The relationship of the early Maroons to the enslaved Africans is further complicated by research showing that colonial records from the 1800s identified persons in Maroon communities a “slaves” and “slaveholders”.

Amy Johnson maintains that the existence of “slave” and “slaveholder” in Windward Maroon territories provides a counter-narrative, which nuances the Maroon narrative of freedom.

Arnold Bertram is adamant that with the signing of the 1739 Treaty, Maroons became the first black slaveholders in Jamaica.

Lance Parker Jr argues that the pre-treaty kidnappings of enslaved people from the plantations was the beginning of their enslavement of other Africans. The 1831 returns for the Scott’s Hall Maroons, which lists both enslaved and free persons, can be seen at http://www.jamaicanfamilysearch.com/Members/MaroonsScotsHall1831.htm. Similarly, the 1831 returns for the Accompong Maroons, including enslaved people (CO 140/121), is at http://www.jamaicanfamilysearch.com/Members/MaroonsAccompong.htm.

Beverley Carey speaks to the impact of the Act of Abolition on the slave holdings of the Windward Maroons. She details how, with the passing of the Act in 1833, the Moore Town Maroons encountered a challenge as they were not accustomed to making a separate return of their slave holdings because this was done through the annual returns made by the superintendent to the governor.

The governor, therefore, took the position that the Maroons had contravened the special section of the law dealing with the registration of slaves, and so, with the passing of the Act, the Maroon slaves were to be set free. In 1835, the Maroons wrote to the governor stating that their apprentices numbering 64 had been duly registered at Spanish Town. Eventually, the governor admitted that there had been an error, but the Maroons were not compensated like other slaveholders for their lost property. The 20 million pounds set aside to compensate slave owners had been exhausted and the British Parliament refused to provide another grant.

The conflict with the Maroons in the 1700s disrupted and stymied economic development in Jamaica, which was then one of Britain’s most important colonies. The signing of the treaties was an important factor in the economic turnaround for Jamaica’s plantation economy. Trevor Burnard, in Jamaica in the Age of Revolution, notes that the transformation of Jamaica into a prosperous security State began with the treaty in 1739

The treaties signed by Cudjoe and Quao were not the first signed by Maroons in Jamaica. The Spanish Maroon Juan di Bolas was the first to sign a treaty with the English in the late 17th century. The treaties, which were tellingly entitled Articles of Pacification, were not unilaterally drawn up but arose from negotiations between representatives of the colonial Government and the leaders of the Maroons. The wording of the treaties does not simply favour the Europeans as would perhaps be expected if they were unilateral.

Beverley Carey is clear that having fought long and hard for their freedom, it is unlikely that the original Maroons would have signed a treaty wholly unfavourable to them. The Leeward Treaty was signed by Cudjoe, who was unable to read or write English, with an X, and Colonel John Guthrie and Captain Francis Sadler for the British. It was solemnised using the Akan custom of both sides cutting themselves and drinking that blood in a mixture of dirt and rum in a calabash. An unbreakable seal was formed in the same way that the ingredients of the calabash could not be separated.

Former colonel of Accompong, H J Rowe, in a letter to Roman Catholic Jesuit priest J J Williams, dated July 13, 1937, reproduced in Jesuitana Jamaica, says of the peace treaty:

At the peace treaty the white officer with 50 soldiers, made peace by sticking his arm and the arm of the Maroon officer, caught the blood into a silver cup which was made into punch with wine and drunken by both party. The Maroon’s said that this would be only for a time. The whites asked how much more they wanted. The Maroons said, “We want a treaty. A document forever.” Later it was given in a book with…agreement and authority.

Maroons consider the treaties as signed between peers and hold them as enduring, “unchangeable regardless of historical circumstances or future laws”. The English, on the other hand, signed the treaties as contracts between two nations, understanding that the terms need not be forever and that these could be breached. What mattered for the English was the precise wording of the text of the treaty documents and the legal technicalities relevant for contemporary interpretations. Ironically, the Accompong Maroons have argued that the British early on breached the treaty, as the printed copies of the treaty granted them 1,500 acres rather than the 15,000 agreed orally. The claim is that the English took advantage of the Maroon’s inability to read. However, records show the land granted to Accompong was an addendum to the original treaty and so not referenced directly in the treaty.

In the aftermath of the Second Maroon War (1796), the treachery of the English authorities was on full display with the transportation of the Trelawny Maroons, in betrayal of a treaty signed on behalf of the colonial Government by Major General Walpole. Then Governor Balcarres wrote to the Duke of Portland in an undated letter, “I hold the Treaty signed by Major General Walpole on the one part, Col Montague James, the Chief of the Maroons on the other part & ratified by me absolutely as nothing” (PRO: CO 137, 96: 112).

The Moore Town Maroons refer to this betrayal in their oral history as “the treacherous feast”, encapsulating the trickery of a “friendship feast” used by the English to trap the Trelawny Town Maroons, ultimately transporting them from the island. In that same letter to the Duke of Portland, Balcarres outlined a plan to subject the Moore Town Maroons to the same fate, according to anthropologist Kenneth Bilby. There is no record of Balcarres acting on his treacherous plot, however, perhaps having been dissuaded by his attorney general.

