Slavery, Southern Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820-1860

Citation preview

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page i

STUDIES IN AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE

Edited by

Graham Hodges Colgate University

A ROUTLEDGE SERIES

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page ii

STUDIES IN AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE GRAHAM HODGES, General Editor SOMETHING BETTER FOR OUR CHILDREN Black Organizing in Chicago Public Schools, 1963–1971 Dionne Danns TEACH THE NATION Public School, Racial Uplift, and Women’s Writing in the 1890s Anne-Elizabeth Murdy THE ART OF THE BLACK ESSAY From Meditation to Transcendence Cheryl B. Butler EMERGING AFRIKAN SURVIVALS An Afrocentric Critical Theory Kamau Kemayó SLAVERY IN THE CHEROKEE NATION The Keetoowah Society and the Defining of a People 1855–1867 Patrick N. Minges TROUBLING BEGINNINGS Trans(per)forming African American History and Identity Maurice E. Stevens THE SOCIAL TEACHINGS OF THE PROGRESSIVE NATIONAL BAPTIST CONVENTION, INC., SINCE 1961 A Critical Analysis of the Least, the Lost, and the Left-out Albert A. Avant, Jr. GIVING A VOICE TO THE VOICELESS Four Pioneering Black Women Journalists Jinx Coleman Broussard CONSTRUCTING BELONGING Class, Race, and Harlem’s Professional Workers Sabiyha Prince

CONTESTING THE TERRAIN OF THE IVORY TOWER Spiritual Leadership of AfricanAmerican Women in the Academy Rochelle Garner POST-SOUL BLACK CINEMA Discontinuities, Innovations, and Breakpoints, 1970–1995 William R. Grant, IV THE MYSTERIOUS VOODOO QUEEN, MARIE LAVEAUX A Study of Powerful Female Leadership in Nineteenth-Century New Orleans Ina Johanna Fandrich RACE AND MASCULINITY IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN PRISON NARRATIVES Auli Ek SWINGING THE VERNACULAR Jazz and African American Modernist Literature Michael Borshuk BOYS, BOYZ, BOIS An Ethics of Black Masculinity in Film and Popular Media Keith M. Harris MOVEMENT MATTERS American Antiapartheid Activism and the Rise of Multicultural Politics David L. Hostetter SLAVERY, SOUTHERN CULTURE, AND EDUCATION IN LITTLE DIXIE, MISSOURI, 1820–1860 Jeffrey C. Stone

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page iii

SLAVERY, SOUTHERN CULTURE, AND EDUCATION IN LITTLE DIXIE, MISSOURI, 1820–1860

Jeffrey C. Stone

Routledge New York & London

RT7772X_Discl.fm Page 1 Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:33 PM

Published in 2006 by Routledge Taylor & Francis Group 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016

Published in Great Britain by Routledge Taylor & Francis Group 2 Park Square Milton Park, Abingdon Oxon OX14 4RN

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-415-97772-X (Hardcover) International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-415-97772-2 (Hardcover) Library of Congress Card Number 2005031152 No part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Stone, Jeffrey C. Slavery, Southern culture, and education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820-1860 / Jeffrey C. Stone. p. cm. -- (Studies in African American history and culture) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-415-97772-X 1. Slavery--Missouri--History--19th century. 2. Slaves--Missouri--Social conditions--19th century. 3. Slaveholders--Missouri--Social conditions--19th century. 4. Missouri--Civilization--19th century. I. Title. II. Series. E445.M67S76 2006 306.3’6209778--dc22

2005031152

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com Taylor & Francis Group is the Academic Division of Informa plc.

and the Routledge Web site at http://www.routledge-ny.com

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page v

To Kerri, Payton, and Kayla

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page vi

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page vii

Table of Contents

List of Figure and Tables

ix

Acknowledgments

xi

Introduction

1

Chapter One This Place Called Little Dixie

11

Chapter Two Home and Community

29

Chapter Three Religion

49

Chapter Four Slaves and Families

63

Chapter Five Summary and Conclusion

81

Notes

85

Bibliography

97

Index

103

vii

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page viii

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page ix

List of Figure and Tables

FIGURES Figure 1.

Map of Missouri Counties Indicating Counties of Little Dixie

4&5

TABLES Table 1.

Population Growth in Little Dixie, 1820–1860

20

Table 2.

Percentage of Families in Little Dixie Owning Slaves

21

Table 3.

Number and Percentage of Slave Owners with More than Twenty Slaves

23

Average Number of Slaves per Owner

24

Table 4.

ix

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page x

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page xi

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this book, I have become indebted to several individuals that I would like to take time to offer my gratitude. I would like to express my appreciation to the people at the Western Historical Manuscript Collection, The State Historical Society of Missouri, The University of Missouri Library, Watson Library at the University of Kansas, MillerNichols Library at the University of Missouri—Kansas City for helping make this project happen. Their help and dedication in obtaining documents and their promptness at getting them to me was most impressive. I also appreciate the support I received from my friends and colleagues at Indiana Wesleyan University. Without their understanding this project could have been completed. It has been a pleasure to work with both Benjamin Holtzman at Routledge for not only discovering my work, but also keeping me on schedule, and Graham Hodges at Colgate University, the editor of this series. I would also like to thank all the faculty and staff of the School of Education at the University of Kansas, particularly my advisor, N. Ray Hiner who over the years has offered his insightful wisdom on the transformation of culture. Another devoted educator and scholar that deserves many thanks in more ways than one is my father, George C. Stone, at the University of the Ozarks who read the manuscript and offered valuable commentary. I never fully understood the expression, “what parents would do for their children” until I had children of my own. Most importantly, I want to express my sincere thanks to all my family. Without the love, support, and dedication of my wife, Kerri, I do not believe I would have had the ambition to press on with this venture.

xi

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page xii

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 1

Introduction

Experience is a keen teacher; and long before you had mastered your A B C, or knew where the “white sails” of the Chesapeake were bound, you began, I see, to gauge the wretchedness of the slave, not by the hunger of his want, not by his lashes and toil, but by the cruel and blighting death which gathers over his soul. Letter from Wendell Phillips,ESQ. to Frederick Douglas, Boston, April 22, 1845.

In anticipation of the return of Lewis and Clark in 1806 from their expedition into the newly acquired lands of the Louisiana Territory, some settlers and pioneers could wait no longer to begin their own exploration into the central part of North America. Two brothers, Nathan and Daniel M. Boone, sons of the famous pioneer Daniel Boone, jumped at the prospects of new wealth and were among the first to explore the central Missouri region. They discovered a salt spring northwest of what is now Booneville and established a salt manufacturing process which became one of the enticements to draw other settlers to the region. By 1810 word had reached Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and other states that what became known as the Boone’s Lick Country of central Missouri was nearer to Eden than any other region west of the Mississippi. The rich fertile land strewn with tall oak and sycamore trees which lined the banks of the wide river became very appealing to adventurous settlers. These settlers came to this region with the passionate hope to set up new farms and towns and to create a better world for themselves and their families.1 As in most cases of migration, the immigrants to central Missouri brought with them many of the cultural values and institutions they had always known. Perhaps the most important institution the pioneers 1

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

2

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 2

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

brought with them was slavery, which penetrated deep into the heart of the social, religious, political, and familial customs and traditions of both slaves and slave owners. In central Missouri during the antebellum period, a distinctive form of southern culture developed from this institution. And, it was clear in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that many Missourians were willing to risk their lives for their “southern” way of life. An intriguing and important aspect of this culture was the relationship between slaves and slave owners, which was at the core of the South’s social and cultural life. It is only in recent years that scholars began seriously examining education history as it pertains to culture and human relationships. Since the publication of Bernard Bailyn’s Education in the Forming of American Society in 1960, scholarship on the history of education has taken on new avenues of contemplation and discovery. Bailyn charged historians to not only consider past schooling in the study of education history, but to look at “the entire process by which a culture transmits itself across generations.”2 Indeed, historians have met this challenge and as a result have made insightful and unique contributions to the study of the history of education. Historians such as Lawrence Cremin have set the stage for historians like Michael Katz, who explains education history in light of inequality and the social conditions of Americans and Carl F. Kaestle, who interprets education history, in particular the development of the schools, as an aspect of the development of capitalism and republican ideology. Recently, however, some education historians have become frustrated that the field has not produced more scholarship on the educational aspects of culture. Concerned about the relative disinterest that education historians have shown in understanding the vital role human relationships can play in shaping culture and education, Barbara Finkelstein wrote that if education historians are to sustain their sense-making and critical traditions, they must, in my view, cultivate whole new intellectual genres centering on three new domains: the history of human relationships, including the history of learners and learning and the history of culture; the history of communication; and the comparative study of education history and international educational relations.3

Other historians have argued further that we need to not only look at American culture as a whole, but also to dissect it by examining regional cultures for its contributions to American education, including the American South.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

Introduction

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 3

3

In a recent article in the History of Education Quarterly, John Hardin Best argued that research in the history of education has done remarkably well except that it has not explained the South. The South, he asserted, should not be considered part of the periphery of American education and culture. Rather, the experiences of the South have made lasting impressions on mainstream American culture and education.4 In response to these revisionist trends, this book explores an area of the South that is often neglected or ignored in the question of slavery. When one thinks of antebellum southern cultural and educational history, one usually looks to the Deep South where many of the large plantations were located. Although it has generally been overlooked by education historians, the upper South, in particular rural antebellum Missouri, is also rich with southern cultural and educational history. The vital role of the human relationship between master and slave is quite evident on the small farms that filled many regions of the upper south. In the chapters that follow, the issue of master-slave relationships and how they affected education (broadly defined as the transmission of Southern culture) is examined. Central Missouri, or what has become known as “Little Dixie,” provides an excellent setting in which to examine areas where the slaves and slave owners frequently interacted which helped create, as well as sustain, this regional Southern culture. Missouri’s total slave population was among the lowest of the slave states. However, the seven counties of Clay, Lafayette, Saline, Cooper, Howard, Boone, and Callaway were at the heart of the “Black Belt” in Missouri, and they consistently contained the largest population of slaves in Missouri throughout the antebellum period.5 In terms of percentages, the slave population in these seven counties was comparable to many of the areas in the Deep South, which makes this region a significant part of Southern culture. This study will use these seven counties as the definition of the boundaries of Little Dixie. For the historian who travels down Interstate 70 in central Missouri today, it is tempting to look at the fauna and flora that paint the countryside and remember that not too long ago slaves probably labored, raised families, fostered relationships, and worshipped in the surrounding fields. Between 1820 and 1860, slavery in central Missouri shaped the lives of most blacks and whites in this important section of the upper South. Research on this still relatively obscure part of the periphery of the antebellum South has uncovered important educational aspects of the relationships between slaves and slave owners. Several historians have uncovered some aspects of their interaction such as the treatment of slaves, the buying, selling, and valuation of slaves, the management of slaves, and the nature of the slave community itself. Many of these histories have elucidated slavery from

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

10:10 AM

Page 4

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

Figure 1. Used by permission. State Historical Society of Missouri, Columbia

4

12/22/2005

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

Introduction

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 5

5

Figure 1. (close-up) Used by permission. State Historical Society of Missouri, Columbia

the standpoint of a paternalistic planter class looking after a deprived race of people, or from the position that slaves were the victims of white oppression. Others have depicted the various societies that slaves carved out for themselves in an oppressive culture. They generally have not, however, focused on the interactions between the slave and the slave owners from an educational perspective, in particular in an upper south state like Missouri where there was a large number of small farms with few slaves. A clearer understanding of this unique relationship is vital to understanding the formation of southern culture because to understand the slave requires an understanding of the master who attempted to control his property and to understand the master requires an understanding of the slave who longed to live a life of freedom. Slave and master cannot be fully understood in isolation from each other. Both masters and slaves contributed significantly to the making of southern culture; therefore, the perspective of both masters and slaves will be examined. In the upper south, where plantations were generally smaller than in the Deep South, slaves and slave owners interacted more readily on a daily basis. Distinctive lines of separation between slaves and slave owners were not as clearly drawn on many of these smaller farms and plantations of central Missouri as they were on many of the larger plantations of the Deep South. Slaves and slave owners often labored in the fields together.6 By examining these interactions in the heart of central Missouri, I intend for this study to at least raise new questions about education, human relationships,

