While decrying the idea of human bondage, the author must insist upon reporting the whole truth about the life of slaves in the Old South. Even partisan defenders of Southern slavery such as Phillips admitted, "That cruelties occurred is never to be denied."62 Cruel people, whether slaveholders from the South or slave traders from the North, committed hideous acts. According to the traditional Southern view of slavery as explained by Woodrow Wilson, for the most part, Southern slavery was a mild and paternalist system. As Wilson stated, "For public opinion in the South ... was as intolerant of the graver forms of cruelty as was the opinion of the best people in the Both Woodrow Wilson and U. B. Phillips agreed that depictions of Southern slavery as seen in Uncle Tom's Cabin, although stirring to the emotions of Northerners, were far removed from reality.64 During a visit to Charleston, South Carolina, Bostonian Charles Eliot Norton wrote of his observations about slavery in the South:
The slaves do not go about looking unhappy, and are with difficulty, I fancy, persuaded to feel so. Whips and chains, oaths and brutality, are as common, for all that one sees, in the free as the slave states. We have come thus far, and might have gone ten times as far, I dare say, without seeing the first sign of Negro misery or white tyranny.65
Even foreign observers of Southern slavery noted how well slaves were treated. Louis F. Tasistro of Great Britain had this to say about the ease of life for the slaves:
To say that they are underworked and overfed, and far happier than the labourers of Great Britain would hardly convey a sufficiently clear notion of their actual condition. They put me much more in mind of a community of grown-up children, spoiled by too much kindness, than a body of dependants, much less a company of slaves.''''
In life and in death, slaves became an integral part of their extended families, both black and white. The closeness that developed between these two divergent classes of people is displayed in many old cemeteries in the Old South. The epitaph on the tombstone of one old faithful slave reads:
No better view of Southern paternalism could be given than the words of Solomon Northup. A free man of color, Northup was born in New York. After being kidnapped, he was sold into slavery in Louisiana by unscrupulous Northerners. For twelve years, Northup lived as the slave of several Louisiana masters, having the dubious distinction of serving both a good master and an evil master. The benefit of having a paternalistic master was not lost on Northup, who later stated:
During my residence with Master Ford I had seen only the bright side of slavery. His was no heavy hand crushing us to the earth. He pointed upwards, and with benign and cheering words addressed us as his fellow-mortals, accountable, like himself, to the Maker of us all. I think of him with affection, and had my family been with me, could have borne his gentle servitude, without murmuring, all my days.67
It should be noted that "Master Ford" of whom Northup spoke so appreciatively was a Baptist preacher. According to Northup, never was a more kind, noble, candid, Christian man than This is the type of man the Radical Abolitionists and the modern liberals condemn as an evil racist slaveholder. Yet, Rev. Ford's slave could only bless his master's name.
The idea that a Southern family would consider a black man, slave or free, as "one of them," or that a slave would refer to the memory of his master with affection, is a difficult concept to grasp by modern Americans. The idea that such a relationship ever existed is scoffed at and ridiculed by the liberal establishment. White Southerners who maintain this idea are tarred as "moonlight and magnolia" racists, and black Southerners who accept this view are castigated as modern-day "Uncle Toms." Historian summed up the many-faceted nature of Southern slavery in these words, "The slave regime was a curious blend of force and concession, of arbitrary disposal by the master and self-direction by the slave, of tyranny and benevolence, of antipathy and
As demonstrated, there is much more to the story of slavery "down South" than the all too often reported accounts of chains and bullwhips. Unfortunately, the incessant efforts of the liberal establishment to publicize only the negative aspects of slavery is driving race relations in America toward animosity and violence. A little balance in reporting of historic fact could go a long way toward restoring respect between black people and white people in America.
