The Prince of Jockeys
Page 6
Still, by January 1861, America Murphy and her newborn child stood at the edge of a brand-new world where the possibility of freedom had changed the outlook of the “inferior” and the noncitizen. To David Tanner, however, America's newborn baby was a possession like any other, to be used and exploited for his own personal financial benefit. Kentucky farmers, many of whom were from Virginia—the Old Dominion—held on to their economic aspirations and racial attitudes. To men like Tanner, the “natural increase” in slaves represented an investment in human property that could be lucrative, based on the marketplace and the perceived and actual value of slaves. Certainly, the increased demand for slave labor to work in the cotton fields of the Deep South motivated some Kentucky slaveholders to sell their “black brutes” to stock-hungry slave traders and take advantage of the profits available.
Slaveholding farmers took pride in their slaves’ ability to produce whatever was needed to sustain daily life. Possessing or hiring out a slave who was a skilled blacksmith, cooper, teamster, or factory or mill hand was essential to numerous Bluegrass slaveholders’ sense of identity. Indeed, a farmer's success was not always tied to the crops harvested and sold. Additional income came from the sale of slave labor when there was a lull on the farm, especially during the winter months. Factory workers were needed seasonally to manufacture raw hemp into rope and cord, so it was common for factories to hire slaves for short periods from absentee owners or a sheriff who happened to be in possession of an unclaimed slave. Such transactions could be lucrative for slaveholders, or at least pay for the upkeep of the slave who generated the income.
On Tanner's Clark County farm, each of his slaves contributed their own particular skills and abilities to ensure the success of the planting and harvesting seasons. Like most enslaved African Americans, America Murphy understood the penalty for failing to complete her assigned tasks. On more than a few occasions, Kentucky slaves accused of behavior contrary to that desired by their masters or overseers were “disciplined” within the framework of the law, based on the number of “stripes” (lashes of the whip) an infraction required. On other occasions, enslaved blacks were tortured to death for no other reason than the sadistic pleasure taken by those who applied the whip, the ax, or strategically placed hot coals to elicit the bloodcurdling screams desired.5
Still, fear of such abuse did not dissuade enslaved African Americans from rebelling and fighting for their humanity at the cost of their lives. Resistance is the natural outcome of denying people the right to claim that which is natural. In labeling African Americans inferior and subjecting them to reprehensible abuse to satisfy the demented majority, who justified their vicious behavior as discipline, white slaveholders guaranteed their own destruction. To expect anything less than bloodshed was ludicrous, as former slave turned abolitionist Frederick Douglass makes clear. “Slavery,” he argues, “is a system of brute force. It shields itself behind might, rather than right. It must be met with its own weapons.”6 In his mind, and to the millions of others held in bondage, the only way to end the suffering was through violence. This was the world America Murphy knew, and it was the world she brought her child into. How she taught him about that world—its challenges and its ideas of civility and humanity—would be shaped by her expectations for him. Indeed, America held her son's future in her hands and in her heart; she would be responsible for guiding his destiny beyond the dark days of slavery.
More than likely, it was America who chose her newborn son's name. There are two viable reasons she might have decided to call him Isaac: a family connection or a biblical connection. Isaac might have been the name of America's grandfather, favorite uncle, or brother. Clearly, the individual would have been someone important to her, someone she would think of each time she reflected on her child and her hopes and dreams for him. Naming her son after a family member would have preserved a connection to America's family's history and therefore given the child a sense of his past. Severing the connection to one's ancestors is like committing social suicide, and enslaved African Americans sought to maintain a tradition of naming that preserved their families’ historical narratives and their connections to relatives long passed or separated by distance. One's name provided a sense of family that could not be taken away no matter how far from home one ventured.
Alternatively, America might have taken her son's name from the Bible, in reference to the only son of Abraham and Sarah. It is possible that America had given birth to several other children who had died or been sold. Due to her age (somewhere around thirty) and the circumstances, America may have seen Isaac as a gift from God and chosen his name to reflect her gratitude and joy at being given another chance at motherhood. She invested a great deal of hope in Isaac, for his name is connected to the great things promised to those who are obedient to the will of God. This act of naming would have demonstrated America's faith in her Bible lessons and her willingness to teach her son the meaning and purpose of living a religious life. African Americans’ connection to the world through religion provided them with a sense of rootedness. By bestowing such a strong name on her son, along with a knowledge of its biblical implications, America Murphy gave Isaac a sense of purpose and an answer to the question of his destiny.
In Kentucky, children born to enslaved women became field hands, responsible for planting and harvesting the crops; carpenters, whose steady hands built homes and barns; trainers, whose knowledge of animal husbandry helped develop champion bloodstock; jockeys, who rode those champions to victory; and domestic servants, who maintained the households of the wealthy. Indeed, the value of a slave child to its owner was based on the child's future potential as a commodity in the marketplace. These children grew up to be the muscle that built the wealth of Kentucky's first families. This was the world into which Isaac Murphy was born.
