Africans in 17th Century England

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Africans in 17th Century England" – Not Just the Tudors

Release Date: October 28, 2024

---

Introduction

In this episode of Not Just the Tudors, hosted by Professor Suzannah Lipscomb, the focus shifts from the well-trodden narratives of Tudor England to a lesser-explored aspect of 17th-century England: the presence and roles of Africans during this period. Joining Professor Lipscomb is Sophie Merricks, a PhD student at Lancaster University, whose research delves into the racial diversity of the English Civil War battlefields.

---

Research Background and Methodology

Sophie Merricks introduces her interdisciplinary PhD project, which intertwines history with digital humanities to map and analyze the presence of Africans in Stuart England. Her research involves collating a comprehensive database from diverse sources such as church records, burial accounts, military diaries, and personal letters.

"I'm looking at collating a database of Africans in Stuart England and mapping and creating a spatial account of these records to look at the diversity of communities throughout the country at the time."
— Sophie Merricks [02:32]

---

Evidence and Sources

Merricks emphasizes the fragmented nature of historical records from the period, noting the variability in ethnic descriptors and the challenges in tracing individual lives across different documents.

"Throughout the entire Stuart period, we see ethnic descriptors vary, and in some instances, for the same individual, they'll vary substantially even for that one individual."
— Sophie Merricks [03:26]

She highlights sources such as court records, parish accounts, newspaper advertisements, wills, and inventories as pivotal in uncovering glimpses into African lives in 17th-century England.

---

Language and Perceptions of Race

A significant portion of the discussion centers on how race was recorded and perceived during the period. Merricks points out the diverse terminology used to describe Africans, reflecting a lack of standardized racial classifications.

"There's no sort of complete shift towards one specific term which is quite indicative of the fact there was no one attitude towards Africans in Stuart England."
— Sophie Merricks [05:32]

She notes the frequent use of terms like "Negro," "blackamoor," and "black," often used interchangeably and contextually, making it challenging to ascertain the exact racial intentions behind the descriptors.

"Language use is really tricky to pin down because it's so varied. And there doesn't seem to be a formula behind how race was recorded."
— Sophie Merricks [05:32]

---

African Presence in Legal and Social Systems

Merricks explores the integration of Africans into England's legal and social systems, revealing both inclusive and exclusive treatments. She discusses how Africans appeared in various roles, from servants and groomsmen to soldiers, challenging the notion of a homogenous experience.

"They reveal both an inclusive and an exclusive society in two very different but parallel running treatments of African individuals."
— Sophie Merricks [22:11]

She also touches upon the complexities of records, where terms like "black" could refer to race, hair color, or even metaphorical sinful conditions, further complicating historical interpretations.

---

Africans in the English Civil War

A focal point of the episode is the participation of Africans in the English Civil War, serving on both Royalist and Parliamentarian sides. Merricks provides examples from diaries and burial records, illustrating the varied roles Africans played, from soldiers to captains.

"We've got Africans who were discharged, they are sentenced to work in the Bridewell Court, in the Bridewell Royal Hospital, all sorts of punishments and decisions made towards them."
— Sophie Merricks [22:11]

She discusses specific individuals like William A. Blackmore, a soldier for the Earl of Newcastle, and Antonius, a Moorish captain for the Parliamentarians, highlighting the diverse positions Africans held in the conflict.

---

Roles and Perceptions During the War

The conversation delves into whether Africans occupied different roles depending on their allegiance during the Civil War. Merricks notes that while some Africans served as soldiers, others held positions that suggest a level of trust and responsibility, such as Antonius, who advised Lord Fairfax on horse care.

"He provides some wisdom about how we in Barbary treat foals aside Lord Fairfax. So he's got quite an important role there as a captain."
— Sophie Merricks [16:30]

This dual presence challenges the established power imbalances, suggesting that Africans were not solely viewed as subordinates but could also occupy positions of authority.

---

Black Women's Experiences

While the primary focus is on male Africans, Merricks briefly addresses the limited evidence regarding black women's experiences during the period. She acknowledges the scarcity of records but notes the presence of African burials of both genders.