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

6

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 6

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

transmission of culture, and slavery in the upper South. Specifically, how was southern culture defined and transmitted in central Missouri? How did informal educational experiences differ for blacks and whites? How did the institution of slavery serve as a transmitter of Southern educational values? What role did religion and religious institutions play in the transmission of culture? How did families act as educators? Like most topics of historical importance, interpretations undergo scrutiny and change based on new evidence that is uncovered. The historiography of slavery has gone through its own profound changes. However, it has been only in the last thirty years, more than 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, that slave historians considered the slave to be the focus of attention. There are many well researched areas on antebellum slavery, but a general survey shows the evolutionary development of this significant historical period. When American Negro Slavery by Ulrich B. Phillips was published in 1918, it was celebrated as a breakthrough in the study of the history of American slavery and for many years was the standard general history of American slavery. Approaching slavery primarily from the viewpoint of the treatment and management of slaves, Phillips depicted American slavery as having little or no effect on the slave except for what the white man made them. He contended that the slave plantation educated slaves to encourage certain behavioral characteristics that were common to their plantation. In essence, slaves were acculturated into the prevailing culture of the plantation. Phillips wrote that the slaves normally showed “an eagerness for society, music and merriment, a fondness for display . . . , a receptiveness toward any religion whose exercises were exhilarating, a proneness to superstition, a courteous acceptance of subordination, an avidity for praise, a readiness for loyalty of a feudal sort, and last but not least, a healthy human repugnance toward overwork.”7 With little regard to the slaves’ actual reactions to the owners’ management of the plantation, Phillips assessment of the antebellum plantation was that it was essentially benevolent for slaves. Thus, Phillips portrayed slave owners as caregivers. Admitting that there were times for punishment and that mistreatment by overseers did occur, he nevertheless claimed that their first order of business “was usually the care of the slaves.”8 In his book, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Antebellum South published in 1956, Kenneth M. Stampp also viewed slavery from the standpoint of how slaves were treated and managed by white owners. However, Stampp focused more on how the owners mistreated the slaves. He asserted that, “though one hears of slaves who were given opportunities to earn a little money and who were indulged in other ways, most were limited to the bare necessities and lived at the subsistence level.”9 Like many historians of

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

Introduction

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 7

7

slavery in his generation, Stampp concentrated on large plantations and the views of white slave owners. Although noting that the plantation was educative in nature, his account of the mistreatment slaves received on these large plantations portrayed the slaves as existing “in a kind of cultural void,” that they were removed from their native culture and provided them with not much more than vocational training.10 Although he looked at the slaves more closely than his predecessors, it is no wonder that Stampp concluded that slaves lived in a “cultural void.” The focus was not on the ones in bondage. Rather, it was on the owners and their thoughts and behaviors toward the slaves. Arguing in a similar fashion but with a far more controversial conclusion was Stanley M. Elkins. He asserted in 1959 that American antebellum slavery was a “closed” system, meaning that ultimate absorption into the broader society did not occur for the slave. The slaves were severely oppressed on their plantations and not allowed to develop intellectually or socially on their own either individually or collectively. The psychological shock rendered the slave helpless and unable to identify with anyone other then the master. Slaves experienced a far different sort of social system in which the development of normal moral individuals was sharply undermined. Referring to plantations as Nazi-like concentration camps, Elkins concluded that the extreme harshness of antebellum slavery prevented the development of any worthwhile relations and “produced noticeable effects upon the slave’s very personality.”11 According to Elkins, “Sambo” was the personality type the slave most often displayed. “Sambo, the typical plantation slave, was docile but irresponsible, loyal but lazy, humble but chronically given to lying and stealing; his behavior was full of infantile silliness and his talk inflated with childish exaggeration.” Noting the relationship between master and slave, he argued that it was a relationship of “dependence and childlike attachment” and that the core of the slave’s being was based on this childlike quality.12 Historians realized that Elkins struck a cord in the world of historical research and interpretation. His controversial thesis encouraged historians to dig deeper into the world, the values, and the cultural norms of slavery. Historians began looking at the slave more from the viewpoint of the slave. They not only looked at how slaves coped with the rudiments of slavery, but also at the nature of the slave communities and the culture they formed. Some began examining the educative underpinnings of slave society. Looking at many of the informal ways in which slaves were educated, Thomas Webber in his Deep Like the Rivers: Education in the Slave Quarter Community, 1831–1865, published in 1978, explicated the passing down from generation to generation the culture of the slave community. This culture,

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

8

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 8

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

he said, was one that was deliberately designed by the slaves and set apart from the white community. Webber focused on several themes in the educational environment of the slave quarter community whereby the slaves were not only able to control their own lives, but their minds as well. While resisting white teaching, their own cultural themes were passed down from generation to generation. The slaves were able to form their own society apart from the white community. Webber’s “primary conclusion” is that “most of the values, attitudes, and understandings that whites taught their slaves were rejected by the members of the slave quarter community.”13 Some recent historians have recognized the importance of masterslave relationships and have attempted to explain a very complex subject in terms of the impact the relationship had on both whites and blacks. One such work was American Slavery, 1619–1877 by Peter Kolchin, which was published in 1993. In his approach to master-slave relationships, Kolchin concentrated primarily on three different areas—the combination of the paternalistic nature of the slave owners as well as their strivings for a rigid system; the profound influence this had on the slaves; and the economic orientation of the South. While viewing Antebellum slavery from the standpoint of both slave and master, he broadly conceived the notion that the “intense relationship between slaves and slave owners was at the heart of the distinctive slave society of the antebellum south.”14 This intense relationship, he argued, was a constant barrage of white owners regularly meddling in the lives of their slaves through such things as physical punishments, chastising, and disrupting families, which sharply undermined their persistence to establish their own autonomy and eventually their own sense of community.15 While most historians have focused mainly on the adults in slavery and southern culture, some historians have chosen to examine childhood under bondage. Two important studies of slave children have brought this subject to light and will no doubt spawn a new set of discourse on the history of slavery. In her book, Stolen Childhood: Slave Youth in NineteenthCentury America (1995), Wilma King argued that children under bondage in antebellum America never were given the opportunity to have a childhood because they were quickly confronted with the pains and struggles of slave life. Slave children were introduced to plantation rules, punishments, and family separation early in their youthful lives, which stole away their innocence and youth. “Slavery forced children to ‘grow up’ fast and perform ‘adult’ jobs. . . .”16 Although parents made attempts to protect their children, King advocated, they were just as vulnerable to the cruelties of slave life as the adults.17

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 9

Introduction

9

Another important study on the history of slave childhood was published in 2000. In her book, Born in Bondage: Growing Up Enslaved in the Antebellum South, Marie Jenkins Schwartz studied slave youth from birth through love and marriage of the later teen years. According to Schwartz, children did experience childhood, but this childhood was under the peculiar influences of slave life; that is, that the slave’s childhood was shaped by slave owners and other slaves. Slave children were in a precarious situation. While trying to understand a slave child’s stages of development, Schwartz advocated the difficulty slave children experienced in pleasing adults. She wrote: For their part, children had to learn how to negotiate a dangerous world, which entailed pleasing two sets of adults with very different expectations. Their dependence encouraged them to respect whatever adults looked out for their interests, but children in their early years had difficulty determining who had their best interests at heart.18

Schwartz further argued that parents had an extremely difficult time in rearing their children. Although parents of slave children felt the need to protect their offspring from danger, they were helpless in many situations. Supervision was often minimal and parents used whatever methods they could surmise to prevent harm to their children. They were forced to the fields to work leaving young children under the watch of older siblings or adults who no longer could work. Parents often used stories about evil patrollers to put fear in young slaves to keep them from wandering from the household.19 Research by Schwartz and King, and others like them, has brought to the forefront many of the deliberate means of the transformation of southern culture. Slave children were taught from infancy not only the rudiments and hardships of slavery, but also the intricacies of developing relationships within their community, which aided in sustaining antebellum southern culture. By examining slaves more closely, historians are beginning to understand more clearly the educative nature of the slave community. Both masters and slaves were bound together by the same institution, but both with very different views and intentions. The only escape for the masters was to totally give up on the peculiar institution and move to the north. And, the only escape for the slaves was escape, but the prospects of this loomed large in their minds. The interactive experiences between the slaves and the slave owners—those who were forced into submission and those who induced the submission; those who were punished and those who dealt the punishment; those whose families were torn apart and those whose families prospered

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

10

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 10

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

and profited from the lives, labors, and lamentation of others—created a distinctive southern cultural identity in central Missouri which in turn educated the young and ensured the transmission of values, beliefs, and culture throughout the antebellum period.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 11

Chapter One

This Place Called Little Dixie

Not a more pleasing picture can be presented to the eye than these extensive meadows in summer, when dotted in the habiliments of flora. The inexhaustible profusion and richness of the wild flowers, exceed description. Nicholas Patterson, “The Boone’s Lick Country.”

When Missouri adopted its constitution on July 19, 1820, the expanding economy and the almost continuous flow of immigrants into the central portion of the state looked as if it were going to continue unabated for many years to come. However, by the time the twenty-fourth star was sown on the American flag just over a year later, on August 10th, 1821, many of the westward moving travelers passed by the available rich agricultural lands of central Missouri.1 The phenomenal town growth caused by land speculation and an expanding economy during Missouri’s first years as a territory was halted for a short period when the Panic of 1819 finally reached the Boone’s Lick country. For two years immigrants were reluctant to come to central Missouri for fear of a lack of return on their land investments.2 Yet, by this point, with most of the immigrants coming from other upper South regions, the groundwork for a distinctive southern society had already been firmly established in this portion of Missouri. In the decade preceding 1820, Missouri was hailed by many as the next great southern state. The climate and geographical condition of Missouri was enticing to many southerners because it was similar to those found in many parts of the Deep South. This climate could easily sustain the slave-based agricultural economy on which the Deep South was based. During this time, the Missouri Territory grew in popularity among many frontiersmen, squatters and small farmers, many of whom were poor, 11

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 12

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

rough, uneducated, and crude people who used public lands as a place of refuge. Squatters would normally reside on public lands until the government freed up the lands for purchase. Frontiersmen, however, were more transient and would move on when they felt the intrusion of too many settlers. Viewed as socially and economically unfit people, they wore greasy buck-skin clothing and possessed little furniture in their hastily built oneroom cabins.3 Missionaries were often sent to offer moral support and spiritual guidance to these people in remote areas like the Boone’s Lick. These itinerant ministers often wrote about the climate, their experiences, the people they encountered, and the surrounding regions that they toured. They would travel from cabin to cabin offering their blessings, preaching the gospel, and determining the spiritual needs of the region. Church services were often held for whole settlements in which different ministers from different sects would preach God’s message. Several clergymen including John Mason Peck, a Baptist minister, and Nicholas Patterson, a Presbyterian minister, were sent to the Boone’s Lick country in 1817 and 1818 respectively to provide spiritual nourishment and religious instruction to the immigrants and frontiersmen. They roamed the countryside visiting with whomever they could, having dinner with anyone who would invite them, and holding periodic church services for entire communities. While searching in the sparsely populated frontier for their next soul to save, Peck and Patterson encountered each other, exchanged some pleasantries, and decided to travel together. During this brief stint, they undoubtedly spoke to each other about the landscape because they were both inspired by the richness and beauty of the land to write about it. In describing the territory, Patterson wrote that it “has some of the richest soil in the United States,” and that it is “one extensive range of rich land, undulating, picturesque and now contains a scattered population.”4 This sparse population did not remain scattered for long because it rapidly increased in the late territorial period and throughout the antebellum era. Peck and Patterson not only viewed a beautiful landscape and migrating southerners, but they also witnessed the beginning of a rapid transplantation of southern society and values into central Missouri. Because most of the people they visited and to whom they preached hailed from the upper South states of Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Carolinas, the southern way of life naturally followed these immigrants. In 1816, Peck was intrigued by the massive movement of people and commented that these southern travelers began coming to central Missouri “like a mountain torrent, poured

