CHAPTER III

The Social Status of the Slave

In discussing the social relations of the slave it is difficult to escape being commonplace. Many points in the everyday experience of the negro have been incidentally touched in the preceding pages of this study. The ordinary life of the slave was very similar to that of the negro of today in so far as it was affected by temperament and inclination, hence it will be the endeavor of this chapter to deal simply with the more vital points of slave existence, mentioning only a few of the numerous items gathered on the different phases of the subject.

A question which caused much concern both to the slave-holder and to his antislavery critic was the education of the slave and of the free negro. After the different servile insurrections many of the eastern slave States enforced more rigidly old laws or passed new ones forbidding the teaching of the slaves. This was done largely to prevent the negroes from reading the abolition literature then being sent South.¹ Missouri, however, was less subject to social than to political or financial hysteria. Never having a slave population equal to more than a fifth of the total, being far from the insurrections to the east and south, and each master averaging so few negroes, Missouri seems not to have been affected by the movements which concerned so many of

the slave States. She did not change her law in common with them, although much of it was originally copied from Kentucky and Virginia.

When the Missouri country passed into the hands of the United States, education among the old French settlers was at a very low point, and undoubtedly the condition of their slaves was worse. As late as 1820, long before a law had been passed to prevent the teaching of negroes, a slave who could read was something of a novelty. A fugitive is thus described in a paper of that year: “Ranaway . . . a negro man named Peter. . . . He pretends to be religious and can read a little.”² Apparently his ability to read was calculated to attract attention.

An apprenticeship law of 1825 relieved the master from the duty of teaching negro and mulatto apprentices reading, writing, or arithmetic, but “if such apprentice or servant be a free negro or mulatto he or she shall be allowed, at the expiration of his or her term of service, a sum of money in lieu of his education to be assessed by the probate court.”³ This provision seemingly had no reference to masters who desired to teach their slaves. In May, 1836, the faculty of Marion College forbade their students to instruct “any slave to read without the consent of his owner being first given in writing.”⁴ From this statement it is learned that the teaching of slaves must have been practiced by some masters at least.

Either to conform to the law and practice in the Southern States or because of interference on the part of abolitionists, a statute was passed in 1847 which provided that “no person shall keep or teach any school for the instruction of any negroes or mulattoes, in reading or writing in this State”

under a penalty of five hundred dollars or not more than six months’ imprisonment or both.⁵ This statute was broken by indulgent masters and their families. “Many of us,” says a prominent citizen of Lafayette County, “taught our niggers to read despite the law, but many of them refused to learn.”⁶ A colored educator of St. Louis asserts that Catholic sisters in that city often taught illegitimate colored girls, while free colored women, under the guise of holding sewing classes, taught negro children to read. Sometimes slave children slipped into these classes. Such a school was carried on by a Mrs. Keckley (colored) of St. Louis.⁷

As will be seen later, rigorous laws, increasing in severity in proportion to the activity of free-state neighbors in assisting slaves to escape, were passed to prevent negro assemblages, whether religious or social.⁸ Nevertheless the patriarchal Missouri system fostered the religious instruction of the slave. The antebellum frontiersman was very religious and very orthodox, and the newspapers, the public speeches, and even the journals of the General Assembly abound in expressions of deep fervor. It was not a busy industrial society, and outside of St. Louis and a few other sections the liberal alien was as yet hardly known. The northern clergy with their developing unitarianism were abhorred. The master and the mistress and even the children considered themselves personally responsible for the spiritual welfare of the slave. In the rural sections the bondman usually attended his master’s church.⁹ “In the old Liberty Baptist church the servants occupied the northeast corner. After the whites had partaken of the Communion the cup was passed to the slaves,” says a

contemporary.¹⁰ Very often the negroes were placed in the gallery. William Brown, a fugitive Missouri slave, declares that the slaves were instructed in religion at the owner’s expense as a means of making them faithful to their masters and content in their state of servitude. He admits, however, that the owner really had a pious desire to give his negroes Christian training.¹¹ The restriction on negro preachers will be treated later.¹²