"There are a lot more males in the records than there are females. It kind of speaks to the demand that there was for black boys in the period as these accessories that we see in the portraits."
— Sophie Merricks [19:49]

---

Implications for Understanding Race and Society

Merricks reflects on the broader implications of her research, emphasizing the complexity of race relations in 17th-century England. She suggests that the integration of Africans into various societal roles indicates a nuanced social structure that resisted simplistic racial categorizations.

"These courts... provide the broadest array of attitudes in the period. And they reveal both an inclusive and an exclusive society."
— Sophie Merricks [22:11]

---

Conclusion and Future Directions

As Merricks concludes, she expresses hope that her research will shed light on the often-overlooked narratives of Africans in early modern England, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the period's social fabric and racial dynamics.

"My research... reveals both an inclusive and an exclusive society in two very different but parallel running treatments of African individuals."
— Sophie Merricks [22:11]

Professor Lipscomb echoes Merricks' sentiments, highlighting the importance of ongoing research in uncovering the intricate and multifaceted histories of marginalized groups.

"You've given us a real insight into that."
— Professor Suzannah Lipscomb [24:10]

---

Closing Thoughts

This episode of Not Just the Tudors offers a profound exploration of the African presence in 17th-century England, challenging preconceived notions and illuminating the diverse experiences of Africans during a tumultuous period in English history. Through meticulous research and engaging discussion, Professor Lipscomb and Sophie Merricks invite listeners to reconsider and broaden their understanding of Tudor and Stuart England's social landscape.

Transcript

[Professor Susanna Lipscomb]

Thanks for listening to Not Just the Tudors. To get all History Hit Podcasts ad free early access and bonus episodes, head over to historyhit.com subscribe and you can sign up on Apple Podcasts with just one click. Hello, I'm Professor Susanna Lipscomb and welcome to Not Just the Tudors from History.

[Sophie Merricks]

Hit, the podcast in which we explore everything from and Berlin to the Aztecs, from Holbein to the Huguenots, from Shakespeare.

[Professor Susanna Lipscomb]

To samurais, relieved by regular doses of murder, espionage and witchcraft. Not in other words, just the Tudors.

[Sophie Merricks]

But most definitely also the Tudors. At the time of the Civil War in the British isles in the 60s 40s, there were already established black communities in London and in most of the port cities, including Plymouth, Bristol and Southampton, communities from which men would fight and die throughout the conflict. For many, the presence of non white peoples in England at this time continues to remain unknown. When they are visible, as in the example of John Blanc, for example, the royal trumpeter during the reign of Henry VII and Henry viii, or in later portraiture of black groomsmen and servants, there's still little evidence of of the lives of these individuals.

[Professor Susanna Lipscomb]

So what do we know of the.

[Sophie Merricks]

Black men who took up arms during the Civil War? On which side did they fight? Were they free or enslaved? And what can this participation tell us about how race was perceived in the early modern period? Today, I'm here with Sophie Merricks, a PhD student at Lancaster University whose research into the period has collated church records, burial accounts, military diaries and letters to discover the lesser known racial diversity of the Civil War battlefields. I'm Professor Suzanne Lipscomb and this is not just the Tudors. Sophie, thank you so much for joining me.

Thank you very much for having me, Susanna. It's a pleasure to be here.

So, if I may, I'd like to start with a little background on how you came to this project and the types of evidence that you've been able to draw on.

So yes, I'm currently a PhD student at Lancaster University studying black stewards more broadly in England at the time. So my project is interspining project between history and digital humanities. So I'm looking at collating a database of Africans in Stuart, England and mapping and creating a spatial account of these records to look at the diversity of communities throughout the country at the time. And evidence of black stewards comes from a wide variety of places throughout the period. As you say, church accounts, parish accounts, most predominantly court records, newspaper advertisements, wills and inventories, all sorts of places throughout the period. And we Get a glimpse into African lives through these records.

Is it possible ever to connect these fragments together? Are there many or perhaps even any examples where you can trace a single person across pieces of evidence?