Enslaved African Americans organized their lives to create a world of their own, away from the eyes and ears of whites.7 Within these communities, they experienced full lives, achieved manhood and womanhood, and discussed the world of their masters. Those who worked closest to their masters had an intimate knowledge of white people and their ways, which created windows of opportunity for dissent and rebellion. Whether America Murphy participated in such acts of defiance on the Tanner farm is unknown, but we know she was determined to protect her son and shield him from the worst degradations and abuses perpetrated by those in power. No doubt she hoped and prayed for a better future for her baby boy, one in which freedom was an achievable reality, not some fantastic notion or doomed endeavor that often resulted in the capture of runaways trying to reach the far-off North. With civil war looming, America would maintain a vigil over Isaac to ensure both his survival and her own. He would depend on her, and she would guide his steps toward freedom.
America Murphy had been born into slavery around the time the laws became more deterministic of her future. By 1861, neither she nor Isaac could expect much protection from the laws or traditions that deemed them the property of David Tanner.8 Still, those who were legally designated human chattel had certain ways to resist the demands of their masters or overseers.9 Like most enslaved black women, America no doubt understood the value of community and maintained ties to hers in the Bluegrass region. She was likely aware that Lincoln's election represented hope for blacks. Nevertheless, she probably questioned the wisdom of bringing a child into a world where he would be valued similarly to a cow or a horse and could be traded or sold on a whim. As a domestic slave and the mother of a newborn, America would have been concerned about the needs of her infant, his future, and the possibility of his untimely death.10 If Isaac was going to survive to adulthood, she would have to teach him how to respond appropriately to the systemic abuses of slavery while privately maintaining his dignity and selfhood. In accordance with the principles of the institution of slavery, all children born to enslaved African American women took on the condition of the mother, regardless of the father's status as free or white. Thus, Isaac Murphy was indeed
born a slave.11
America Murphy
America Murphy was born around 1831 in Lexington to an enslaved woman named Anne, who was likely of mixed-race ancestry, and to Green Murphy, about whom little is known.12 America grew to womanhood knowing both her parents and other members of her extended family, many of whom lived in and around the urban center of Lexington. The details of Anne and Green's relationship are unknown. Nevertheless, based on the customs and laws of Kentucky, we know that they would not have been legally married. It is possible that Anne and Green attended the First African Baptist Church, where London Ferrill was minister, and he may have joined the couple as husband and wife.13 Ferrill conducted marriage ceremonies between slaves that mimicked the peculiarity of their situation: couples were wedded with the understanding that they would be husband and wife until death or distance separated them. It is also possible that Anne and Green maintained a loving relationship and lived in the same home or near each other in Lexington.
We know that Anne was a slave, based on her daughter's designation as human chattel, so the question becomes, what was the status of her father? Was Green Murphy a “native born” white man or a recently immigrated Irishman? Did he own Anne and therefore her children, or was he an enslaved black man who worked as a field hand in one of the surrounding counties? Did he live in Lexington as a hired factory worker, or was he owned by the same master as Anne? Given Kentucky's history of mixed-race children, the prevalence of long-distance marriages, and the widespread use of slave labor in Lexington, the possibilities are endless. What we do know about Green Murphy is that he was a bell ringer and town crier for auctions. It is highly plausible that Green announced auctions at Cheapside in Lexington or even stood by as an assistant as his master sold other slaves on the steps of the courthouse or in front of the Fayette County jail. This possibility should not be surprising: slavery is called the peculiar institution for a reason. An examination of Lexington directories from the early nineteenth century reveals that no one is listed as serving in the capacity of bell ringer or town crier—an important means of conveying the news of the day. Census data for Fayette and the six surrounding counties do not account for anyone named Green Murphy, which strongly suggests that he was an enslaved black man owned by one of the many white families named Murphy living in Lexington between 1830 and 1860.
An 1891 interview with trainer Eli Jordan suggests that Green Murphy may have been in the business of horses. Jordan claims that the elder Murphy wanted his grandson to become a great jockey like Charles Stewart, Ansel Williamson, and Ed Brown.14 Among all the white Murphy families living in or around Lexington at the time, only Jeremiah Murphy was directly tied to the horse business; he owned a livery stable on the east side of Mulberry Street between Main and High Streets.15 In 1834 Jeremiah Murphy sold a tract of land to the Kentucky Horse Association, whose sole purpose was “to improve the breed of horses by encouraging the sports of the turf.”16
Green Murphy may have come from Fauquier County, Virginia, as a small boy, just as the village of Lexington was beginning to settle and take shape. He may have been hoisted onto the back of one of the blooded horses owned by his master and told to guide the prized beast down Main Street to the finish line at the other end. During the early part of the nineteenth century, when Lexington was young and the Jockey Club was created to regulate racing, Green would have been old enough to understand the value of being a successful jockey in a racially polarized society where blacks had few rights. It is possible that Green Murphy became a fixture in Lexington based on his horsemanship, and he may have hoped to share his love of speed with his children and grandchildren.
America's mother, Anne, may have come to Kentucky at the turn of the nineteenth century as a young girl, traveling across the Cumberland Gap or down the Kentucky River with her owner. She was likely a domestic servant to one of the many urban white slaveholding families. These families participated in the slave trade in the most genteel of ways: purchasing slaves at the Cheapside slave market to hire out to the numerous manufacturing firms in Lexington. As the property of a cosmopolitan Kentuckian, Anne would have been responsible for maintaining the appearance of privilege and entitlement—a façade that was common among Lexington's genteel upper class. Indeed, those who possessed stylish town homes or grand estates understood these to be extensions of their status as members of the bourgeoisie.