By reporting the story of Southern paternalism as it deals with the issue of slavery, the author is not suggesting that slavery was an enviable status. No authority cited in this work ever suggested that Southern slavery was a noble institution. Most authorities cited herein went on record as opposing the institution of slavery; nevertheless, they also understood the complexity of freeing the slaves. Also, they recognized and applauded the sincere efforts of many slaveholders to improve the lot of their slaves. Sadly for race relations in modern America, only the Radical Abolitionists' views are allowed free access to the marketplace of ideas and the public mind.
BLACK SLAVEHOLDERS AND FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE SOUTH
As if the foregoing account of Southern paternalism and slavery was not shocking enough for those holding politically correct views of slavery, the author will now proceed with a short review of black slaveholders and free people of color in the Old South. The truth can be shocking, but that shock is not anything new in the history of the South. Union soldier John William Deforest of the Twelfth Connecticut informed his Yankee relatives of his amazement at seeing so many "colored" slaveholders in Louisiana. Deforest wrote:
You would be amazed to see the swarming mulattos and quadroons and octoroons who possess this region and call themselves Americans. Some of the richest planters, men of really great wealth, are of mixed descent. When we march through a town the people who gather to stare at us remind me of the Negro quarters of Philadelphia and New York ... These are not former slaves, observe, but the former masters [emphasis added].70
This was not the situation the Yankees expected to find "down South." Nor is this truth about African-Americans as slaveholders understood today. When confronted with the truth about African- Americans owning slaves in America, the sycophants of political correctness often will scoff as if to say, "Don't bother me with facts; my mind is made up."
When faced with mounting evidence to support the fact of African-American slaveholders, the politically correct crowd will assert that black slaveholding was done only to protect relatives who were slaves (i.e., slaveholding for benevolent reasons only). In his work on the subject of African-American slaveholders in South Carolina, Larry Koger demonstrates that the desire to save relatives from slavery was neither the sole nor the primary reason for African-Americans owing slaves. Koger points out that in urban areas more female slaves were owned by African-Americans than male slaves; whereas, in rural areas more male slaves were owned by African-Americans than in urban areas. In urban areas, domestic help, provided by females more than by males, was at a premium. In rural areas, where more "man" power was needed, male slaves were at a premium; demonstrating that the need of labor, not kinship, was driving African-American slave ownership.71 Free people of color paid great deference to the fact that they were of a different color than their slaves.72 The difference in skin tone and color between slaves and free people of color is an indicator that African- American slaveholders were not purchasing their close relatives. As the Union Army was approaching Charleston, South Carolina, African-American slaveholders still maintained control of their slaves. They did not relinquish this control until they were ordered to do so, freeing more than 240 slaves, after the war was over.73 If African-Americans owned slaves only to save their brothers or sisters from evil white slaveholders, why did they have to be forced to free their slaves after the war had ended? Koger concludes that African- American slaveholders owned slaves for the same reason that white slaveholders did so-the desire for profits.74
According to the historical record, African-Americans owned fellow African-Americans throughout the United States. Of course, the largest segment of African-American slaveholders resided in the South. For example, according
to the 1830 census, more that ten thousand slaves were owned by African-Americans in the states of South Carolina, Louisiana, Virginia, and Maryland. As if not to be left out, in the same year eight African-Americans in New York City owned seventeen slaves.75
The majority of African-American slaveholders owned only a small number of slaves and used them in their own business or hired them out for income. Nevertheless, there were some very prosperous African-Americans who owned enough slaves to be classified as "planters." One example is Auguste Donatto of St. Landry Parish in Louisiana, who owned a five-hundred-acre plantation and at least seventy slaves. In South Carolina, William Ellison also owned seventy slaves on his plantation.76 As has been discussed, only 12 percent of Southern slaveholders owned twenty or more slaves, thus meeting the requirement of a planter. Donatto and Ellison were two among many African-Americans who met this requirement.