It's a very good question. It's very difficult to do with the types of evidence that we've got in the period. So throughout the entire Stuart period, we see ethnic descriptors vary, and in some instances, for the same individual, they'll vary substantially even for that one individual. So I've come across a court record for an African called Sampson who was tried in the London Bridewell Court, and he was tried running away from his master. In the first instance, he's recorded as a black, in the second instance as a blackamoor, and the third as a blackamoor. And without the sort of context around that record of who the warrant was brought to the court by and his master, you wouldn't be able to identify Sampson as the same person. But it's because of the context that we can see that this man was the same man as he was originally tried as a black man.

Do you think that this use of language when recording ethnicity tells us anything specific about how race was understood in the period?

So throughout the period, we see very similar usages of terms as we do in the Tudor period. But my research has kind of brought up a lot of usage of the term Negro throughout the sort of later second half of the 17th century as sort of transatlantic communities and colonies were more established. So Virginia, for example. I haven't managed to do too much research into whether that term had a sort of racial stigmatization behind it. But it's interesting to see that the wide variety of terms used in the Tudor period do remain in the Stuart period, but become slightly more refined. There's no sort of complete shift towards one specific term which is quite indicative of the fact there was no one attitude towards Africans in Stuart England. But we do see that term coming up a lot more in newspaper advertisements and other records as well. So it may indicate a shift in views. But language use is really tricky to pin down because it's so varied. And there doesn't seem to be a formula behind how race was recorded. It seems very much it was a descriptor rather than a racially fueled, dehumanizing term.

So in other words, it rather depends on the language that springs to mind by the scribe, and that could be a range of different words, and it's hard to say that they have different significances or that they represent shifting racial ideologies.

Yes, Exactly. Yes. We do see some instances where record mentions more specific sort of locations in Africa. Father is the one that comes to mind. But whether that's because the individual who they are describing about has told them, I'm from this area of Africa, we aren't entirely sure. Or whether they know, like the master or the mistress knows, that's where the African was from. It's so varied that there's no sort of formula behind why they chose these terms, basically.

And is this the case for all legal and church records, that they record race when entering details? And if not, how do you find names which might otherwise be forgotten?

So, yes, people weren't instructed to record race in sort of legal accounts, but we see it done so frequently because obviously race is quite a key difference. It's a very visible difference for these people. You see it in instances where someone is of a different religion as well. So there's a court record for a Jewish lady, she recorded as a Jew. So that's very much the same as an equivalent was recorded as an African or a black or a black man. But there are going to be a load of instances that we can never find in the sources because potentially race wasn't recorded. And this is the issue that we contend with a lot in the period and a lot of the times as well. Records will use the term black. So Samuel Pepys, for example, in his diary, uses black all the time to reference different things, and on some occasions use it to reference an African like Mingo, who's recorded as one of his friends Africans. But he also uses it to describe hair colour and it can also be used to describe, like a sinful condition in the period as well. So it's not simply a term to describe a black person. I've done quite a bit of work with newspaper advertisements where it mentions a black man. And not all these instances refer to an African. It's been quite a difficult task to prove when they do. It's the context that's really important in these records, not just for newspaper advertisements, but beyond as well. So you might assume that because Africans were advertised foreign newspapers as running away or as going missing, that they were property. And that would be a very quick assumption to make. But actually put into context of newspaper advertisements in the period, there are a lot of white people who similarly were advertised for running away as well. And the same with court records. So I've got a number of court records where the African is sent beyond seas or transported. And actually put into context, there are white prisoners who very similarly in their thousands were transported to colonies in the period. It's not a solely black phenomenon. I mean, it kind of shows an integration to the legal system, into the criminal system.

It's interesting because, of course, this is precisely the period of the witchcraft trials that happen in Essex and East Anglia. And I remember from some of the information about those that women recalled having seen a tall black gentleman who comes to them who is said to be the devil. And it doesn't mean that he has brown skin. It means that he has black hair or he's dressed all in black. And so you're looking for evidence of race at precisely the time when the terminology can be used in a completely different way to mean something entirely other. And that seems like it must be very tricky. And so I was wondering about whether there's a further sort of question, because that means that there's going to be lots of people whose race isn't recorded. And we're absolutely seeing the tip of the iceberg when we look at the data of those who are recorded. But I wonder if there's another way in which they are submerged, because is it the case that we only really see, at least in church records, Africans who have converted to Christianity Precisely.