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

This Place Called Little Dixie

Page 13

13

into the country faster than it was possible to provide corn for breadstuff.” The movement seemed swift to Peck because he wrote that these states were “breaking up and moving to the ‘Far West.’ Caravan after caravan passed over the prairies of Illinois, crossing the ‘great river’ at St. Louis, all bound for the Boone’s Lick.”5 According to both ministers, many of these old settlers enjoyed living on the “outskirts of civilization” away from the influences of society and its “improvements.”6 They usually lived in small one-room cabins that had no windows or any of the other commodities that made life on the frontier more bearable. As independent yeoman farmers they tilled their own soil with help from their families for subsistence. If time permitted, they would farm some of their soil for a “cash crop.”7 However, Patterson keenly observed that among these people was a class of “decent and respectable families” who were of “no small consequence.” These immigrants intended “to purchase land, build houses, make farms and other improvements.”8 They were in fact relatively wealthy families seeking to establish themselves as reputable and respectable people. It was not uncommon for these wealthy upper South immigrants to own slaves. Many southern immigrants believed that to start farms and eventually build large plantations required the use of bonded servants. Bringing slaves was important to these immigrants because of the potential for economic gains their labor could provide. One of the main reasons for the introduction of slavery into central Missouri was the economic advantage these immigrants thought a slave system offered them.9 Not all of the wealthy families brought slaves; however, if they did bring their bondsmen, they intended to use their labor to make large profits. Immigrants believed that the institution of slavery in central Missouri was required to help build the production of hemp and tobacco. Both products required a large pool of labor throughout the year. Facing a shortage of free white labor, they thought slaves would help make them reach financial prosperity. It is difficult to determine whether slavery was economically advantageous for the owners of central Missouri, but as several historians have pointed out, slavery probably would not have persisted if it had not been providing a sufficient income.10 The economic advantage the owners in central Missouri thought that slavery would provide them was a strong part of southern culture that they transplanted. They wanted to get their farms started as soon as possible so that they could move from subsistence farming to commercial farming. The white population did not consider the institution of slavery a temporary presence, but a permanent institution.11

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

14

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 14

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

Minister Peck recognized that many of these “respectable families” brought slaves to the Missouri Territory not only for economic gain, but also for use in potentially dangerous situations. In his journal, Peck retold a story about a slave who saved his own life as well as others when Native Americans threatened a harvesting crew. Sam, a slave owned by Captain Sarshall Cooper, was out with a team of farming soldiers harvesting corn. While they were driving a cart full of the grain, a band of Native Americans “hard pressed” them. Sam who was not known as an efficient driver of a horse-drawn cart drove the cart with haste in fear of his life narrowly, missing two posts that were on either side of the front gate to their fort. Captain Cooper saw what had happened and commended his servant’s “accurate and energetic driving.” According to Peck, Sam replied, “Yes, Massa, I tink so. De way I done miss dose gate-posts was no red man’s business. I never drove trew afore without I hit one side, and sometimes bose of dem.”12 Slaves were brought to the Missouri Territory in increasing numbers from the time it was opened for settlement. Most of the slaves were brought to the Missouri River region in central and western Missouri rather than to the eastern regions. The lands around the river were the most fertile farm lands in Missouri, which provided the best opportunity for successful farming. In addition, the land along the river was not only more accessible to settlement than the rough terrain of the back areas, but the river also provided a means to transport marketed goods. It is difficult to determine exactly how many slaves resided in central Missouri before 1820, but according to the census there were 3,011 slaves among 17,227 whites in the Missouri Territory by 1810. By 1820, 9,797 slaves were reported to be living among 54,903 whites in the territory.13 The immigrants who owned slaves rarely hesitated to take their slaves with them. As valuable pieces of property and as a means of establishing flourishing plantations, slaves were usually not sold before emigrating. Most of the immigrants did not own large numbers of slaves and usually brought less than twenty when they moved to Missouri. Timothy Flint, an early traveler of Missouri, observed in 1819 that many immigrants venturing to central Missouri not only had their wagons, their families, their animals, but their slaves as well. He reported that “I have seen in this extent nine wagons harnessed with four to six horses. We may allow a hundred cattle, besides hogs, horses, and sheep, to each wagon; and from three to four to twenty slaves.”14 Flint, like Patterson and Peck, witnessed the vast number of southern immigrants, including many with their slaves, passing through the St. Charles area headed for central Missouri. These migrating parties hauled heavy loads of provisions and supplies, which required a tremendous amount of work from both slave and master.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

This Place Called Little Dixie

Page 15

15

Slaves and masters often spent many long hours working side-by-side in order for their wagon train to meet its destination. Although, according to Flint, the slaves were free from working in the fields and seemed to “delight in their countenances,” and “generally seem fond of their masters, and quite as much delighted and interested in the immigration, as the master,” the slaves toiled with their owners in the rudiments of migrating. Traveling several hundred miles with few locations to restock supplies meant that heavy loads of equipment and food had to be hauled across rough terrain. The wagons often carried two or three tons of supplies, which left no room for women and children to ride. In the evenings while the wagons and animals were being prepared for the night, the slaves would often cook supper for the entire wagon train. During the evening meal, all would gather to talk about the days’ events and the excitement of what might lie ahead for the next day.15 The entire caravan worked hard on the long journey to their new homeland. Traveling by horse or oxen drawn carts was not easy for anyone, even for the wealthiest immigrants. If women and children could not ride on the wagons, it is safe to assume that slaves also had to walk much of the long trip. They worked along side their owners throughout the journey helping them make certain that they would safely reach their destination. Packing one’s belongings and traveling several hundred miles to a remote area was adventurous and exciting for most settlers. One of the most widely read newspapers in central Missouri in 1819, the Missouri Intelligencer, got caught up in the excitement and reported that immigration “almost exceeds belief . . . Immense quarters of wagons, carriages, carts, etc. with families, have, for some time past, been daily arriving.” The newspaper reported that in the month of October at least 271 wagons and 55 two wheeled carts passed through the St. Charles area heading toward the Boone’s Lick country. Accompanying these wagon trains was no less than 3,000 people. In nine to ten weeks’ time, it was estimated that about 120 wagons per week with a total of about 12,000 people passed through the same area. The writer expressed his optimism and pride at the prospects of “wealthy and respectable emigrants from various states” who were coming to live in an area that no other region presented “a fairer prospect to the emigrant.”16 As these settlers arrived they became very fond of their new home and questioned why anyone would pass by the Missouri Territory. One newly settled Missourian expressed his enthusiasm and wrote that “we are blessed with a pure, light, and healthy atmosphere; a rich and productive soil—and there is a large part of the country yet to come into market, which may be purchased at twenty-five cents per acre.”17

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

16

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 16

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

However, for some settlers, relocating seemed to be not only an exciting time but also a lonely time. Many of these newly resettled people were single and came without families and therefore sought the companionship of spouses. A man with the initials of A.B. advertised that he desired a wife. His ideal wife is one who possesses an ordinary share of good sense, who has had a liberal education, who has not corrupted the mind with too much novel reading, who has somewhat expanded the imagination with a moderate course of proper history, who is adept in plain needle work, who is acquainted with the duties of the kitchen as well as to decorate a drawing room; whose bosom glows with becoming warmth; whose sensorium is so happily organized as not to be carried to extremes upon trivial or common occurences.18

Because operating a newly established small farm on the frontier usually required the work of an entire family, farmers needed the aid of a spouse. As wealthy immigrants from Kentucky, Tennessee and the Carolinas continued to make their way to central Missouri throughout the early years of the territory’s existence, the argument for slavery gained greater interest and support. From the beginning of settlement, these people were very concerned about the existence of slavery in central Missouri. As a part of transplanting their culture, they brought their slaves with them. By 1819, slavery was affecting nearly all the inhabitants of central Missouri. Involuntary servitude was becoming more deeply rooted into the culture of central Missouri by the continual flow of immigrants from the other upper South states. As advocates of the slave system, these residents were determined to defend their southern lifestyle against all threats. When Missouri was being considered for statehood, the United States Congress proposed to place restrictions on slavery in Missouri. Many of the residents of the Boone’s Lick country rejected Congress’ proposal to place restrictions on their southern way of life. The Missouri Intelligencer reported on a region-wide meeting held in Franklin on July 5, 1819 in which the residents of the Boone’s Lick region spoke out against any restrictions placed on slavery in their territory. They viewed it as direct invasion of their rights as citizens of the United States to hold property. A committee had been formed two weeks before to write several resolutions expressing their concern and disapproval of the restrictions. All those in attendance voted in favor of the resolutions. Three of the

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 17

This Place Called Little Dixie

17

resolutions that were “written to be expressive of the sense of the people inhabiting this section of the country”19 are significant to this study. 1. Resolved, That the attempt in Congress to impose a restriction on the territory of Missouri, in forming a state constitution, is an usurpation of power, neither expressly delegated nor impliedly granted by the Constitution of the United States to Congress; and therefore in violation of that instrument. 2. Resolved, That the people of Boon’s Lick country deem it their painful duty to protest against the unwarrantable assumption of power over their just rights and best interests. 3. Resolved, That we will retain in our own hands the exercise of our municipal rights, in which we place the establishment or exclusion of slavery; and that we deem it equally absurd in Congress to say, that we shall tolerate slavery, as to say, that it shall be prohibited.20 Meetings like this demonstrated that slavery was becoming very much a part of the daily lives of the people of central Missouri. The sentiment of many of the people of the Boone’s Lick region was further expressed by Henry Carroll, Esq. who was asked by the committee to respond to the resolutions. He expressed the importance of slavery to the newly settled region. He stated that Congress’ proposed restrictions would not only obstruct the growing settlements, but also would prevent the opportunity for better living conditions for the slaves. He acknowledged the fact that there would be fewer slaves in the expanded territory and that this would make better living conditions for bonded servants. Missouri can now only melt down their hardships by framing her domestick relations with a view to soften their condition, & to abate the despotic exercise of angry passions between master and servant; and by inviting them to migrate together to her ‘flesh pots’ from the states in which, being unfavorably concentrated, their means of subsistence are more precious and scanty, and the consequent treatment of the slave comparatively harsher; they will fill our granaries, which in return will be opened to them. The progressive amelioration of their state is more striking as the observer recedes further from the sea board to the west; the tender master might be led from pity to his slave to remove with him to a land where he will be so much better fed and clothed.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

18

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 18

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

Carroll went on to express this view that: The profusion in which the staples and comforts of life abound in a fertile district essentially agricultural, will repay them by the increase to be reaped, ten rather twenty fold, greater than in the section of country where an adverse policy proposes to coop them up, lest by spreading over the wide west of the Mississippi their numbers procreate more rapidly. . . . The real incentive with the advocates of the restrictions lies as much in the lust of power, the spirit of domination, which has raked up this subject; one of common cause among the states in which involuntary servitude is excluded, in order to recruit their force by concert with the future states on this side of the Mississippi, with the ulterior view of grasping the reins of government; as in a craving ‘notion’ to appropriate, on their own terms, these rich lands on which your means have been largely expended and your brightest anticipations formed— For a rejection of slavery cannot fail to shut out from the enjoyment of our country those disposed to migrate hither from the southern states, under a repugnance to separate from the labor useful to them in forming a new settlement. . . . 21

Although the Panic of 1819 brought the initial excitement of migration to central Missouri to an end, the influences of upper South culture did not cease because of the recession. Moreover, immigration resumed in 1822 when more settlers from Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Carolinas continued their trek into central Missouri at a rapid pace until the end of the decade, and then at a steady pace until 1860. The entire antebellum period was certainly a time of growth for central Missouri. Immigrants who left their homes in the upper South states came to central Missouri to not only make a better life for themselves and their families but also to recreate their southern way of life. Most settlers brought with them the habits and traditions that they had always known. They transplanted their knowledge of farming, their slaves, and their southern way of life to the Boone’s Lick country.22 Moving west was not only challenging, but also provided new and exciting opportunities. As the frontier continuously and rapidly moved farther west, so too did the immigrants.23 One of the main reasons that the southerners migrated to Little Dixie was the relatively easy means of acquiring land. Acquiring land was important for the immigrants, as well as for those who have been residing in Little Dixie since the territorial period. Many of those living in Little Dixie regularly added to their holdings on a recurring basis. Throughout most of the

