We all know the narrative, concerning La Fayette and slavery. Him as a fierce abolitionist who tried to persuade Washington and Jefferson among other to free their enslaved people and that he only ever owned enslaved people in an attempt to free them and to show that emancipation can be done – aaaaand here is where I have to burst a few people’s bubbles. Because when it came to the topic of enslavement, La Fayette was not always as glorious as some people like to believe and as the popular narrative often goes. While the abolishment of enslavement was something that was dear to his heart and that he worked towards, this opinion was nothing he was born with. A lot of education and experience went into forming his believes and even then, La Fayette and his efforts were not perfect.
The matter at hand is a really good example of how La Fayette’s actions and believes changed with age and experience. While I mentioned this specific matter in a couple of other posts, it is significant enough to get a post of his own.
In August, 1777, Edmund Brice, an aide-de-camp to La Fayette wrote the following promissory note to Doctor A. Murray:
August 1777
I promise to pay A. [crossed out] Murray the sum of one hundred & eighty pounds Currincy[?] for value [?] of him for the use of the Marquis de la Fayette --- as witness my hand & Seal
Edmund Brice
The reverse holds a second note:
Edmund Brices Note to Doct. Murray for a negro Boy for the Marquis
August 4 1777
Paid by James Brice
H. Furlong Baldwin Library, Maryland Center for History and Culture, Brice and Jennings Families Papers, Promissory note from Edmund Brice to A. Murray, 1777-08, 2 pages, MS 1997. (05/02/2026)
(Please note that the collection transcribes the second note as Edmund Brices Note to Doct. Murray for a negro Boy for the Mary wife, but based on the context as well as the writing, I believe the word in question is indeed Marquis.)
James Brice was Edmund’s brother and while he did not serve in the Marquis’ staff as his brother did, he was a soldier during the Revolutionary War. He was first a Captain in the city militia and later a Lieutenant in the county militia. His services would earn him the honorary title of Colonel later on.
The above mentioned promissory note is one of only two documents that mention this “purchase” by the Marquis de La Fayette. The other is a letter written by Henry Laurens to La Fayette on October 23, 1777:
I have not seen the french Gentleman who did me the honour to bring your Letter, but will enquire of your black Servant where he may be found & you may depend upon me Sir to attempt, at least, to Serve him, nor shall the Subject concerning Mr. De Valfort depart from my mind.
Idzerda Stanley J. et al., editors, Lafayette in the Age of the American Revolution: Selected Letters and Papers, 1776–1790, Volume 1, December 7, 1776–March 30, 1778, Cornell University Press, 1977, p. 124 (edited).
Now, Laurens manages to address three things in one sentence, but we are only interested in the passage highlighted here. A few interesting notes with regards to the context and the timeline of events. There is no surviving letter where La Fayette asks Laurens about the “black Servant” – he mentions Monsieur de Valfort at length in his letters and introduced the gentleman delivering his letter to Laurens previously but he did not ask for help in this other matter. Actually, there is no surviving document by La Fayette on the matter at all. No note to Murray or Edmund Brice that he wanted to make the purchase, no letter by Brice informing the Marquis that he had acquired the boy, no letter by James Brice that he paid the 180 pounds (for whatever reason), nor a letter by La Fayette that he is going to reimburse him.
There is also next to nothing that we know about the “black Servant”. We only know that he never arrived at camp and that previously to being bought in La Fayette’s name he was enslaved by Doctor A. Murray. The word “boy” in the promissory note suggests that the person was still rather young but there is no record of an exact age, of a name, a background or a family – there is also no reconstructing of what happened to that person after August 1777.
I find the lack of information deeply frustrating because there are a number of (more or less) possible scenarios what motivated the people involved in this matter – but to be honest, none of these make them look particularly good. While there are scenarios in which La Fayette could be the "hero" in this story, I would err on the side of caution and say that La Fayette most likely was not the "hero" in this story – quite the opposite in fact.
And this is why it is so important not to be blinded or awed by a historical figures “good” or “progressive” deeds and views, especially when compared with their contemporaries, but to have a look at the bigger picture. Understanding La Fayette’s abolitionists work means also understanding his earlier believes and actions with regard to slavery.