Work around baptism is something that I'm going to do further research into. But there are quite a lot of instances where you get both sides of the narrative. So there's a case of Dinah, who's a moor in Bristol, and her mistress tries to get her sent to America because she got baptized without her mistress's permission, which obviously shows that her mistress had some sort of idea that Dinah was her property. And she didn't get grand ideas about freedom on the basis of baptism. Even though there's no law in the period that says Africans were enslaved, the social treatment of them in some cases was of slaves. So Diana's case is really interesting in that respect. But there's other instances where actually the court, in one instance for Philip, who I think also ran away from his master a couple of times, I think he's recommended for instruction in Christian religion by. To Mr. Masters and to be baptized. So the court says that this African should be baptized and this will help, I don't know, reform him potentially. But then you've got cases of Dinah where the mistress is actually acting against and dissuading in the harshest possible way by transporting her her baptism.

So there's some confusing evidence there. Is there a consensus on whether most Africans residing in England at this time were enslaved or free?

There's no Real consensus, and I think historiography is ping ponged, as did legal citizens in the period, back and forth on whether they were enslaved, whether they were free, and what evidence suggests both ways. And from my research and from what I've seen around historiography at the time, and there's evidence that speaks both ways. So we've got Africans who were in households who were working, we've got paid labor, so they were paid as cooks, there's a laundress, we've got sailors, we've got mariners, we've got evidence of trumpeters in the Stuart period as well. So we've got a whole array of occupations, but the most predominant one that we see is in households and whether that is as an accessory. In some instances. We do see artwork a lot of the times that have got an African in a fancy garb, wearing a turban, in some instances sitting at the side of a master or a mistress, looking very much like property. But actually we can't ever have a sweeping statement to say they were enslaved, they were free. Law doesn't speak to either. It speaks to both in some instances. So you've got different higher court laws like Low versus Elton and Chamberlain Harvey throughout the period that speak opposing verdicts on whether Africans were property or not. And it remains unresolved until, you know, you see 18th century, sort of even towards the actual abolition of slavery.

[Don Wildman]

In case you haven't heard, in the US It's a presidential election year. We're going to hear a lot of this is America. No, no, you're all wrong. This is America. But on American history hit. We're leaving that to the rest of them. Join me, Don Wildman. Twice a week where we look to the past to understand the United States of today. With the help of some amazing guests. Let us introduce you to the Founding Fathers, guide you through the west Wing of the White House and shelter you on the battlefields of years gone by. To find out just how we got here, American History hit a podcast from History Hit.

[Sophie Merricks]

Let's move on to think about the Civil wars then. So you sort of alluded there to the fact that contemporary paintings of the period are portraying black men in positions of subservience. Does the evidence of black soldiers in the wars alter or reinforce what appears to be an established power imbalance?

That's a very good question. Again, it speaks to both sides. We've got two anonymous Africans in the diary of Abraham de la Prim, who was an antiquary sort of later on, and he mentions two instances the same sort of position in his diary, first of a Blackmoor who took a Scottish soldier prisoner. And the Scottish soldier expresses being frightened at that, whether that's because of the general being African. He sort of shouts out, as you were talking before, about the devil, saying the devil's got him, basically. And there's a bit of a confusing narrative on someone kills someone else. So either the African killed the Scotsman or the Scotsman killed the African, and we just don't know which way that happened. And then a couple of lines later, he mentions Sir Robert and Struda, who was likely to be a diplomat and politician. And this black man is termed to be mightily religious. He goes out every morning to pray to the rising sun. And the record goes on to say that he lived a very pious and exemplary life, but doesn't ever tell us why it was pious. For example, he doesn't actually tell us who the African in this instance was and where he ended up going or being, which is very confusing and very much the case with all records. And you've also got a burial record of William A. Blackmore, who was a soldier to the Earl of Newcastle in 1643. And he's termed as a soldier there, not a servant or, you know, an attendant or a slave. You know, he would have been a soldier if he's mentioned as that in the record. But then, as you were saying before about the accessories debate, in a way, in this historiographical field, there are a number of instances where you can see predominant royalists, such as Prince Rupert of Rhine and Lord John Byrom, who both have portraits showing an African attendant or an African groomsman accompanying them. And on the parliamentarian side, you similarly see Africans in both positions of authority, in a way, but also in an attendant role. So an example for the parliamentarians is of Antonius, who is a Moor, and he provides some wisdom about how we in Barbary treat foals aside Lord Fairfax. So he's got quite an important role there as a captain. He's listed as not enslaved, we don't think. And then Oliver Cromwell in artwork as well, with African attendants.