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

This Place Called Little Dixie

Page 19

19

1820s and 1830s these “respectable” people purchased land at an increasing rate. For example, Abiel Leonard, an attorney and successful businessman of Fayette, along with his younger brother, Nathaniel, began buying land in 1825 whenever they had some spare money. Nathaniel lived in Cooper County and began his purchasing in 1825 when he bought 160 acres from the government. By 1856, he not only owned 16 slaves, but also 6,700 acres spread across Cooper and Saline Counties, as well as in various parts of Kansas and Iowa. Abiel, who was even more aggressive in purchasing lands, hired agents to buy both public and private lands. Although he purchased primarily with credit, by 1852 he was able to amass over 8,000 acres in Cooper and Saline Counties alone, as well as numerous acres in other Missouri counties. By 1857, along with his 13 slaves Abiel had accumulated 30,200 acres in 12 different Missouri counties.24 Many of the settlers who came to Little Dixie during the mid-1820s were men of wealth. The Panic of 1819 slowed immigration but did not prevent wealthy slave owners from coming to central Missouri. According to one prominent settler, these immigrants, who were generally “persons of considerable property and respectability—having with them slaves and considerable money,”25 made their way to central Missouri, and drove out many of the old settlers who liked to live on the fringes of more settled areas. The immigrants left their worn out farms in the east and were lured to the abundant lands of Little Dixie. They had high expectations of gaining greater wealth, establishing large plantations and becoming the economic, political, and social leaders of Missouri. They were ambitious and aggressive and gauged themselves by the number of corn-cribs, smoke houses, and slave quarters they owned. Many lived in double-log cabins and longed for the day to own large plantations that would rival those in the Deep South.26 However, by 1860 few owners in Little Dixie owned enough slaves and land to compete with their contemporaries in the Deep South. Although Missouri was not a large slave holding state, slaves existed in substantial numbers in the seven counties that made up Little Dixie. Through immigration and naturalization, the slave population steadily increased making Little Dixie a significant slave region in the upper South. Throughout the antebellum period, the slave population made up a significant proportion of each county’s total population. By 1860, slaves in all Little Dixie counties constituted 22 percent of the population. The following table illustrates the increase in the population of both whites and slaves as well as the percentage of the slave population in the seven Little Dixie counties.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

20

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 20

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

Table 1. Population Growth in Little Dixie, 1820–1860 Percentage of White Increase County Boone

Callaway

Clay

Cooper

Howard

Lafayette

Saline

Year 1830 1840 1850 1860 1830 1840 1850 1860 1830 1840 1850 1860 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1830 1840 1850 1860 1830 1840 1850 1860

Whites 6,935 10,529 11,300 14,399 4,692 8,601 9,895 12,895 4,444 6,373 7,585 9,525 6,493 5,876 8,312 9,837 13,528 6,761 8,177 9,381 9,039 9,986 2,481 4,799 9,005 13,688 2,146 3,635 6,105 9,800

Slaves 1,923 3,008 3,666 5,034 1,466 3,142 3,907 4,523 882 2,875 2,742 3,455 637 1,021 2,157 3,091 3,800 1,336 2,646 3,683 4,890 5,866 429 1,990 4,615 6,374 706 1,615 2,719 4,876

Percentage of Percentage of Slave Slaves in Increase Population

52% 7% 27%

56% 22% 37%

83% 15% 30%

114% 24% 16%

43% 19% 26%

226% -5% 26%

-10% 42% 18% 38%

60% 111% 43% 23%

21% 15% -4% 10%

98% 39% 33% 20%

93% 88% 52%

364% 132% 38%

69% 68% 61%

129% 68% 79%

21% 22% 24% 26% 24% 27% 28% 26% 17% 31% 27% 27% 9% 15% 21% 24% 22% 16% 24% 28% 35% 37% 15% 29% 34% 32% 25% 31% 31% 33%

Sources: Census for 1820; Fifth Census or Enumeration of the Inhabitants of United States, 1830; Sixth Census or Enumeration of the Inhabitants of United States, 1840; Seventh Census of the United States,1850; Population of the United States in 1860.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 21

This Place Called Little Dixie

21

Throughout the antebellum period only about 12 percent of free families in the entire state of Missouri owned slaves.27 However, in the seven counties of Little Dixie this percentage was considerably higher. In the 1850 and 1860 censuses, the percentage of families owning slaves in each county of Little Dixie far exceeded the 12 percent average in the state. In addition, the number of families that owned slaves in Little Dixie steadily increased between 1830 and 1860. Although there was a decrease in the percentage of slaveholding families between 1850 and 1860 in Clay, Boone, Saline, Cooper, and Lafayette Counties, the number of families owning slaves increased. The reason for the decline in the percentage was that the total number of families moving into Little Dixie increased and not all of these families owned slaves.28 This is not to imply that the peculiar institution was declining in Little Dixie because of more non-slave owning families inhabiting the area. In fact, slavery became stronger economically in Little Dixie because each year the number of slave-owning families also increased. The following table illustrates the percentage of families in Little Dixie owning slaves in 1850 and 1860. Table 2. Percentage of Families in Little Dixie Owning Slaves County Boone

Year 1850 1860

Total Families 1,924 2,711

Slave Holding 776 885

Percentage 35% 32%

Cooper

1850 1860

1,717 2,434

657 732

38% 30%

Howard

1850 1860

1,637 1,740

724 801

44% 46%

Lafayette

1850 1860

1,459 2,713

840 909

58% 34%

Saline

1850 1860

995 1,712

507 693

51% 40%

Clay

1850 1860

1,352 1,695

555 667

41% 39%

Callaway

1850 1860

1,612 2,254

526 995

32% 44%

Source: Manuscript Census Returns for Boone, Cooper, Howard, Lafayette, Saline, Clay, and Callaway Counties Missouri. Slave Schedule, Seventh Census of the United States, 1850, Slave Schedule, Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, State Historical Society of Missouri, Columbia.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

22

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 22

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

Whatever the reasons for its existence in Missouri, slavery was a major driving force in Little Dixie’s society. What is unique about Little Dixie is that it did not follow many of the demographic trends that the Deep South demonstrated. In southern antebellum society, it was assumed that to belong to the planter class, a slave owner should own at least twenty slaves.29 In fact, few slave owners in the Deep South could acquire that many slaves. Only about 12 percent of the slave owning families throughout the South had more than twenty bonded servants. Moreover, the majority of slaves lived and worked on these plantations. With some regional variation, the majority of the slave owners did not own the majority of the slaves. Throughout most of the Deep South, about 75 percent of the slaves belonged to 12 percent of slave owning families.30 This created a unique plantation society and culture known only to the Deep South. The planter aristocracy that developed in the Deep South was a small minority, not only among the entire southern population, but also among slave owners as well. In upper South places like Little Dixie, which was also deeply involved with slavery, plantations like those in the Deep South rarely existed. As a plantation society evolved in the Deep South, a different slave culture emerged in Little Dixie. When the figures on the number of slave owners in the Deep South with twenty or more servants are compared to the number of slave owners in Little Dixie with more than twenty, the differences became very apparent. Little Dixie did not have as high of a percentage of slave-owning families with more than twenty slaves. If 12 percent of the slave owners in the Deep South constituted the planter class, this percentage was much lower in Little Dixie. Between 1830 and 1860 the percentage of slave owners with more than twenty slaves never exceeded 4 percent leaving about 96 percent of slave owners out of the planter class. If a family in Little Dixie owned more than twenty slaves, they usually did not own more than thirty slaves.31 The following table illustrates the percentage of slaveholders by county in the planter class for each decade between 1830 and 1860. Consequently, the majority of the slaves in Little Dixie did not live on large plantations as they did in the Deep South. The majority of the slave population in Little Dixie lived and worked on small farms where there were less than 20 bonded servants. In 1830, approximately 8 percent of the slaves in the seven counties of Little Dixie lived on plantations. This figure jumped to about 10 percent in 1840. The percentage of slaves living on plantations rose to approximately 17 percent by 1850, and to 19 percent by 1860.32 Comparing these figures to those in the Deep South in which about 75 percent of the slaves were owned by a mere 12 percent of slave owners, makes it clear that Little Dixie did not develop a plantation culture. Dominant in the

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 23

This Place Called Little Dixie

23

Table 3. Number and Percentage of Slave Owners with More than Twenty Slaves

Boone Callaway Clay Cooper Howard Lafayette Saline Totals

1830 20 %

1840 20 %

1850 20 %

1860 20 %

465 322 220 283 552 117 99

704 682 416 511 622 348 256

685 779 541 634 685 732 487

894 807 628 696 753 879 470

5 6 0 1 12 0 2

1 2 0 1 2 0 2

2,058 26

1

7 9 6 6 20 10 4

1 1 1 1 3 3 2

3,539 62

2

11 15 10 11 41 40 19

2 2 2 2 6 5 4

4,543 147

3

28 18 17 18 44 52 45

3 3 3 3 6 6 10

5,127 222

4

Source: Manuscript Census Schedules, Slaves, 1830, 1840, 1850, 1860.

Deep South, plantations were rare in Little Dixie. Although there were fewer slaves, and fewer plantations, slaves were more evenly distributed among the white population in Little Dixie. Consequently, the majority of the slaves in Little Dixie did not live on large plantations as they did in the Deep South. The majority of the slave population in Little Dixie lived and worked on small farms where there were less than 20 bonded servants. In 1830, approximately 8 percent of the slaves in the seven counties of Little Dixie lived on plantations. This figure jumped to about 10 percent in 1840. The percentage of slaves living on plantations rose to approximately 17 percent by 1850, and to 19 percent by 1860.32 Comparing these figures to those in the Deep South in which about 75 percent of the slaves were owned by a mere 12 percent of slave owners, makes it clear that Little Dixie did not develop a plantation culture. Dominant in the Deep South, plantations were rare in Little Dixie. Although there were fewer slaves, and fewer plantations, slaves were more evenly distributed among the white population in Little Dixie. Comparing the average number of slaves per slave owner will further explain that a plantation society did not emerge in Little Dixie. By 1860 in the Deep South, owners averaged 12.7 slaves while in the upper South the average was 7.7.33 Little Dixie was below the upper South average with 6.1 slaves (see Table 4) per owner. Although the average number increased each year for each county, the average number of slaves owned was still considerably below the number to qualify as a planter. The following table illustrates the average number of slaves per slaveholder in 1850 and 1860.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

24

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 24

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

Table 4. Average Number of Slaves per Owner County Boone Callaway Clay Cooper Howard Lafayette Saline

Year 1850 1860 1850 1860 1850 1860 1850 1860 1850 1860 1850 1860 1850 1860

Slaves Per Holder 5.2 5.7 5.5 5.3 5 5.3 4.8 5.2 6.9 7.4 5 7 5.3 7

Sources: Manuscript Census Schedules, Slaves, 1850, 1860; Agriculture of the United States in 1860, 233–34.

