6 Atlantic African, American, and European Backgrounds to Contact, Commerce, and Enslavementthe fi nes imposed by the former act.”^31 In this single piece
of legislation, colonial offi cials eff ectively took control over
the sexual politics of both black and white women. Th at is,
white women’s sexuality was controlled through the institu-
tion of marriage. In line with the principle of patriarchy, a
man could establish heirs through his children who, in turn,
looked not to their mother for inheritance and wealth, but
rather received varied privileges and rights based on pater-
nity. Indeed, this had long been standard practice in Brit-
ish law. In instituting this law in 1662, colonial authorities
diverged from the British practice in an attempt to control
the sexual politics of black women by establishing property
rights over the children born of interracial unions.
While the Virginia assembly sought to control the
sexual politics of black women, so the Maryland General
Assembly tackled the thorny question of freeborn white
women who married blacks. Aft er rendering synonymous
blackness and slavery, thereby assigning to all members of
the former category the status of the latter, the language of
the act continues:and forasmuch as divers freeborn English women, forgetful of
their free condition and to the disgrace of our nation, marry
Negro slaves, by which also divers suits may arise touching
the issue of such women, and a great damage befalls the mas-
ter of such negroes for prevention wherof, for deterring such
freeborn women from such shameful matches. Be it further
enacted by the authority, advice, and consent aforesaid, that
whatsoever freeborn women shall marry any slave... shall
serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband.In eff ect, colonial offi cials authorized the control
of the sexual politics of freeborn women by establishing
rights over them if they chose to marry men of African de-
scent. In this way, colonial offi cials maintained rights over
white women, be they married to a white or a black man.
In other ways as well, colonial offi cials looked to the law to
establish more fi rmly slavery in the Americas. Where Brit-
ish common law held that Christians could not lawfully
be enslaved, the Virginia legislature passed an act in 1667
establishing that baptism “doth not alter the condition of
the person as to his bondage or freedome.” Interestingly
enough, colonial authorities regarded the passage of this
law as a mercy for slaves because it presumably opened
the way for Christian conversion for African captives, thus
ensuring the eternal salvation of their souls, even if their
bodies be damned in the here and now.he was called “the ole’ African” in 1654, Johnson did not die
until 1670.^28 Even more than this, Johnson was confi dent
and outspoken. He fi led suit against fellow whites in his
community in order to secure, protect, and recover property,
including slaves, and he enjoyed some signifi cant success in
this regard. He once defended himself against allegations of
slothfulness and laziness by reminding his accuser, a nota-
ble Virginia planter, “I know myne owne ground and I will
worke when I please and play when I please.”^29 Given his
notable success in Virginia, many scholars have taken the
example of Johnson’s life as evidence of the greater access,
mobility, and rights that blacks enjoyed in various parts of
the Atlantic world during the 17th century.
Still, analysis of Johnson’s presumed freedoms may be
tempered by the machinations of power and patronage in
colonial Virginia. Indeed, most of the advancements that
Johnson made during his lifetime required the sanction of
his owners, the Bennetts, who allowed him to farm inde-
pendently while still a slave, marry, and baptize his children.
It is perhaps this patronage that encouraged Johnson to fi le
suit against other members of the colonial elite, though he
initially proved reticent of inviting the ire of white plant-
ers. In fact, the planters against which Johnson fi led suit
had previously accused John Johnson, Anthony’s son, of
committing fornication and other enormities with a white
servant, Hannah Leach. John Johnson was convicted of the
crime and sentenced in 1665 to labor in the local work-
house. In the end, Anthony Johnson left Virginia at mid-
century to build a life in Maryland. In 1670, some months
aft er his death, Virginia courts failed to restore to his family
lands that Johnson had owned on grounds that Johnson was
“a negro and by consequence an alien,” thus highlighting
the growing importance of racism in colonial legislation.^30
Th e generation of Atlantic Africans to which Anthony
Johnson belonged quickly gave way to the rising tide of
plantation slavery that swept the New World during the late
17th and early 18th centuries. Th e uneven, though signifi -
cant, access aff orded blacks in the 17th century dissipated.
In addition, the various ambiguities inherent in colonial law
with regard to Africans were clarifi ed toward a greater so-
lidifi cation of power in the hands of the slaveholding class.
In 1662, the Virginia legislature passed an act establishing
that “all children borne in this country shalbe held bond
or free only according to the condition of the mother, and
that if any Christian shall comitt fornication with a negro
man or woman, hee or shee soe off ending shall pay double