Hidden away in North Louisiana in a section of Natchitoches Parish was the home of the state's largest area of non-white slaveholders. The creoles of color in the Cane River area of the parish were well established and prosperous by the advent of the War for Southern Independence. These folks were not a ragtag band of vagabonds. They were the owners of fine homes; their children were tutored by well-established educators; their houses were graced with furnishings of taste and quality; and they owned slaves. The quality of the homes and plantations in the area was noted by a steamboat captain: "The plantations appeared no way different from the generality of those of white Creoles; and on some of them were large, handsome, and comfortable According to a study by Gary B. Mills, no less that seven plantation homes once existed within the 15,000 acres of the Cane River area, worked by more than 379 slaves, and valued at close to $1,000,000.78 The census records of 1850 reveal that the average farm of the free people of color in this area was worked by nine slaves-the same number as in the rest of the parish.79 Thus it would appear that the slaveholding free people of color were just as prosperous as their white neighbors. The work of Mills parallels the work of Koger, who reported that the benefits of American slavery extended to free people of color in South Carolina. These African-Americans would, on rare occasions, advance into the slaveholding plantation class.50 Whether in Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, Charleston, South Carolina, or New York City, African-Americans owned slaves for the same reasons their white counterparts owned slaves-profits.
Nowhere in the Old South did free people of color compose as large a part of society or have as much influence within that society as in New Orleans, Louisiana. Free people of color in Orleans Parish comprised 23 percent of the population in 1810, 17 percent in 1817, and 24 percent in 1830. Although society was divided along color and racial lines, a warm relationship was maintained by many people across that line. A good example is the life of free man of color, Andrew Durnford of Louisiana. During his life he and John McDonogh, a white man, were very close. McDonogh even kept a special room in his home for his colored friend. In business and pleasure they were strong allies.81 As shocking as this relationship may be to those raised on the theory of Southern white animosity toward African-Americans, the fact that this free man of color owned slaves and maintained a close relationship with many of them is also perplexing. An exceptionally close relationship existed between Durnford and his slave Noel. David O. Whitten, Durnford's biographer, noted that this close relationship was based on friendship and trust between the master and the slave.82 Indeed, the whole truth about slavery in the Old South can be most discomforting to liberals and their sycophants.
With the assistance of his white friend, in 1828 Durnford established himself as proprietor of St. Rosalie Plantation. St. Rosalie was located on the Mississippi River approximately thirty-three miles South of New Orleans. Within three years, Durnford had increased his holdings in both land and slaves. In 1831 his holdings had increased to twenty-one slaves. With hopes of increasing his sugar production, he wrote to McDonogh in New Orleans inquiring about the purchase of more slaves: "Be so good my dear sir to say if there is plenty of Negroes in town and horses. I fear that Negroes will sell high in six months or a year, therefore I hope ere this you have met with a bargain for me."ss The necessity of providing labor for his plantation was so acute that Durnford bought more slaves, hired slaves from other planters, and employed Irish laborers.84 The idea of a "colored" person hiring a white laborer in the antebellum South does not fit into the politically correct concept of that age. Nevertheless, as so often done in this study of slavery, it must be pointed out that what passes for fact and the actual truth about American slavery are often at odds.