So do we see black Africans fighting on both sides of the conflict, then?

Yes, yeah, we do.

And does the evidence point to differences in the roles they occupied on either side?

So the evidence that we have there is definitely likely more out there to be identified. And the field, as I try and write my conclusions up, it's very difficult to be very final with them because there's such a massive historiographical field. And there's such a massive archival deposit to look through. It could take a lifetime to look through all possible records. But from what the evidence that is uncovered currently, we can see them as soldiers on the Royalist side and groomsmen. And then we see the captain on the parliamentarian side, who has got quite a deep knowledge about horses. So it seems like there are similarities between both of the occupations and both of the sides that the Africans were on.

Who was John Americanus? How does his story contribute to the larger narrative of the Civil War?

So John Americanus, his record appears in Newark. There's a lot of confusion, a lot of. Not controversy, but difference of opinion as to his ethnicity, with some saying he was African and Imchez Habib arguing that he was American because of his surname. Obviously Americanus. He was the record that started my investigation, really, into Africans in the Civil wars and to find some more records about how they lived and what they might have done during the period. Because the records for the Stuart period are sparse. They're definitely more numerous in the Tudor period. We see a lot more Africans within England at this time, mainly because of England's increasing transatlantic activities. But throughout the Civil War period, there's a massive lacuna. We don't have many records at all for both white and African people purely because they were either destroyed or weren't made in the first place. His account started my research into this sort of specific aspect of Stuart England. And he is, although potentially an insignificant account in a way. I never call accounts insignificant because they all provide information that is very interesting for historians to look through. He is a very important individual for how I got into this, the Civil War period, and how I decided to start this research.

The evidence you've collated inevitably focuses on the male experience because we're primarily talking about warfare. But is there anything you've learned about black women's experiences during the period?

During the Civil War period? Not as much. There were burials throughout the period, male and female Africans. My research is kind of. It's not something I've looked at specifically, but in having a quick sort of look at my collection of data, there are a lot more males. I don't want to draw any conclusions from that as such, because, as I say, it's very hard to do given all the evidence that hasn't yet been looked at. But there are a lot more males in the records than there are females. It kind of speaks to the demand that there was for black boys in the period as these accessories that we see in the portraits. So the fact that there were so many men in the records potentially is a consequence of that?

Yes. I wonder if it's also something to do with the practicalities of travel at this time. Would these men, do you think, have had a personal investment in the outcome of the Civil War? Is there any way of charting that, or do you think that people were generally acting in a mercenary capacity?

I would say that they were acting in a military capacity purely because we don't tend to have any sort of African attitudes towards the war written down. We have very few testimonies for Africans themselves throughout the entire period. So it's very hard to see whether they would have had a personal interest in how the wars played out. It comes off the fact that evidence is so sparse, unfortunately, with them being on both sides. That may be purely because of the households they were a part of choosing those sides of the war. They may not have had a choice as to whether they partook in it, but we can't say for sure on either account whether they were doing it of their own free will or whether they were acting as an enslaved soldier.

And it raises a terrible possibility, doesn't it? Because throughout history we see the reality that war perhaps inevitably judges that one group has a greater right to life and freedom than another. Might these men have been welcome to fight not as equals, but because their lives were perceived to be of less value.