As a mulatto woman, Anne would have been the physical representation of the existence of sex across racial boundaries, despite the social taboo.17 By 1860, 20 percent of the enslaved black population in Kentucky was mulatto. Clearly, this was the result of black women giving birth to children fathered by white men. Indeed, sex between whites and blacks often involved rape and coercion—white men violently asserting their fragile sense of power against black women. Less discussed are the loving relationships between enslaved black women and white men that produced children who were legally defined as slaves due to the principle of children taking on the status of their mothers. Unfortunately, very few narratives of such relationships having happy endings have survived.
Conversely, relationships between black men and white women were not only frowned upon but also illegal in the slave states. Such relationships threatened the stability of slavery in three ways: they undermined the very foundation of slavery, which was that the races were different species of humankind; they challenged the notion of white males’ entitlement to sole access to white women's bodies; and they jeopardized the status of whiteness: if black women, enslaved or free, gave birth to black babies even if the father was white, would white women give birth to white babies even if the father was black? Because children took on the status of the mother in Southern society, children born to white women would be born free, even if they were fathered by enslaved black men.18 The stability of white society hung in the balance.
Lewis Clarke describes the relationship between his enslaved mother and his Scottish immigrant father, who fought at the Battle of Bunker Hill during the Revolutionary War. “My father was from ‘beyond the flood,’” he writes, “from Scotland and by trade a weaver. About the year 1800, or before, he came to Kentucky, and married Miss Letitia Campbell, then held as a slave by her dear and affectionate father.”19 Although uncommon, marriages between enslaved black women and white men did occur, especially if the women were near white in complexion. Other narratives of common-law marriages or marriages of convenience between enslaved black women and white men are less romantic, indicative of the changing meaning of race in America in general and Kentucky in particular. The unfortunate outcome of Lewis Clarke's story was all too common. After the death of Letitia's father and the execution of his will, she and her children were not freed, as he had promised; instead, they were disbursed as assets of the estate. Separated from his mother and siblings, the adolescent Lewis was loaned out to members of the Campbell family and forced to negotiate his often brutal surroundings and circumstances with courage and bravery.
To be sure, numerous sexual relationships between black women and white men in the antebellum period were coercive and violent, owing to the simple fact that these women had no rights whatsoever. They did not belong to a protected class; they were not included under the banner of law that shielded white women from sexual exploitation. Black women were often abused without cause or subjected to inhumane cruelty. Black women struggled to find support from white women, who perceived black womanhood as inherently licentious and depraved. White women believed the “Negress” possessed powers to entice and compromise their vulnerable Christian husbands, who were too weak to refuse the advances of such wanton Jezebels. As a black woman, Anne Murphy would have witnessed the consequences of being born black or mulatto in a society that claimed whiteness was as close to godliness as people could get.
It is likely that David Tanner purchased America Murphy when she was a young girl, sometime between 1840 and 1850, to work as a domestic servant on his Clark County farm. She would have been taught as a child
to perform the tasks required of her, learning the type of exemplary behavior desired by the Tanner family by watching her mother and other black women serving as “house girls.” We know from various slave narratives that white mistresses could be quite abusive, but America's particular experiences in the Tanner household remain a mystery. She would have been up before dawn to prepare breakfast for the Tanner family, clean the dishes, make the beds, and wash clothes. In addition, she may have prepared food for the slaves assigned to the fields and to the stable on the Tanner property.
Similar to his neighbors, Tanner, a transplanted Virginian, used the physical labor of black men and women to clear all traces of wilderness from his land, to cultivate the ground, to plant and harvest the fields, and to transport goods to market. Kentucky farmers took great pride in their ability to produce what they needed to prosper, even though they utilized the muscle of slaves to do so. Slavery made the genteel life possible throughout the Upper and Lower South. Still, enslaved African Americans did not simply accept the status quo. Through an array of public and private actions, bondsmen and -women fought to claim their humanity and their freedom, undermining the institution of slavery at its core.
As a young girl, America would have observed and participated in the bustling life of cosmopolitan Lexington, a city desperate to live up to its potential. However, America had to be aware of both the value placed on her fair skin and the potential life that awaited her, should she be sold and sent down south. Located less than twenty miles from the city of Lexington, the Tanner farm produced agricultural commodities such as hemp, corn, and tobacco. Tanner also raised livestock, including milk cows, sheep, and Thoroughbred horses.20 As a house girl, America would have seen to the needs of the family, especially Tanner's wife Lydia and his young daughter Julia, who was around the same age as America. As a servant, she would have been trained to cook, clean, sew, and provide companionship for her young mistress. Although this type of job may seem innocuous, it could sometimes be more psychologically damaging than working in the fields under a brutal overseer. Constant demands were placed on adolescent house girls like America, and if they did not perform up to the standards of their mistresses and masters, the consequences could be brutal.