There are some striking similarities, however, between the blackbelt of the Deep South and Little Dixie. By examining the entire population of Little Dixie and comparing the number of families owning slaves to the number of families owning slaves in various parts of the Deep South, the percentages are quite similar. By 1860, Howard County had similar figures to Mississippi and South Carolina. Each had approximately 50 percent of their families owning slaves. In Boone, Cooper, and Lafayette Counties the percentage of families owning slaves was approximately 33 percent, which was the same for Alabama, Louisiana, and Florida.34 The pattern of slave distribution and ownership had an important influence on the lives of everyone in Little Dixie. The settings for learning were quite different in Little Dixie than in the plantation society of the Deep South. Rather than living on large plantations, most of the slaves in Little Dixie lived on small farms where there were fewer than twenty bonded servants. Although most farms remained relatively small as compared to the plantations of the Deep South, many owners believed that slave labor would move them into commercial agricultural production rather than subsistence farming. Reflecting the southern tradition that immigrants transported to Little Dixie, slaves were expected to do general farm work in tobacco production and hemp manufacturing, which were the two main agricultural products that were brought from Kentucky and Tennessee.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

This Place Called Little Dixie

Page 25

25

Although raising tobacco was not viewed as hard work, it required constant attention throughout the entire year. To produce a good crop of tobacco, farmers needed several hands to not only plant and harvest the crop, but also to cultivate it and process it for market. The most educated and productive tobacco farmers plowed and fertilized their fields in January, and a few weeks later they sowed the tobacco beds. This early process ensured the most sprouts possible. The spring and summer months were spent hoeing and cultivating the fields and picking off insects. The workers also had to complete a process called “priming” and “topping,” which was the removal of the late blooming leaves toward the bottom of the stalk and the buds at the top. If these two processes were not done it weakened the plant stalk, and produced a lower-grade of tobacco.35 The tobacco was ready for harvest by mid-September. Field hands would normally cut the stalk below the lowest leaf with a knife and let it wilt. Later, other workers would gather up the piles of wilting tobacco and hand them in sheds on racks until it dried. Once the stalks dried, the leaves were carefully removed and prepared for packing and shipping. Before the end of the antebellum period several farmers were using a process that cured the tobacco over a low, smoky fire. With this process the farmers could control the curing process and turn the tobacco leaves a yellow, brown, or black color.36 The knowledge that tobacco farmers brought with them was only adequate to produce modest profits. Through lack of either education or negligence, many Missouri tobacco farmers did not gain the maximum profits that their tobacco could produce. After the leaves were cut, tobacco farmers often mishandled the packing of their product. They would pack the leaves in wrong sized crates as well as neglect to separate the trash from the good leaves. This cut profits considerably. If the leaves were not packed correctly, it damaged the product and down-graded its level of quality. Most of the tobacco Little Dixie farmers produced between 1820 and 1840 was destined to New Orleans for sale in Northeastern United States and European markets. Because of the poor handling of the product, it did not take long for Missouri tobacco to gain a poor reputation in New Orleans.37 By 1843, Missouri had established a tobacco warehouse in St. Louis. The Missouri state legislature viewed the problems of the tobacco industry an embarrassment and sought to establish a means to build a better reputation of their product.38 Westward expansion during the antebellum period proved to be profitable for farmers in Little Dixie. Cotton manufacturing in the Deep South expanded as the population moved into the western territories and newly formed states. Therefore, more farmers were producing cotton. As the cotton

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

26

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 26

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

farmers required additional rope to bind their bales together for shipment, Little Dixie farmers fulfilled those needs. Many farmers in Little Dixie grew hemp and local businesses manufactured it into rope to sell to the plantation owners in the Deep South. The hemp industry in Little Dixie became one of the major commercial enterprises for this portion of the upper South.39 Residents of Little Dixie were proud of their product in which it led one storeowner in Waverly to post a sign in 1869 which read “‘Cotton is King’ among Seceders; but Hemp is King in Waverly.”40 Perhaps he was expressing his frustration toward plantation owners in the Deep South for leaving the union because the hemp industry began to decline at the outbreak of the Civil War. The hemp farmers in Little Dixie relied on slave labor to raise and harvest the crop. With hemp being widely grown in Little Dixie and with several local manufacturers processing it into rope, nearly every slave in Little Dixie was involved at some point with the hemp industry. They harvested the crop, gathered it into bundles, rotted it for rope production, or worked in the factories to make the rope. The three counties that produced the most hemp held the highest population of slaves by 1850.41 The hemp industry enlisted a great number of slaves to process the hemp from sowing the fields to completing the final product. Most farmers believed slave labor was very profitable in hemp production. It was difficult to find many whites to work in the harvesting and rotting of hemp because it was hard and dirty work.42 Like tobacco production, hemp production was a year-round process that took many laborers. There was much idle time between growing, harvesting, and rotting hemp, which made slaves available for use in other projects around the farm or hiring out for extra money. Owners in Little Dixie practiced the hiring out of their slaves quite frequently. William B. Lenoir, who was a typical small farmer just outside of Columbia in Boone County, planned to hire out his slaves immediately after establishing his farm. He wrote to his brother, Walter, in 1834 stating his intentions on how he was going to use his slaves. “I expect you wish to know how I intend to employ my force while at this small farm: my plan is this, to hire out 9 or 10 negroes which can be done without difficulty immediately in this settlement, fellows at $100 per year and boys & girls in proportion.”43 The hemp industry spurred Little Dixie’s economy throughout the antebellum period.44 Normally for seed crop, slaves would plant the seed in mid-April and cultivate it by plowing and hoeing until the plants were six inches tall. Slaves would then cut some of the crop for seed for next year’s planting. Hemp that was raised for making rope and other products began in the fall with deep plowing and turning the field. It was done again in the

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

This Place Called Little Dixie

Page 27

27

following spring. At this point, slaves would dig rows for the seed and plant them during April and May. The crop did not need cultivating during the summer and would be harvested in August when the stalks were five to eight feet tall. It took a couple of slaves approximately one day to harvest one acre of hemp using a sickle-like tool. The hemp would stay on the ground until dried. Later, slaves would shock the hemp and let it stand until the late fall when they would spread the stalks on the ground again to rot by the dew. When sufficiently rotted slaves would haul the stalks to the hemp break so that other slaves would separate the fibers from the woody stems. The fibers would then be used to make rope.45 Profits from hemp production remained marginal because of the rotting process Little Dixie farmers chose. Most farmers in Little Dixie chose to dew rot their hemp because it was cheaper and less messy. The hemp would lie on the ground through most of the fall and sometimes until spring to let the dew and rain rot the stalks so that the fibers could be separated. The alternative was to water rot the hemp. This method required large tanks of water or ponds to let the hemp stalks soak in the water for rotting. Although faster, many farmers believed that this process was harmful to their slaves because as the hemp rotted in the ponds it released a foul odor. The rotting hemp would poison fish and deter livestock from drinking the water. Water rotted hemp, however, produced better quality hemp for stronger and cleaner rope. The United States Navy was a large consumer of ropes and rejected much of the hemp and rope produced by Little Dixie farmers. They preferred to purchase cleaner and more durable ropes produced by Russian hemp manufacturers. As a result Little Dixie farmers lost out on potential profits.46 Slavery was perhaps the most important element of southern culture that was brought to Little Dixie. In the seven counties that made up the region, the slave population had a significant effect on the entire region. Slave owners brought their bonded servants for several reasons, but the most important reason was economic gains. When the numbers of slaves in Little Dixie are compared with that in other slave regions, the number in Little Dixie may not seem large, but when percentages are considered, Little Dixie compares similarly. This is significant when examining the educational character of life in Little Dixie, which will be discussed further in the next chapter.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 28

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 29

Chapter Two

Home and Community

The House Servant, the favored skilled artisan, the driver, the whiteappointed preacher, the slave with obvious white blood, were not judged according to their position in the plantation hierarchy but rather, like all blacks, according to the extent to which they could be relied upon to place the welfare of the quarter community first. Thomas L. Webber, Deep Like the Rivers

One of the locations where most of the work, interaction, play, discipline, and other activities occurred between master and slave in Little Dixie was on the family farm. The family farm played a vital role in the lives of both the owners and the slaves because it helped define and maintain cultural values and beliefs. During the antebellum period, the family farm was a social and educational enterprise. The educative elements of the small farm helped shape the cultural identity of Little Dixie. Patterns of behavior that were partially transported from Kentucky and Virginia and partially established locally were being defined and transmitted as the family farm expanded and as subsequent generations of slaves and masters interacted. Indeed, masters depended upon their slaves to perform many of the tasks required to make the farm profitable; however, the interaction between masters and slaves on the farms and plantations in Little Dixie developed a relationship between the two that transmitted values and culture across generations. Although the family farm brought subsistence and a livelihood to Little Dixie, most antebellum slave farms in this region had little organization and hierarchy. In their efforts to create thriving plantations to equal those they admired in the Deep South, most slave owners were more concerned with the day-to-day grind of running their farms because farming in Little Dixie during the antebellum era was often difficult. Regularity and organi29

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

30

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 30

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

zation were challenged by many factors. In discussing this condition of small farms in the south, southern historian John Boles stated that there was no clear distinction between work and play. Notions of regularity and discipline in farming were far different in the 19th century than in the 20th century. Not only did seasonal fluctuations and weather changes pose challenges to the typical small farmer, but sickness in animals did as well. Animals, as well as the farmers, were sometimes afflicted by diseases, which made the multi-faceted tasks in running a farm a serious challenge.1 Generally, small family farms with less than 19 slaves, which constituted the majority of slave farms in Little Dixie, required little in the way of organization. Many of these farmers were found toiling in the fields or working on the farm with their servants. Walter Raleigh Lenoir wrote to his brother in 1838 that not only his slaves had to work, but also he had to work on the farm to make sure he covered his expenses. “My neighbour who owns the saw-mill owns me for the hire of hands as much as my bill for sawing will come too [sic], the balence [sic] of materials will be furnished by the labour of my own hands.”2 With little organization, most masters with small slaveholdings directed their slaves according to the needs of the day and season. Most masters in Little Dixie were interested in running their farms and managing their slaves personally. Many felt an obligation to be on their farms to watch over its proceedings and did not seek the aid of white helpers to assist in working the soil. In speaking more fondly of a slaves’ work rather than a white man’s work, Nathaniel Leonard of Cooper County wrote to his brother Abiel in 1841 that “I want to git along this season without a white man there are none to be had worth having.”3 Also, many farmers in Little Dixie did not request the help of overseers to manage their slaves. In the Deep South, the widespread hiring of overseers was practiced to get the slaves to perform their expected duties. Many small farmers in Little Dixie, however, did not desire to use slave managers or overseers to regiment their labor. In the course of interviewing several slave owners in central Missouri, Harrison A. Trexler found that the overseer was rarely used. Rather, if the owner did not directly supervise the slaves, the job was often given to one of the owners’ sons or another slave called a “driver.” Trexler reported that only 254 overseers were employed in the entire state of Missouri before 1860.4 When the slave population was at one of its highest points in Little Dixie in 1851, many slave owners still rejected the use of hired helpers. In a letter to her brother about her family farm, Mrs. Walter Raleigh Lenoir wrote that “I farmed it upon a small scale last year having no one to superintend,—I kept 4 negro men at home, one sick all the crop season. I might

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

Home and Community

10:10 AM

Page 31

31

say two for Old Jess could not work as a young hand yet he answered a good purpose to keep the farming utensils in order.”5 Personally managing slaves was typical for most farmers in Little Dixie. This way of life was less formalized and organized than on larger plantations where a more elaborate managerial structure and specialization of labor was used. Another reason why overseers were not readily used in Little Dixie was because they were hard to find. If an overseer was desired, most farmers had to find one outside the state of Missouri. For example, when he had to be away from his farm for long periods, Judge William B. Napton of the Missouri Supreme Court and his wife Melinda decided out of necessity to hire an overseer to help on their farm in Saline County. They had difficulty in finding a good overseer in Missouri so they looked to the state of Virginia to hire one. In 1846, when Melinda wrote to her husband, she reported that she had spoken to a Mr. B. of Tennessee who said he knew Virginia had overseers “as thick as peas,” and that he would locate one and send him out to her.6 In the few instances where overseers were used they were not always liked by either the slaves or the owners. Owners in Little Dixie usually distrusted them and used them only out of necessity. Between 1845 and 1860, Judge Napton and his wife employed several different overseers, each having his own way of managing slaves. New overseers were constantly being hired to replace the old ones who did not work out. It is not always clear why the overseers were replaced, but it is obvious that owners did not always trust their hired agents. By 1861, Judge Napton was fed up with his current overseer’s practices and instructed him not to whip a particular slave named Arch anymore. He reasoned that Arch was not going to obey the overseer because of all the whippings he had previously received. Because of the distrust he had for his overseer, Napton instructed his son to oversee the farm and watch the overseer closely.7 Slavery historian, Peter Kolchin perhaps said it best when he showed, “masters instinctively distrusted their hired agents and ceded authority to them grudgingly, constantly checking on and interfering with their plantation management and making sure that everyone knew who was really in charge.”8 Nevertheless, very few overseers were used in Little Dixie, which left masters and slaves to deal with one another. As masters in Little Dixie personally managed and frequently interacted with their slaves, they learned their capabilities and limitations; that is, they learned who their slaves were. They not only knew their names, but they also knew them individually and were in close contact to some of them as they were to their own families. This tradition of masters and slaves existing and working in close contact dates back to the first emigrants who