The statistics given of the various churches include the free colored along with the slaves, and hence are of little value in obtaining an idea of slave membership. In St. Louis, where there was a large free negro population, both classes seem to have attended the same churches, one colored minister, the Reverend Richard Anderson, having a flock of one thousand, “fully half of whom were free.”¹³ The other half must necessarily have been slaves. The St. Louis Directory of 1842 mentions two colored churches, each having a pastor.¹⁴ Another negro church, organized in 1858, had seventy-five members.¹⁵ That slaves, whether Protestant or Catholic, were often very devout is indicated by numerous touching accounts.¹⁶

The relations between the old French inhabitants of Missouri and their slaves were very close. The Catholic church was the special guardian of the bondman. It was very common for the white mistress to stand as sponsor for the black babe at its baptism, or for the slave mother to act as godmother to the master’s child.¹⁷ The following entry may be read in the records of the St. Louis Cathedral: “On the thirtieth October 1836, I baptized William Henry, six weeks old, and John, six years old, both slaves belonging to Mr. H. O’Neil, born of Mary, likewise Slave belonging to Mr. H. O’Neil, Sponsors were Henry Guibord and Mary O’Neil. Jos. A. Lutz.”¹⁸

The Catholic church considered slavery as a part of the patriarchal life of the old French settlements. The growth of the country, however, soon commercialized the system, the French families becoming as prone to slave-dealing as were the newcomers. One has but to examine the probate records of the older counties to realize this fact. The Catholic clergy themselves often held slaves whom they did not govern very strictly. Some of the religious orders inherited negroes,19 and in 1860 St. Louis University paid taxes on six slaves.20

The marriage relation of the slaves was necessarily lax, as the right of the owner to separate the parties was a corollary of his property right. This was the subject of very bitter criticism by antislavery people, as most of the churches admitted that the removal of either party sundered the marriage bond. A Unitarian minister of St. Louis wrote indignantly that “the sham service which the law scorned to recognize was rendered by the ministers of the gospel of Christ.”²¹ He also states that a religious ceremony was “according to slavery usage in well regulated Christian families.”²² William Brown, a Missouri refugee, says that the slaves were married, usually with a ceremony, when the owner ordered, but that the parties were separated at his will. He declares that he never heard of a slave being tried for bigamy.²³ Scharf claims that the official registration of a slave marriage was almost unknown in St. Louis.²⁴

On the other hand, the Catholic church regularly married slaves and held the tie to be as sacred as any other marriage. The following entry appears in the Cathedral records: “On the twenty-fourth of December, Eighteen Hundred and twenty-eight the undersigned Parish priest at St. Louis received the mutual consent at Mariage between Silvester slave of Mr. Bosseron born in St. Louis and Nora Helen slave of Mr. Hough born in the city of Washington and gave them the nuptial benediction in the presence of the undersigned witnesses. Wm. Sautnier.” Then follow the

crosses which represent the signatures of Silvester, Nora Helen, and four other slaves and one free negro.²⁵

Several old slaves were questioned regarding the subject of marriage, and their statements show differences in practice. One said that he and his wife liked one another, and as they both belonged to the same master they “took up” or “simply lived together,” and that this arrangement was the custom and nothing was said.²⁶ A negro of Saline County who was a child in slavery days stated that his parents belonged to different persons, and, by the consent of both, were married by the squire. The children went to the mother’s master. After the War they were again married in conformity with the new state constitution.²⁷ Doubtless the experience of many slave families was similar to this last.

The slave marriage was never recognized by the law, consequently a statute was passed in 1865 requiring a legal marriage of all slaves in the State under a penalty.²⁸ An illustration of the legal position of the old slave marriage is best gained from a reading of the case of Johnson v. Johnson, which was handed down by the state supreme court in 1870. Here it was held that the old slave marriages were simply moral agreements and had no legal force whatever.²⁹

Crime was existent among the negroes in the slavery period, although it is often asserted that the black man has degenerated since his emancipation and a mass of revolting crimes is cited in evidence. If more crimes are committed today than in slavery days, it must be remembered that there are three negroes in the South today to one in 1860, and that a massing of population in towns undoubtedly in-creases crime. It was to the financial advantage of the master to shield his slave and smother his crimes, while today the race problem and race feeling encourage an airing of the failings of the blacks.