Not only did Durnford seek the assistance of his white friend in the purchase of slaves but also, in 1834, he undertook a trip east for the purpose of buying additional slaves. This trip would take an African-American slaveholder from Louisiana, along with a portion of his sugar crop, and a faithful slave, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and then to Virginia. For those who maintain that African- Americans only bought slaves to rescue relatives from bondage to white slaveholders, this trip by Durnford must be a disappointment. No one can maintain, nor do his records support, the idea that Durnford, of French and African decent, went to Virginia to purchase his brothers, sisters, or even cousins. He went east to buy slaves: a clear and simple fact. Even though the prices were not the bargain he had hoped for, Durnford did buy several slaves: "I have bought a woman with two children for the sum of 625$ one of about 4 years old the other a couple of months's both boys." While reading Durnford's report about his slave-buying trip to Virginia, one does not note a sense of regret about buying women and children. The one regret that this African-American slaveholder did express was his shock at the high prices he had to pay for slaves: "People is higher than ever.... Blacks are getting higher every day, even the Negro traders are surprised at the prices In his letters home, Durnford expressed much anxiety about the prices for slaves and the problems of transporting them from Virginia to New Orleans. Also, he made note of the physical exhaustion he was suffering as a result of his slave-buying activities: "My thighs is all blistered riding round or within twenty miles of Richmond."116 Durnford's efforts at securing a sufficient labor supply for his plantation were well rewarded. By the time of his death, this African-American plantation owner had accumulated large land holdings, worked by more than seventy-seven slaves.87
As many historians will point out. Louisiana and South Carolina were the states with the largest numbers of free people of color who were slaveholders. Yet, they were not the only Southern states with African-American slaveholders. In Natchez, Mississippi, we find the example of another African-American slaveholder, William Johnson. It is believed that Johnson was the son of Amy Johnson and her master William Johnson, for whom the younger William was named. In 1814, William Johnson, Sr., manumitted Amy according to the laws of the state of Louisiana. As was true in most slaveholding states, even Massachusetts, a master could not free a slave unless he could assure the general public that the freed person would not become a burden upon society. This law served to protect not only society at large but also the slave. Once a man bought a slave, he was obligated to maintain that slave in sickness and health, as well as in youth and old age. A master was not allowed to free himself of his responsibility of caring for his slave just because of old age or sickness. Many Northerners noted this major difference between the labor systems in the South and in the North:
As slavery pays in a pecuniary sense, it is easy for the Southron to believe it is justified by Divine authority. On the other hand, we of the North couldn't make it pay, so we are convinced that it is "the sum of all villainy." Our plan is more profitable; we take care of no children or sick people, except as paupers, while the owners of slaves have to provide for them from birth till death [emphasis added].88
At the time that William Johnson, Sr., manumitted his slave Amy, he posted a legal notice of intent in which he stated that, "for divers good causes and considerations me thereunto moving ... [I therefore] released from s
lavery, liberated, manumitted, and set free my Negro woman Amy."89 Johnson was also obligated to make a statement that the said Negro woman Amy would be capable of providing for herself and that he would be responsible for her care if she should ever "be in want owing to sickness, old age, insanity, or any other proven infirmity."90 Being denied the right to free a slave child by Louisiana law, William Johnson, Sr., applied for the right to manumit Amy's son William from the Mississippi legislature. In order to manumit the slave child in Mississippi, William Johnson, Sr., had to prove that he resided in Mississippi and that he was debt free. This being the case, in 1820 he petitioned the state legislature in the following manner:
Your Petitioner humbly prays your Honorable Body to permit him to make that disposition of his property most agreeable to his feelings & consonant to humanity ... that Liberty to a human being which all are entitled to as a Birthright, & extend the hand of humanity to a rational Creature, on whom unfortunately Complexion Custom & even Law in This Land of freedom, has conspired to rivet the fetters of Slavery.9'
Both houses of the Mississippi legislature, after some minor amendments, passed a bill allowing for the manumission of the minor William Johnson. On February 10, 1820, the following bill was signed into law by Mississippi governor George Poindexter:
An Act To Emancipate William, A Person of Color
Sec. I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the state of Mississippi, in general assembly convened, That the mulatto boy named William, son of Amy, a free woman of color, and the slave of William Johnson of Adams County, be, and he is hereby emancipated and set free from slavery, saving however the rights of creditors, and on the express condition that the said William Johnson, enter into and security in the sum of one thousand dollars, to be filed in the office of secretary of state, and made payable to the governor for the time being, and his successors in office, conditioned that the said boy William, shall never become a public charge, and that the said William Johnson shall educate and maintain said child, according to the provisions of the second section of this act.
Myths of American Slavery Page 15