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

32

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 32

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

brought slaves to central Missouri. In the process of working together, some owners grew very close to their slaves by sharing the hardships of migrating from Kentucky and Virginia, and working the fresh soil of Missouri, starting new farms, and building new homes. According to the historian, Harrison Trexler, these pioneers looked at their slaves as people who needed guidance and protection rather than as just property to be used.9 Although it is clear that slave labor in Little Dixie was economically motivated,10 several owners, however, expressed a confidence throughout the antebellum era that there was more to slavery than mere business. Indeed, the former slave, Charles Butlington of Cooper County, recalled that several masters “treated their negros as human beings and not as mere chattels.”11 Personal contact between master and slave necessarily varied from farm to farm, owner to owner, and slave to slave. No single statement can cover the range of personal contact between masters and slaves. It varied according to personal inclination, size of holding, and many other circumstances. Although the intensity varied, many masters increasingly took a personal interest in the lives of their bonded servants. This interest was not always good, non-intrusive, or painless, but it did reflect the feelings by some owners that they were responsible for the well being of their servants. They tried to create for the slave an environment that would instill their own values and beliefs. Through their interactions on the small farms, owners and slaves developed and transmitted their brand of southern culture. Many of the masters in Little Dixie began to have a sense of paternalism for their servants and felt that they needed to take care of them in a manner that was more than mere subsistence. It was a widespread belief among many Little Dixie farmers that it was their duty to provide shelter, protection, and guidance to their slaves. Robert B. Price of Columbia stated that “The Missouri slave holders were not such through choice. They inherited their negroes and felt duty bound to keep them.”12 In return, owners expected loyalty and devotion. In 1836, Walter Raleigh Lenoir realized the attachment he had for his slaves when he contemplated selling some of his slaves for land. He wrote to his brother William B. Lenoir in Tennessee that: It is my opinion that the man who has money to vest in Missouri lands, that now is the time, and I believe it would be to my advantage to sell 8 or 10 negroes at the present high prices and purchase land with the money. But they have conducted themselves well, and had left their connections under the expectation of remaining with me, therefore feel

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 33

Home and Community

33

disposed to do by them as I would have them to do by me if I was in their stead.13

Some slave owners demonstrated the attachment they had for their slaves in their wills. Many of the wills included provisions for the continued well-being of slaves. Several slave owners expressed a deep concern that upon their death that their slaves receive proper care and guidance. Some slave owners requested in their wills that certain steps be taken for the care of their slaves. Because of their desire to protect their slaves and to provide for them, some owners did not want to be resented for allowing their slaves to be put into a non-caring environment. The slave owner Thomas Bently of Callaway County was one who believed in protecting his slave after his death. He wanted his slave, Thomas Johnson, to remain on his farm and be well kept in his old age.14 In 1858, John Locke Hardeman of Saline County made several provisions for the protection of his slaves in his will. He willed that two of his slaves, Charlie and Stephen, and their families not to be broken up. He also wanted his brother to own two of his “old faithful servants,” William who was 63 and his wife Telly who was 60, to whom he had a deep attachment. Hardeman made additional provisions by willing that his brother receive 1,000 of his dollars to be used to keep them comfortable in the rest of their lives.15 Freeing slaves through wills was an exception to the general rule of granting them to heirs. Most masters in Little Dixie did not care to relieve their slaves of their bonded status. Many indicated they wanted to keep their slaves under what they saw as proper guidance and supervision by surviving family members or friends. On rare occasions, however, some slaves were provided manumission. David Gordon of Boone County willed upon his death that his faithful young slave boy be provided manumission. Apparently, Gordon was fond of the boy and grew attached to him because of the young boy’s devotion to him at such an early age. He willed in 1848 that once the boy reached age seventeen that he be apprenticed until he was age twenty-one and then be set free.16 Wills like David Gordon’s that provided manumission were rare in antebellum Little Dixie. In fact, between 1851 and 1861 only one slave was freed in Howard County and eight were freed in Boone County.17 Wills not only helps explain the paternalistic attitude of some of the Little Dixie owners; the slave market does as well. Several owners were concerned about offering their slaves to the market because they believed that they were responsible for the well being of their servants and did not want to sell them to just anyone. Some slaveholders saw the cruelty a slave trade inflicted on the slaves, and they strove to avoid this option. The slave-

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

34

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 34

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

owner, James Aull of Lafayette County, indicated that “A traffic in slaves we never could consent to embark in. No hope of gain could induce us to do it . . . we entirely and forever abandon the least share in the purchase of Negroes for Sale again.”18 Owners like Aull felt that maintaining ownership of their slaves ensured that they could personally oversee their needs. The decision by James Aull not to embark in the practice of selling slaves was not common among Little Dixie farmers. Research shows that throughout the antebellum period many owners continually sold slaves. In many cases, however, they were sold to other local slaveholders rather than being offered on the open market. Between 1820 and 1860 in Boone County, 891 slaves were sold and 868 of these slaves were sold locally. These local buyers were usually family members of those from which they were buying the slaves. Many slaveholders in Little Dixie died without leaving behind a will, which left the estate to be sold at public auction. Family members living in the same general vicinity or county often purchased the slaves that belonged to the deceased owner.19 This suggests that sons, daughters, and other family members of the deceased knew the slaves well enough to want to purchase them. It was common for the master’s children and his slaves to grow up together and frequently interact on the smaller farms. When slaves were sold in Little Dixie, they were generally not sold to slave traders. Slave traders were generally not popular in Little Dixie and most enjoyed very little success. They carried a reputation of conducting a brutal business without conscience and caring little about family unity. One Columbia slaveholder advertised to sell some of his slaves but he specifically indicated that he would not sell to slave traders.20 H.C. Bruce, an exslave who spent many years in around Little Dixie counties, remembered that throughout central Missouri slave traders were not well liked and wrote in 1895, “the sentiment against selling Negroes to traders was quite strong, and there were many who would not sell at all. . . .”21 Slave traders did make several attempts at purchasing large numbers of slaves from Little Dixie owners for sale in the Deep South but were apparently unable to purchase enough slaves to make large profits. Slave traders showed very little activity throughout most of the antebellum period, and most of the activity that occurred was after 1845. During this short time, there were periods of several months and even years when no advertisements were placed in the Missouri Intelligencer at all and many of the attempts were futile. When slave traders ran advertisements in local newspapers indicating their desire to purchase slaves they usually did not end up with the quantity they wanted.22

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

Home and Community

10:10 AM

Page 35

35

Most slave traders did not advertise for the purchase of slave families. Rather, they advertised for the purchase of young promising slaves. The emotional ties that accompanied families were usually detrimental to their sales in the Deep South. Jay H. Adams of Clay County specifically advertised that he did not wish to purchase families but rather slaves who were young and healthy.23 This does not mean that these slave traders cared about keeping slave families together. They were in the trading business to make as much money as possible. Rather it seems likely because the slave owners in Little Dixie preferred not to sell their slaves to individuals they believed were of questionable character. One slave trader did manage to gain some respect from the owners. Between 1846 and 1860, John R. White of Howard County was successful in the slave trade in Missouri. White had agents in many parts of Missouri and the Deep South which helped his business succeed. He traded slaves from Lafayette, Boone, Cooper, and Saline Counties, as well as from places like St. Louis, Louisiana, Virginia, and Chariton County, Missouri. One slave owner stated that White dealt with “quality slaves” and would give a fair deal.24 His detailed account book not only shows that he made money on all his transactions except one, but also that he increased his trading activity during the years he was in business.25 White’s records show that many slave owners did not hesitate to sell their slaves to the highest bidder for economic reasons, which usually broke up slave families. By selling a slave to a buyer who was willing to pay the price, these owners were taking the chance that their slaves could be sold to a cruel master or slave trader. Even so, many slave owners in Little Dixie believed that they took good care of their slaves. On occasion, they compared their slaves to the wage slaves of the New England textile mills. Newspapers in Little Dixie reported that many of the people that lived in Little Dixie believed that their women were more fortunate than their sisters in the New England factories.26 In 1835, an editorial appeared in the Missouri Intelligencer that claimed that slaves in Boone County were well treated by their owners. Although there were incidences of ill treatment by some owners, slavery, according to the editorial, became a “lighter burden” for the slaves than in previous years. The editorial writer went on to declare that though they were in bondage, the slaves learned that their masters cared for them and were looking out for their best interests. Slave owners in Little Dixie claimed that the close relationship that developed between the master and slave instilled in the slave a love for the master. The editorial went on to state that:

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

36

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 36

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860 men born in our households, become, in spite of the difference of condition, objects of solicitude and interest—these gradually ripen into affection and out of this affection springs a new relation, in which humanity prevails on the one side and the principle of obedience and contentment gathers strength on the other . . . find the slaves gathering around the head of the family, and willing to devote their lives to his safety.27

Editorials such as this undoubtedly strengthened many slave owners’ paternalistic self-image and permitted them to rationalize their ownership of slaves because in their minds when they kept their slaves in bondage they were protecting them as well as nurturing their well-being. Providing food and shelter to their slaves was one of the primary concerns of the owners. Although not all masters took good care of their slaves, the food many slaves received was well balanced for the period. When slaves were first brought to the Little Dixie region, the food and shelter they received was not much different than what the slave owners had themselves. Many slave owners understood the necessity of providing food and shelter to their bonded servants not only to protect their financial investment, but also as paternalistic obligation to maintain healthy slaves. In the early years of Missouri’s statehood, slave-owning farmers were continually migrating to the region and were attempting to build their farms. Most of these farmers owned either only one slave or a small slave family with whom they shared their meager frontier provisions. These owners developed close relationships with many of their slaves by working with them in the fields, sleeping under the same roof, eating the same kinds of food, worshipping together, and wearing the same type of clothing.28 Throughout the antebellum period, most slaves had an adequate supply of food provided to them. Speaking of slavery in general, Frederick Douglas wrote with some animosity “not to give a slave enough to eat is regarded as the most aggravated development of meanness even among slaveholders,”29 which seems to hold true for much of Little Dixie. Although the food may not have been the best that could be offered, most slaves did receive enough food for subsistence. The former slave, H.C. Bruce wrote that “the man who hired slaves, and owners as well, had to feed and clothe them, and the slave had no care as to those necessaries.”30 Believing that the slaves in many parts of central Missouri were better off than slaves in the Deep South, he went on to indicate that “we were well fed, had such vegetables as were raised on the farm, and save biscuit and coffee, we had such food as was prepared for him (master).”31 It was reported that another slave from Saline County said that he “had a good

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

Home and Community

10:10 AM

Page 37

37

master and had plenty to eat. We had three meals a day—bacon, cabbage, potatoes, turnips, beans, and sometimes molasses, coffee, and sugar. We also had milk and sometimes butter.”32 Many slave owners in Little Dixie knew that to maintain healthy slaves they not only needed to feed them, but also that they needed to provide adequate medical care. According to Philip Scarpino, in Callaway County, many owners provided medical attention to their slaves as often as they did for themselves.33 Medical practice in central Missouri depended heavily on fever pills and other proprietary medicines. Residents of Little Dixie usually followed the advice of local merchants who sold them the medicines because of the lack of “doctors” in the region. One of the most successful doctors in Little Dixie, however, was Dr. John Sappington of Arrow Rock in Saline County who sold his famous “AntiFever Pills.” He claimed that by taking these pills made of quinine would cure many ailments like malaria.34 The ex-slave Ed Craddock from Saline County remembered his father often suffered from chills and fever. He was given quinine pills which he believed never cured him. The elder Craddock took some advice that was given to him to jump in a deep and cold hole in the river the next time the chills came on. He believed that this cured him.35 Many slave owners were concerned about their slaves when they became ill. Nathaniel Leonard worried about his slaves contracting an illness when they butchered hogs in the cold weather.36 In serious cases, owners often brought sick slaves in their own houses for care. A doctor by the name of William B. McLean visited a slave boy belonging to William Smith of Howard County on several occasions for fever and whooping cough. The boy was taken into Smith’s house for special care.37 There is no record as to whether the boy survived, but the fact that he was taken into the owner’s house for care and comfort would suggest that the owner had compassion for the boy’s health. On another occasion, William B. Napton’s wife had two doctors visit one of their slaves, Nancy, who had typhoid fever. Melinda spent many hours with Nancy and even nursed the sick slave’s child while the doctors tried to cure Nancy. Nancy died of her illness and Melinda became distressed over the slave’s death. She wrote, “Poor Nancy is dead! I am exceedingly distressed about the death of the poor negro for I believe it was caused by ignorance of one physician and the inattention of the other. . . . I will miss her”38 Although it is difficult to determine whether the physicians showed any remorse for the death of the slave, it is clear that Melinda Napton was moved by the passing of Nancy. It is doubtful that the medical attention that several owners in Little Dixie provided actually improved the