While at times the misbehavior of the slave and the free negro worked the populace into mob violence, such action was of a local and temporary nature.³⁰ Neither the legislation

nor the court decisions seem to have been influenced by any crimes on the part of the slaves. Of the two negro cases which caused the most feeling, one, the McIntosh affair of 1836, concerned a free negro, and the other, that of “Jack” Anderson, was a murder committed by a slave who had resided for some time in Canada.³¹ Consequently there was no such feeling toward the slave as there was throughout the period toward the free negro. The Missourian, though irritated by political interference with his property and bitter against those who sought to carry off his blacks, had a rough good humor, and apparently exercised a spirit of fairness toward his bondmen.

The old slave masters without exception declare that the system was patriarchal in Missouri and that the bond between the owner and the owned was very close. The small number of slaves held by the vast majority of the masters was one reason for this condition. When the young Virginian or Kentuckian and his negroes emigrated to far-off Missouri, they suffered in common the pangs of parting, and together went to develop the virgin soil amid common dangers and common hardships. Thus there undoubtedly grew up an attachment that the older communities had long since outgrown.

For the territorial period there is evidence that the relation

between the races was friendly. Judge J. C. B. Lucas of St. Louis, a man who certainly had no love for the slavery system and who in 1820 advocated its restriction, admitted this fact. “I confess,” he wrote, “that I do not entertain very serious apprehension of slaves as domestics . . . they are usually treated with a degree of humanity, and not infrequently of paternal affection. The opportunities they have to observe the conduct of the master’s family, to attend public worship, and the satisfaction they receive from enjoying in a reasonable degree the comforts of life, generally induces them to respect the rights of others and be harmless.”³²

This condition of fellowship between master and man, made possible by deep respect on the part of the slave, continued on to the Civil War in many rural communities. “The Missouri slave holders,” said Mr. Robert B. Price of Columbia, “were not such through choice. They inherited their negroes and felt duty bound to keep them.” Colonel J. L. Robards of Hannibal stated that his father left him a number of slaves to whom he was fondly attached and whom he considered as a family trust. Mr. E. W. Strode of Independence claims that the negro was closely united to the master’s family. Mr. Strode stated that his grandfather required in his will that the slaves be kept in the family, and that they were so held till the Civil War. “The children of the master,” said Mr. Strode,” played and fought with the slave children with due respect, there being no need for race distinction.”

The slave not only worshipped at his master’s church and partook of the same sacraments as his master, but was ministered to by the same pastor and attended by the family physician.³³ In the quaint little cemetery south of Columbia,

where lie William Jewell and Charles H. Hardin, rest also the family servants. The latter are buried together side by side under small marble markers in the further side of the lot. Nothing can give a better impression of the strong tie between the slave and his master. This presents an idea of the system in its ideal state and under men who both intellectually and politically made life brighter in Missouri. “My mother,” said Mr. R. B. Price, “labored incessantly to clothe and nurse our slaves—with no thought of any ulterior motive.” Thus there is presented a picture of the system in the hands of the responsible and the conscientious, but economic pressure, human depravity, and greed too often made the picture morbid and disgusting. Herein lay the weakness of the system. The comparatively unlimited power of the master might be used for the blessing of the slave, or for his misery.

A general view of the condition of the Missouri slave can be gained from the recollections of one of the most eminent antislavery statesmen of the period, General George R. Smith of Sedalia. “The negroes,” he wrote, “had Saturday ’evenings’ as the afternoons were called, in which to do work for themselves; and what they made during this time they could sell and so get a little money. For money, however, they had little need, as they had no opportunities for higher life. . . . The masters were usually humane and there was often real affection between master and slave—very often great kindliness. There were merciful services, from each to the other: there was laughter, song, and happiness in the negro quarters. . . . The old negroes had their comfortable quarters, where each family would sit by their own great sparkling log fires. . . . They sang their plantation songs, grew hilarious over their corn shuckings and did the bidding of their gracious master. Their doctor’s