Moore Town oral history tells of the first-time Maroons being warned of the betrayal by an enslaved blacksmith commissioned to make the very shackles meant to imprison them. These and other incidents indicate that the relationship between the treaty Maroons and the enslaved population was not always antagonistic.

The Treaties post-Emancipation and post-Independence

The abolition of slavery in the empire, led the Jamaican Assembly to see the treaty as defunct, since the fundamental social and economic basis on which it was signed no longer existed. The Land Allotment Act of 1842 was the basis for dissolving the legal relationship with the Maroons. The Accompong Maroons, however, continued to view the treaty as a permanent governing document and refused to accept the new legal parameters, arguably, as these would lead to a significant loss of status as well as income.

Indeed, Stephen Vasciannie and others have maintained that the treaty was abrogated both by Emancipation (1838) and Independence (1962), and it has been treated as such by the State. Neither the Jamaican Constitution nor the Bill of Rights mentions Maroons nor any special relationship to the Jamaican State. Today, the Maroons claim rights as an Indigenous People under the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, a resolution of the UN General Assembly passed in 2007 (A/RES/61/295), largely as descendants of the indigenous Tainos, who were first peoples and first Maroons of Jamaica. This declaration recognises particular rights based on indigenous identity such as self-determination, freedom from forcible removal from lands and territories, and autonomy and self-governance. Jamaica is a signatory to this declaration but has not passed any laws enacting it.

They also hold they are a sovereign nation, the meaning of which relates to their relationship to the Jamaican populace and the State, in particular.

As David Batts and Stephen Vasciannie demonstrate, the meanings of these claims remain the source of much debate. If the Maroons have full and final decision-making power in relation to matters in Accompong, they have sovereignty. If the Jamaican State is sovereign over Accompong then final authority rests with them. The treaty in its specific terms does not contemplate sovereignty for the Maroons. As Vasciannie summarised it: “The Maroons seized or retained their freedom, obtained a land grant, were promised jurisdiction over certain crimes and were assured of some other rights. But they remained subject to English control and ultimate authority in ways incompatible with notions of sovereignty and independence”.

In 2020, the Accompong Maroons contested the Jamaican Government’s plan to allow mining in the Cockpit Country, lands which they consider part of their heritage and which they have rights to protect. The Leeward Treaty granted 1,500 acres land to Trelawny Town, but did not recognise Accompong. However, in 1756, because of a land dispute between Accompong and some neighbouring plantations, the Jamaica Assembly granted an additional 1,000 acres specifically to Accompong. A map of the Accompong lands reproduced by the Windsor Research Conservatory (cockpitcountry.com) has the following note: “Laid out as 1000 acres by virtue of the 31.Geo 11 Cap9 passed 1758, but found by resurvey Nov 1868 to contain 1200 acres”. The question of land ownership, particularly the question of Maroon ownership of lands in Accompong, is to be distinguished from the question of sovereignty.

Maroons continue to be celebrated through our oral traditions, scholarship, and creative productions. They form a notable chapter in the story of Jamaica’s journey to nationhood, despite all the ambiguities of their history. It is easy to acknowledge their contribution to the larger Jamaican culture such as the ubiquitous jerk, the one-drop rhythm in reggae music, goombay and prentin drums as well as various herbal remedies like guinea hen for cancer and chaney root as an aphrodisiac.

Their fight for freedom against a formidable enemy before the signing of the treaties is worthy of acclaim. Their collaboration with the colonial State to preserve their own communities while contributing to Africans on the plantations and their own communities remaining in “miserable slavery” calls out for interrogation, acknowledgement and healing.

At the same time, the Maroons are often inaccurate on and indifferent to specific details of the written document, embroidering it with new elements in keeping with its meaning to them, as Barbara Kopytoff as argued. For example, Maroons have frequently claimed that the treaty granted them freedom from all taxation, but this is nowhere specified in the text of the documents. While they consider their treaties as living documents, their lives are bounded by the significant changes in the circumstances of the Jamaican State and society, brought on by Emancipation and Independence. Perhaps historian Joy Lumsden, sister-in-law to the late Frank Lumsden — colonel of the Charles Town Maroons — put it best:

The combination of sincere loyalty to sworn allegiances with the pursuit of narrow group self-interest is foreign to 20th-century ideological interpretations and sensibilities, but it is the key to the actions of the Maroons and others like them. But for the Jamaican Maroons it was a way of viewing the world that had no future after 1865.

Note: The research was undertaken while I was scholar-in-residence at the Center for African Studies, Duquesne University, in Pittsburgh, during Semester II, 2022-23. Many thanks to the Center for African Studies and The University of the West Indies for the support provided. Also, thanks to the many persons who shared encouragement, research, and advice.

Anna Kasafi Perkins, PhD, is a senior programme officer, Quality Assurance Unit, The University of the West Indies Regional Headquarters, and adjunct faculty at St Michael’s Theological College.