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

38

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 38

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

health of their slaves, but it did reflect the broad concern that these owners had for their well-being. Another indication of attitudes among Little Dixie slave owners was their concern about slave literacy. Most central Missouri slave owners, like those in most regions of the south, openly stated that they did not want slaves learning to read and write. They wanted to control this aspect of a slaves’ life and increasingly passed laws forbidding the formal education of slaves. In 1825, a law was passed that relieved masters of the duty of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic to their apprentices who were often slaves. Several years later in, 1847, the Missouri State legislature enacted a law that prohibited slaves from learning to read and write.39 Despite these attempts at preventing the formal education of slaves, some owners throughout Little Dixie often defied the laws and taught their slaves to read and write. Joseph A. Wilson of Lafayette County admitted that he attempted to teach his slaves to read, but qualified his statement by stating that the slaves did not want to become literate. “Many of us taught our niggers to read despite the law, but many of them refused to learn.”40 Although instructing slaves to read and write was legally forbidden after 1847, some Little Dixie slave owners believed that they were morally obligated to instruct their slaves to read and write, and did so without regard to the law. Some Little Dixie slave owners had an unusually complacent attitude about slave literacy and chose not to interfere with their slaves becoming literate. H.C. Bruce stated that slavery was looked upon differently in many parts of central Missouri than in Virginia and other parts of the south. He said he knew slaves in Missouri who could buy any book they wanted as long as they had money to pay for it, “and masters seemed not to care about it. . . .”41 Runaway slave notices suggest that throughout the antebellum period many owners either educated their slaves or at least turned their backs while their slaves were taught by family members or friends. When advertisements were posted for runaway slaves, the advertisements often stated that the slave could read and write. For example, one notice by a Boone County resident stated that his runaway slave was literate.42 Whether they were interested in the well being of their slaves or not, the slave owners assumed they had the right to control and direct their lives. The small farms and close contact between masters and slaves encouraged the owners to not only care for their slaves in various ways, but also stimulated them to try to mold virtually every aspect of their lives. The interaction and close contact between master and slave on the small farms in antebellum Little Dixie meant that owners frequently meddled in almost

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 39

Home and Community

39

all aspects of their slaves’ daily lives. With the power they held over their slaves, masters treated their slaves as immature people who needed constant guidance and protection. Many masters were convinced that they knew what was best for their slaves and could not resist intervening in their lives even if it meant correcting them with discipline. Slave owners in Little Dixie embraced a variety of measures to interfere with the lives of their slaves. But, as slavery historian Peter Kolchin pointed out, punishment and interference with family lives were the two most profoundly influential ways by which owners on small farms interfered with the lives of their slaves,43 Little Dixie slave owners seemed to follow this same pattern. The punishments used by slave owners in Little Dixie ranged from complete avoidance to the extremely severe measures which could even cause a slave’s death. However, most owners’ punishments usually fell between these two extremes. Most slaves experienced some sort of punishment either by witnessing their fellow slaves being whipped, beaten, humiliated, chained or tortured, or by enduring it themselves. The amount as well as the severity of the punishment was usually held as the measuring stick by which slave owners were judged. Judge Miller of Cooper County was considered by many slaves to be one of the cruelest owners in the county. While attending a slave auction, Judge Miller was verbally assaulted by a slave named Delicia Patterson when he attempted to bid on her. He saw me on the auction block for sale, and he knew I was a good worker so when he bid for me, I spoke right out on the auction block and told him: ‘Old Judge Miller don’t you bid for me, cause if you do, I would not live on your plantation, I will take a knife and cut my throat from ear to ear before I would be owned by you.44

Judge Miller did not purchase Delicia because he did not want a slave that would cause him trouble. Not all slaves were as fortunate as Delicia to have a voice in who would be their owner. Nevertheless, most masters engaged in “disciplining” their slaves by either threatening to use punishment or by using the typical method of whipping. Although paternalistic masters believed that they were correcting their slaves for their own good, they were unable to adhere to an insensible and inflexible set of rules for discipline. Punishment by the owners was rarely administered evenly in Little Dixie. The close contact between master and slave made it possible for owners to respond with uneven punishment to the various aggravations that they experienced with their slaves. The frequent interaction that masters and slaves experienced

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

40

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 40

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

on the small farms often brought out each other’s annoyances, and the power which owners held over slaves often resulted in arbitrary punishment. Punishments of slaves in central Missouri were sometimes carried out publicly and other times occurred merely as spontaneous impulses by angry owners chastising slaves in the field for minor transgressions. When slaves were punished publicly, the sentence was usually used as an example to other slaves. For example, in 1843 near Columbia, five slaves were involved in brutally killing their master with an axe. Two of the slaves, one being a woman, were sentenced to a public hanging, and two others were sentenced to thirty-nine lashes and banished from the state. When the executions occurred, more than two thousand witnesses appeared.45 Public punishments were usually the result of slaves being found guilty of committing crimes against whites. Depending on the crime and the sentence issued, slaves were whipped at a public whipping post or killed at an announced hanging. According to the slave codes of Missouri, slaves were to receive the same type of punishment that a free white person would receive for a like offense.46 Court cases reveal, however, that practice rarely lived up to this standard. There were several cases in central Missouri where slaves were found guilty of minor crimes such as larceny. These slaves usually received public whippings that were carried out immediately. In Boone County in 1823, a slave girl named Nancy received twenty lashes for stealing five dollars worth of silver,47 and a slave named Jacob also received twenty lashes for stealing a water pitcher worth two dollars.48 In 1829, two slaves, Billy and Barnett, were found guilty of stealing ten pieces of shoe making leather valued at ten dollars. By order of Judge David Todd, Billy received fifteen lashes and Barnett received thirty-nine lashes on their bare backs at a public whipping post.49 Another case in 1829 reveals that a Boone County slave named Charles was sentenced to twenty-five lashes “on the bare back well laid on at the public whipping post to be done immediately” for stealing $14.50 worth of clothing.50 Petty larceny continued throughout the antebellum period in Little Dixie. In 1859 the editor of the Saturday Morning Visitor in Waverly and St. Thomas warned the residents that several thieves who were most likely slaves were stealing from both businesses and homes. He encouraged the readers to “rogue-proof” their homes and businesses because the slaves could not resist the temptation to steal.51 Slaves who were accused of committing more serious crimes rarely expected to receive a fair trial or even a trial at all. There are cases, however, where slaves were treated with respect by the law. For example, in

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

Home and Community

10:10 AM

Page 41

41

1853 in Boone County a slave was found not guilty of murdering his master. The slave owner was killed by an axe and thrown into a fire. One of his slaves was arrested and tried for the crime but was found not guilty. Also, two slaves in Fayette County were tried for murdering their master in 1858. The two slaves claimed that their owner attacked them with a knife and they acted in self-defense. The jury found one of the two slaves guilty and the other was set free.52 Although some slaves did receive a fair trial and justice did prevail, many other slaves suffered at the hands of vigilantes. In 1853, a slave named Hiram from Columbia was accused of raping a fifteen-year-old girl. Several citizens of Columbia and Boone County were convinced that Hiram was the attacker. He was taken before Justices John Ellis and Walter C. Maupin. They ruled that Hiram was not the attacker. The outraged citizens demanded that he appear before a jury so a warrant was issued and Hiram was arrested. During the trial several angry men rushed the courthouse and took Hiram out to hang him. They placed a rope around his neck and dragged him around the streets until the rope broke. The outraged group of men were persuaded to allow Hiram to have a fair trial, but when he admitted on the following day to the attempted rape the group seized him again and proceeded to hang him. Despite some opposition from the young girl’s father and the slave owner, the prosecutor only asked that the crowd punish the slave “coolly and . . . decently and in order, and not as demons.”53 Several editors from surrounding newspapers shared their disgust in the way the crowd handled the hanging of the slave despite the fact that they all agreed that the slave deserved to be hanged. The editor of the Missouri Statesman (knowing that vigilante justice might cause some unrest among slaves) declared that it was a “dangerous doctrine” for the justice system to allow a crowd of outraged citizens to seize a prisoner and hang him.54 An editor of a newspaper in Lexington agreed with this and stated that the citizens of Boone County had “little honor” and if they had been more patient, the legal system would have him convicted and a sentence carried out legally. He believed the “Negro deserved death . . . but when the culprit is in the hands of the law, let him suffer accordingly to the law, and by that officer whom the law has appointed to execute the sentence.”55 Cases such as this reveal that slave owners, and whites in general, did not adhere to a consistent application of punishment. Although public displays of punishment were usually carried out within a few days of the conviction, they were not as quickly or casually done as when a slave upset an owner for a minor transgression on the farm. Like public exhibitions, slave owners often punished or “corrected” their

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

42

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 42

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

slaves inconsistently for misbehavior or for violating an owner’s rules. The ex-slave Richard Bruner who lived on a farm near Nelson in Saline County remembered that he was whipped once. He acknowledged the fact that he had a temper and must have annoyed his master because he stated that “Yas’em, dey threshed me once, made me hug a tree and whup me, I had a tarrible temper, I’m part Choctaw Indian.”56 On some occasions, slaves were punished for merely upsetting the master’s children. Delicia Patterson was ordered to be whipped by her master, Charles Mitchell of Booneville, for pulling something out of the garden which the master’s daughter did not want pulled.57 Masters who were cruel to slaves were known throughout Little Dixie for punishing their slaves harshly for minor transgressions. These owners were often easily angered and punished their slaves severely. Ed Craddock from Saline County remembered a story told to him by his father that “a slave right here in Marshall angered his master, was chained to a hempbreak on a cold night and left to freeze to death, which he did.”58 The slave owner William Ish of Boone County reportedly resorted to using a chisel on one of his slaves when the slave did not work to his satisfaction. The slave died from his injuries and the owner was not held liable for killing his slave.59 Killing a slave in the process of punishing was considered an iniquitous act in Little Dixie; however, it was at least tolerated because several owners who killed slaves never suffered the consequences that Missouri law dictated.60 The numerous records of illegal activities by slaves reveals that the attempts by many Little Dixie masters to implant their values and beliefs in their slaves did not always come to fruition. Some masters tried hard to convince themselves and their slaves that responsibility, morality, and mutual obligation lay at the heart of their relationship. Despite the paternalistic endeavors and constant interventionism by owners, slaves did not always allow their masters to completely control and dominate their everyday lives. Although they were surrounded by whites, slaves in Little Dixie developed a profoundly different perspective on the world and to some extent were able to forge a way of life of their own. The small slave holdings, and subsequently the close contact between master and slave in Little Dixie, created a situation where the slaves built their own community aside from their owners’ farm. At times, masters and slaves were physically apart from one another, which often put the slaves in a position to be supervised by other whites in the community. Many owners entrusted their slaves to other persons who were not on their small farm; therefore, the slaves developed a social life that extended beyond the boundaries of the home. It drifted over to neighboring slaveholders, towns,