bills were paid; their clothing bought, or woven by themselves in their cabins, and made by their mistress; their sick nursed; and their dead laid away,—all without thought from themselves.”³⁴ “I was but a lad in slavery days,” says Mr. Dean D. Duggins of Marshall, “but my recollections of the institution are most pleasant. I can remember how in the evening at husking time the negroes would come singing up the creek. They would work ’till ten o’clock amidst singing and pleasantry and after a hot supper and hard cider would depart for their cabins. The servants were very careful of the language used before the white children and would reprove and even punish the master’s children.³⁵ “How well I remember those happy days!” wrote Lucy A. Delaney. “Slavery had no horror then for me, as I played about the place, with the same joyful freedom as the little white Children. With mother, father, and sister, a pleasant home and surroundings, what happier child than I!”³⁶

The life of the slave was often made happy by privileges which a negro can appreciate as can no one else. Colonel R. B. C. Wilson of Platte City says that the happiest hours of his life were on Saturday afternoons in the slavery days when he and the negroes and dogs went tramping through the woods for game. The slaves had their dances under

regulations and with officers present. The circus was also open, occasionally at least, to the slaves, who with the children went in for half price.³⁷

The treatment of the negro was seen from various angles by contemporaries. One general statement was that “the slaves were universally well treated, being considered almost as one of the other’s family . . . and in all things enjoyed life about as much as their masters.”³⁸ Frank Blair, who worked for emancipation and colonization throughout his career, said in a speech at Boston in 1859 that the Missouri slaveholder was kind to his negro.³⁹ Blair was certainly not a man to trim for political purposes by praising slaveowners, especially in Boston. Gottfried Duden, who visited Missouri in 1824-27, declared that the slave in the grain-producing States was well off—as well or better situated than the day laborer of Germany.⁴⁰ Another German, Prince Maximilian of Wied, who travelled about the State in 1832-34, remarked that “though modern travellers represent in very favorable colors the situation of this oppressed race, the slaves are no better off here than in other countries. Everywhere they are a demoralized race, little to be depended upon. . . . We were witnesses of deplorable punishments of these people. One of our neighbors at St. Louis, for instance, flogged one of his slaves in the public

streets, with untiring arm. Sometimes he stopped a moment to rest, and then began anew.”⁴¹

The physical punishment of the slave was the joint of antislavery attack, and was undoubtedly an often abused necessity on the part of the owner. “We treated our slaves with all humanity possible considering that discipline had to be maintained,” said Colonel D. C. Allen of Liberty. It has always been argued that corporal suasion alone could influence a creature as primitive as the slave. The law for-bade unnecessary cruelty to slaves and public sentiment opposed it. The Reverend William G. Eliot, though having very decided antislavery views, stated that “the treatment of slaves in Missouri was perhaps exceptionally humane. All cruelty or ’unnecessary’ severity was frowned upon by the whole community. The general feeling was against it.”⁴² Another antislavery clergyman, the Reverend Galusha Anderson, said that the St. Louis slaves were mostly well treated, but that he knew of several notorious cases of bad treatment.⁴³ Those who had no sympathy with the system easily found much that was revolting.⁴⁴ Reports coming from such sources make no mention of the benefits which partly counterbalanced the evils.

Exact knowledge of the treatment of the slave is difficult to reach. A wide difference of opinion is found even among

contemporaries living in the same locality. Colonel D. C. Allen of Liberty asserted that he had never witnessed any instances of bad treatment, while “Uncle” Eph Sanders, an old Platte County slave, stated that for every kind master there were two brutes who drove their negroes as they did their mules. “But my own master,” said “Uncle” Eph, “was very good. The slaves were treated about like his own family. He allowed no one to mistreat us and hated the hard masters of the neighborhood.” As it would be impossible to reduce the matter to mathematical exactitude, we must be content to generalize from the particular instances given.⁴⁵

