole case amicably. When he saw that he would fail in his effort to compel the British to offer compensation, he downplayed the incident so that he could secure the treaty, which helped set the borders between the United States and British North America. Webster and Everett were two of the most notable politicians and orators of the antebellum period, and both were from Massachusetts. Though neither was an enthusiast of slavery, they believed that the South’s right to hold slaves was constitutionally guaranteed and central to the survival of the Union. Webster’s commitment to the Union would eventually lead him to support the Fugitive Slave Act, part of the Compromise of 1850, which he hoped would forestall a civil war. Webster’s letter to Everett first appeared in Senate Documents, 27th Congress, 2nd session (1842), document 137, 2–7, the source of the text below, and was subsequently reprinted in Niles’ National Register 61 (1842) and other newspapers and journals of the period.
Mr. Webster to Mr. Everett
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, January 29, 1842
I regret to be obliged to acquaint you with a very serious occurrence, which recently took place in a port of one of the Bahama islands.
It appears that the brig “Creole,” of Richmond, Virginia, Ensor, master, bound to New Orleans, sailed from Hampton Roads on the 27th of October last, with a cargo of merchandise, principally tobacco, and slaves (about one hundred and thirty-five in number); that on the evening of the 7th of November, some of the slaves rose upon the crew of the vessel, murdered a passenger, named Hewell, who owned some of the negroes, wounded the captain dangerously, and the first mate and two of the crew severely; that the slaves soon obtained complete possession of the brig, which, under their direction, was taken into the port of Nassau, in the island of New Providence, where she arrived on the morning of the 9th of the same month; that at the request of the American consul in that place, the Governor ordered a guard on board, to prevent the escape of the mutineers, and with a view to an investigation of the circumstances of the case; that such investigation was accordingly made by two British magistrates, and that an examination also took place by the consul; that on the report of the magistrates, nineteen of the slaves were imprisoned by the local authorities as having been concerned in the mutiny and murder, and their surrender to the consul, to be sent to the United States for trial for these crimes, was refused, on the ground that the Governor wished first to communicate with the Government in England on the subject; that through the interference of the colonial authorities, and even before the military guard was removed, the greater number of the remaining slaves were liberated, and encouraged to go beyond the power of the master of the vessel, or the American consul, by proceedings which neither of them could control. This is the substance of the case, as stated in two protests, one made at Nassau and one at New Orleans, and the consul’s letters, together with sundry depositions taken by him, copies of all which papers are herewith transmitted.
The British Government cannot but see that this case, as presented in these papers, is one calling loudly for redress. The “Creole” was passing from one port of the United States to another, in a voyage perfectly lawful, with merchandise on board, and also with slaves, or persons bound to service, natives of America, and belonging to American citizens, and which are recognised as property by the Constitution of the United States in those States in which slavery exists. In the course of the voyage, some of the slaves rose upon the master and crew, subdued them, murdered one man, and caused the vessel to be carried into Nassau. The vessel was thus taken to a British port, not voluntarily by those who had the lawful authority over her, but forcibly and violently, against the master’s will, and with the consent of nobody but the mutineers and murderers; for there is no evidence that these outrages were committed with the concurrence of any of the slaves, except those actually engaged in them. Under these circumstances, it would seem to have been the plain and obvious duty of the authorities at Nassau, the port of a friendly Power, to assist the American consul in putting an end to the captivity of the master and crew, restoring to them the control of the vessel, and enabling them to resume their voyage, and to take the mutineers and murderers to their own country to answer for their crimes before the proper tribunal. One cannot conceive how any other course could justly be adopted, or how the duties imposed by that part of the code regulating the intercourse of friendly states, which is generally called the comity of nations, could otherwise be fulfilled. Here was no violation of British law attempted or intended on the part of the master of the “Creole,” nor any infringement of the principles of the law of nations. The vessel was lawfully engaged in passing from port to port in the United States. By violence and crime she was carried, against the master’s will, out of her course, and into the port of a friendly Power. All was the result of force. Certainly, ordinary comity and hospitality entitled him to such assistance from the authorities of the place as should enable him to resume and prosecute his voyage, and bring the offenders to justice. But, instead of this, if the facts be as represented in these papers, not only did the authorities give no aid for any such purpose, but they did actually interfere to set free the slaves, and to enable them to disperse themselves beyond the reach of the master of the vessel or their owners. A proceeding like this cannot but cause deep feeling in the United States. It has been my purpose to write you at
length upon this subject, in order that you might lay before the Government of her Majesty fully and without reserve, the views entertained upon it by that of the United States, and the grounds on which those views are taken. But the early return of the packet precludes the opportunity of going thus into the case of this despatch; and as Lord Ashburton may shortly be expected here, it may be better to enter fully into it with him, if his powers shall be broad enough to embrace it.1 Some knowledge of the case will have reached England before his departure, and very probably his Government may have given him instructions. But I request, nevertheless, that you lose no time in calling Lord Aberdeen’s2 attention to it in a general manner, and giving him a narrative of the transaction, such as may be framed from the papers now communicated with a distinct declaration that if the facts turn out as stated, this Government thinks it a clear case for indemnification.
You will see that in his letter of the 7th January, 1837, to Mr. Stevenson, respecting the claim for compensation in the cases of the “Comet,” “Encomium,” and “Enterprise,” Lord Palmerston says that “his Majesty’s Government is of opinion that the rule by which these claims should be decided, is, that those claimants must be considered entitled to compensation who were lawfully in possession of their slaves within the British territory, and who were disturbed in their legal possession of those slaves by functionaries of the British Government.”3 This admission is broad enough to cover the case of the “Creole,” if its circumstances are correctly stated. But it does not extend to what we consider the true doctrine, according to the laws and usages of nations; and, therefore, cannot be acquiesced in as the exactly correct general rule. It appears to this Government that not only is no unfriendly interference by the local authorities to be allowed, but that aid and succor should be extended in these, as in other cases which may arise, affecting the rights and interests of citizens of friendly states.