That's a very interesting point and I think we do see that in the American Civil wars, don't we? So for it to be the case in the English Civil wars, it wouldn't be far fetched to say that I personally haven't found evidence of either Englishmen discussing the African soldiers or African presence as the presence of an inferior body or party. But it wouldn't be too far fetched to assume that there would have been attitudes or thoughts harboring around that.

Yes, it goes back to this age old question about whether it is racism that leads to enslavement or whether enslavement leads to racism. And what attitudes exist in the early part of the 17th century, for example. So finally then, Sophie, as you continue with your PhD, as you write up, what do you hope this work will contribute to our understanding of the social structure of the 17th century, particularly in terms of excavating early modern concepts of race.

So yeah, my whole PhD looking at substitution of Africans in Stuart England, it's been a bit of a roller coaster in going in with some assumptions, reading various people's contributions to the field, all of which are incredibly wealthy in both sources and opinions and coming to my own sort of conclusions around it and trying to find the avenues that haven't been looked down as scrutinously as others. My current research that I'm wrapping up is on court records and the Bridewell accounts and the records I found sort of uncover and reveal and African integration into the legal world. They don't show African criminals punished excessively harshly. When I think going into it, I assumed that they might, given the legal hammers that were going down in the American colonies at the same time. So Africans are discharged, they are sentenced to work in the Bridewell Court, in the Bridewell Royal Hospital, all sorts of punishments and decisions made towards them. And these courts are the lowest face that people would have had with the judicial system in the period. So they provide the broadest array of attitudes in the period. And what I found through the household accounts, through the newspaper advertisements is an integration into the social systems of the country. They reveal both an inclusive and an exclusive society in two very different but parallel running treatments of African individuals. So in newspaper advertisements we see Africans wearing collars listing the details of white owners in that instance. But in household accounts we see Africans laughing with white people, living lives of seeming comparison with white servants not deemed as inferior as such, but resuming a role that was very common in the period of a servile status.

Well, your work sounds fascinating and sharing it with us has been really interesting because it reminds us of the nature of ongoing research into this period and of the tricky nature of the evidence that we're so often grappling with when trying to reach conclusions that seem simple from the outside. Like, oh, obviously you should know that about the people period, but actually we can't or we don't or it's much more complicated than that because the evidence itself is tricky and you've given us a real insight into that. Thank you so much, Sophie Merricks for joining me on Not Just the Tutors.

Thank you very much. Susanna.

[Professor Susanna Lipscomb]

Thank you for listening to this episode of Not Just the Tutors from History Hit. Also, thank you to my researcher Alice Smith and my producer Rob Weinberg. If you found this episode interesting, then do go check out our episode on Black Tudors. We've also covered how Shakespeare depicted race and in the episode titled Legacy of the Mary Rose I found out about the fascinating African divers who were brought in to rescue items from the Mary Rose after it sank in the Solent. So do go back and have a listen to that. The links are in the show notes for this episode. We're always eager to hear from you, including receiving your brilliant ideas for subjects we can cover. So do drop us a line at notjustthetudorshistoryhirep.com or on X. Formerly Twitter otjusttutors. Remember, you can also listen to all of these podcasts on YouTube and watch hundreds of documentaries when you [e-mail] subscribe it is well worth it. And as a special gift, you can also get 50% off your first three months when you use the code TUDORS at checkout. That's historyhit.com subscribe with the code Tudors and if you'd be so good as to follow not just the Tudors. Wherever you get your podcasts, you'll get each new episode as soon as it's released.

[Eva Longoria]

Do you ever wonder where your favorite foods come from? Like, what's the history behind bacon wrapped hot dogs? Hi, I'm Eva Longoria. Hi, I'm Mayte Gomez Rejon. Our podcast Hungry for History is back and this season we're taking an even bigger bite out of the most delicious food and its history, saying that the most popular cocktail is the margarita, followed by the mojito from Cuba and the pina colada from Puerto Rico. Listen to Hungry for history on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.