Self-interest naturally prevented treatment that was severe enough to affect the slave physically, except in the case of an owner blind to all sense of his own advantage. Captain J. A. Wilson of Lexington, a man of clear insight and one who saw the evils as well as the good in the system, says: “There was not much public whipping. It was an event which attracted a crowd and was thought worthy of comment. It made the slave resentful, if he was innocent, and but hardened him if he was guilty. If a slave bore the scars of the lash his sale would be difficult. In Lafayette county ill treatment of the slave was condemned. William Ish killed one of his slaves with a chisel for not working to suit him. The public sentiment was bitter against him. He spent a fortune to escape the penitentiary.” J. B. Tinsley of Audrain County threatened to prosecute the patrol for whipping one of his slaves.⁴⁶ A slave was once whipped by the patrol as he was returning at night from the livery stable in Lexington where he was hired. The hirer sued the patrol, as the negro was on legitimate business.⁴⁷ From

what could be learned the slaves, while by no means considered as equals or comrades, were very jealously guarded by their masters. Missouri was so surrounded by free territory that it was necessary to keep the negro in as good humor as possible.

The punishment of the slave for indolence, sedition, and other forms of misconduct was largely left to the master. The State punished the negro for crime, but could hardly be expected to enforce the master’s personal demands upon him. However, in some cases the public took an interest in the matter. An ordinance of Jefferson City permitted owners having “refractory” slaves to require an officer to give them “reasonable punishment.” The constable or other official so whipping the slave was to receive for his services fifty cents, which was collectable as were his other fees.⁴⁸

The amount of labor required of the slave has already been considered.⁴⁹ Some were undoubtedly cruelly worked. William Brown, a slave who lived on a tobacco and hemp plantation “thirty or forty miles above St. Charles on the Missouri River,” says that the slaves were given ten stripes with a loaded whip if not in the fields at four-thirty in the morning, and that their wounds were washed with salt water or rum.⁵⁰ This may be a true account, but it was exceptional. However, other cases of long hours have been found. Anice Washington stated that while a slave in Madison County she went to the fields at four, and after supper spun or knit till dark. “We had dinner at noon of meat and bread with greens or other vegetables in summer, and bread and milk for supper. While in St. Francis county I did not have enough to eat.” “I had a good master,” said a Saline County slave, “and had plenty to eat. We had three meals a day—bacon, cabbage, potatoes,

turnips, beans, and some times molasses, coffee, and sugar. We also had milk and some times butter. We got a little whiskey at harvest. We were in the field before sun-up but were not worked severely. One of the neighboring farmers had a lot of slaves and he was a hard man. He shoved ’em through. We had another neighbor who unmercifully whipped his slaves if they shirked.”⁵¹ A Platte County slave declared that he had a good master and had plenty to eat and wear. “We were given liquor in harvest and had no Saturday afternoon nor Sunday work. Christmas week was also a holiday. But all slaves were not treated so well. I have seen mothers go to the field and leave their babies with an old negress. They could go to them three times during the day.”⁵² This negro’s wife stated that she was once hired out by her mistress, and often had only sour rice and the leavings of biscuits to eat. “Uncle” Peter Clay of Liberty said that he was well enough fed and was given whiskey at harvest, corn shucking, and Christmas time.

Although bitterly opposed to slavery, the abolitionist, George Thompson, in order to prove that the negro was capable of making his own way, stated that while a prisoner in the Palmyra jail in 1841 he saw slaves who were certainly anything but oppressed. “The slaves here, on the Sabbaths, dress like gentlemen. They get their clothes by extra work, done on the Sabbaths and in the night, and yet they can’t take care of themselves. Shame on those who hide under this leaf.”⁵³ The War brought no immediate relief to many of the slaves, as the reports of the Western Sanitary Commission show. “At one time an order was

issued forbidding their payment [for excavating, teaming, and other camp work] on the ground that their master would have a claim against the Government for their services. All the while they were compelled to do most of the hard work of the place [St. Louis] and press gangs were sent out to take them in the streets. . . . Sometimes they were shot down and murdered with impunity. They were often driven with their families into ’Camp Ethiopia’ with only cast off army tents to shield them. At one time an order was issued driving them out of the Union lines and into the hands of their old masters.”⁵⁴

So much has been written on the life of the slave, and so much of this has been argumentative, that little more than a brief sketch of the everyday life of the slave has been attempted here.