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

Home and Community

10:10 AM

Page 43

43

and counties to become a broader community. Slave owners in Little Dixie held too few slaves for their servants to form isolated slave communities on the farms as they were able to do on large plantations in the Deep South. They formed relationships with others outside the immediate household. Although some slave holders engaged in selling their excess labor force, slave hiring was more common throughout the south.61 Slave owners had self-interest in utilizing their slaves for extra money during times when the demand for manual labor on the farm was low. Hiring out slaves for extra money was common in Little Dixie throughout the antebellum period, which never seemed to close the door on broadening the slave community because hired out slaves typically lived with the renter. Slave hiring was big business in Little Dixie and advertisements indicating both the desire to hire slaves as well as indicating slaves for hire appeared in several newspapers between 1820 and 1860. J.T Cleveland of Lafayette County advertised in the Missouri Intelligencer that he would pay “liberal wages” for strong healthy slaves who could split rails.62 In Cooper County, John Garnett advertised in 1840 that he wanted to hire a “stout” slave who had knowledge of farming to work in his fields.63 The Fulton Telegraph in Callaway County contained advertisements as well. Louis Robiou advertised that he wished to hire a slave to work about his warehouse and a slave woman to do domestic work.64 Another anonymous person advertised in the same paper that he wanted to hire a young slave girl between 14 and 16.65 Slaves were hired out for a variety of reasons including the settlement of estate debts when a slave owner died. The slaves of a deceased master who did not leave behind a will were often ordered to be hired out by the courts to settle debts and provide an income for the widow and minor heirs.66 Although the number of slaves on most farms was less than 20; however, occasionally the number of slaves from one estate that were hired out by the courts was high as 30 or 40, and these slaves could have served more than one temporary master for several years. In 1848, the administrator in Callaway County of John Hill’s slaves hired out the estate’s four slaves for over six years during which each slave served more than five temporary masters.67 Slaves were hired out for a variety of jobs, but the most common for boys and men was farm work and housework for girls and women.68 The usual contracts ran for one year at a time although there were many occasions when slaves were hired out for shorter periods or for specific duties. For example, in a letter by Walter R. Lenoir of Boone County to his brother in Tennessee indicated that he could rent several of his slaves for one year periods and bring in sizeable income. “I expect you wish to know how I

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

44

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 44

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

intend to employ my force while at this small farm. My plan is this, to hire out 9 or 10 negroes which can be done without difficulty immediately in this settlement, fellows at $100 per year and boys and girls in proportion.”69 Ezekiel Williams of Howard County rented two slaves, one boy and one girl, for one year also from the same estate.70 Abiel and Nathaniel Leonard hired a slave boy for $40.50 for one year in 1827 to work on their farm in Boone County.71 Once slaves were hired out, the owner virtually handed to the temporary master all responsibility of taking care of the slaves. The provisions were usually written into the contracts. Nathaniel and Abiel Leonard not only promised to pay for the boy they hired in 1827, but also to feed and clothe him and return him with the new clothes and a good blanket.72 One Clay County slave remembered that the temporary masters usually provided five pairs of trousers, two shirts, and two hats for the year. He also indicated that the slaves were resourceful enough to wear their worst set of clothes when going to their new master so that they could receive the full quota of new clothes.73 Slaves were also hired out for their special skills. Most masters did not own skilled slaves so they leased slaves from owners who did. Walter R. Lenoir hired out two of his skilled slaves as moulders for $175.00 a year. Simon R. Davis of Callaway County promised to only work his hired skilled slave as a blacksmith.74 Some masters gave their skilled slaves some freedom to utilize their talents by allowing them to hire themselves out to earn extra spending money.75 These slaves enjoyed a higher status and more freedom than the slaves who were left at home or generally hired out. H.C. Bruce had two brothers who traveled through neighboring Chariton County as well as several Little Dixie Counties in search of work as bricklayers and stone masons. Although they were required to carry passes from their master, these two slaves had the freedom to roam about with less supervision than did most slaves.76 These skilled artisans had a greater amount of mobility than other slaves and were able to learn about other slave quarters and report news that they have heard from other slaves. Apparently, some slaves preferred being hired out. In some cases, a hired out slave went to work in mills or factories, which provided them the opportunity to learn skills and possibly become an artisan. John Robinson of Callaway County told several stories to the Fulton Telegraph after the war that some of his father’s slaves were hired out to the Massey Iron Works in the near-by county of Crawford. “At the end of the first year one of the negroes returned home, but the others were continued for a number of years at the works, because of the remunerative prices paid for them,

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 45

Home and Community

45

and the Negroes themselves were pleased with their situation.”77 These slaves not only knew that if they could obtain a skill they were able to hire themselves out for money, but also, it gave them the opportunity to be away from their owner. Learning about slaves and life outside their own farm enhanced the slaves’ desire to be free. In the early 1850s in Howard County, a slave named Smith who was owned by John Harris was told to hitch up a poor man’s horse to the man’s rickety old wagon. The poor man and his wife had stayed the night with the Harris family as they passed through Howard County. As Smith was hitching up the wagon, his mistress asked him “Smith, how would you like to be that man? Aren’t you better off?” Smith replied, “Ah, missus, he has nobody to hinder him.”78 This story of a slave longing to be free illustrates the slaves’ conviction that freedom was good no matter how well he was treated by his master, and no matter how much he was given. This story also shows that the slave community did not absorb, nor was it entirely dominated, by the master’s values in Little Dixie. Farm and plantation boundaries could not always contain the slave community. As slaves in Little Dixie yearned for freedom and visited with other slaves and whites through work relations, they were able learn about such things as abolitionism. Slaveholders in Little Dixie were well aware of the threat of the abolitionists throughout the antebellum period. In a letter in either 1827 or 1828, John Wilson wrote to his nephew Thomas Shackelford in Howard County that he and about 20 other men who represented several districts around the state met to discuss how they would encourage others to “get rid of slavery in Missouri.” Wilson understood the importance of influencing their candidates for the upcoming elections, so he and the others who vowed to end slavery in Missouri, “unanimously determined to urge upon all candidates at the approaching election and resolutions were drawn up. . . . These resolutions in shape of memorials were to be placed before the people all over the state.”79 The sentiment of abolitionism was reasonably strong among some of the people of Little Dixie. The Missouri Intelligencer published a letter to the editor that voiced the opinions of the abolitionists. The anonymous writer who signed the letter “A Philanthropist” wrote: I ask with what pretext can one Christian enslave his brother or his sister? . . . We boast of equal rights, and our republican institutions, but if you call this a land of liberty and republicanism, I must confess, I have been laboring in the dark. We have convincing proofs enough

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

46

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 46

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860 to convince any national mind that slavery is a disadvantage to any country.80

And, on September 12, 1835, the same newspaper indicated in an editorial that the abolitionists were visiting slaves in all the slave holding states and were “disseminating seeds of rebellion amongst the negroes.”81 As slaves not only heard the news of these cries for their freedom, but were approached by known abolitionists as well, they often spread the information they gathered to other slave quarters. Many slaves in Little Dixie were relatively mobile which helped them serve as links to other slaveholdings. They were able to carry news about other farmers and masters, and distribute it to distant farms and plantations. The 1850s proved to be a trying time for the slaveholders of Little Dixie because the slave population was becoming more informed of the abolitionists’ movement. In October and November of 1853, the Glasgow Weekly Times in Howard County indicated that slaves were being approached by “disposed white persons” with the intention of inciting them to not only rebel but also to commit murder and steal.82 Another similar story was reported in 1855 in Cooper County when a young slave was approached by an abolitionist. The young slave was not receptive to the abolitionist suggestions and went to inform his master about the encounter. It was clear as to what the abolitionist suggested; however, the newspaper assumed that he wanted the young slave to do something so outrageous that he could not repeat it to his master.83 Slaveholders in Little Dixie tried to prevent abolitionists from mingling with their slaves by forming passing legislation. In 1837, the Missouri State legislature passed a law preventing suspicious persons from intermingling with the slave population with the intention of distributing printed material and abolitionists’ doctrines in order to excite the slaves into rebellion or any other seditious act.84 However, this law did not prevent the slaves from hearing about abolitionism nor did it prevent them from discussing it among themselves because slave patrols had to be formed in the 1850s to observe the conduct of those who intermingled with the slave population. Howard County formed one in October 1853. The patrol members were given the authority to slaves on the spot with 10 lashes if they were caught without a pass.85 The relationship between masters and slaves in antebellum Little Dixie developed from the small family farms. Most farmers had a desire to personally work their small farms, which forced them to be in close contact with their slaves. They casually interacted with the slaves while working alongside them. Many of these small slaveholders developed a commitment

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

Home and Community

10:10 AM

Page 47

47

and cared for their slaves and wanted to protect and nurture them by not only providing such things as food and medical attention, but also striving to maintain the slave family and disciplining unwanted behavior. The slaves, however, resisted and to some extent were able to develop their own communities that helped prevent their owners from controlling every aspect of their lives. While being hired out they developed relations with other slaves and learned about other masters. They also learned more about freedom through the abolitionists that intermingled with their community.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 48

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 49

Chapter Three

Religion

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. Matthew 18:15

In his monumental study, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made,” Eugene D. Genovese asserted that religion was central to shaping the slave community. Slaves used the power and emotional security of religion as their primary means of protection in a society that believed in a rigid social order. According to Genovese, their religion imbued with a powerful sense of community. He showed that the slaves’ religion, a religion that “taught them to love and value each other, to take a critical view of their masters, and reject the ideological rationales for their own enslavement,” was a weapon of defense against dehumanization.1 He also noted that the slaves used their religion to “resist being transformed into the Sambos they had been programmed to become,” and that “it fired them with a sense of their own worth before God and man.”2 Genovese believed that “to assert themselves as autonomous human beings,”3 and to help separate their community from the whites, slaves practiced an emotional brand of Christianity. It was laced with elements of African religious tendencies, which in turn developed into a unique African-American religion. Black Christian preachers, who had a tremendous impact on the slave community, employed with many of the African beliefs such as conjuring, magic, and folk medicines. The emotional underpinnings of their faith emphasized love and faith rather than structure and rigid dogma. Slave prayer meetings, which were separate meetings outside of the normal church settings often held without the masters’ knowledge, stressed deliverance and the coming of the promised land. This Christianity 49

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

50

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 50

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

they practiced brought spiritual comfort, relief and a strong sense of togetherness to the mundane routine of life on the plantation.4 According to Genovese, slaves were also able to use their religion as a means to gain strength and resist their master’s control. Slaveholders, with their paternalistic tendencies, as well as southern society itself, showed a contradiction in their system to which the slaves demonstrated a keen eye. He pointed out that many owners stated that they had a desire to provide humane treatment to their slaves; yet, they often used severe punishment, particularly in cases of insubordination. They claimed that discipline must always be kept and they often reiterated their demand for absolute obedience and submission from their slaves. For Genovese, herein lies the contradiction; southern society did not allow for total submission. The slaves, he believed, understood this and found solace in their religion. For a slave to be totally submissive he must be willing to reduce himself to an extension of his master’s will; that is, he must be willing to die for being insubordinate. Slave owners and southern laws proscribed the murdering of slaves which made it, according to Genovese, absurd for owners to believe that slaves would become totally submissive.5 Furthermore, Genovese explained that owners found it difficult to justify to themselves an unlimited use of force and punishment because owners also saw themselves as morally responsible beings that were doing their duty of protecting their property against the evils of the world. Genovese argued that the key to this moral justification was reciprocity. Slaves on large plantations were often given parties to celebrate special occasions in payment for their hard labor. Many owners, he indicated, further believed that because they not only protected their slaves and provided them with the basic necessities of life, but they also liberated the slaves from a deprived existence. Slaves, in turn, should submit to the master’s will. According to Genovese, this meant that the “masters required their [slaves’] affection, or at least the appearance of it, in order to curb their own tendencies toward cruelty and even greater injustice.”6 He believed that this is how the owners morally justified themselves. When this doctrine of reciprocity was broken, the owner saw every act of insubordination or self-assertion as an act of treason and disloyalty. These kinds of acts struck at the heart of the master’s moral self-justification and self-esteem.7 It is no doubt, as Genovese has explained, that religion played a significant influence on the development of the slave community. However, like many studies on slavery, Genovese focused his work on large plantations rather than on regions with small farms. Most of the slave quarters in Little Dixie were not large enough to form isolated communities. Religion in areas such as Little Dixie where the majority of farmers worked small

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

Religion

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 51

51

farms with relatively few slaves had its own unique and profound development in the slave community. Indeed, throughout the antebellum period, religion was a powerful force in the lives of many Little Dixie slaves. In many ways, religion supplied the slaves in central Missouri the inspiration to exercise control over some of their own affairs and not simply as a weapon of defense against dehumanization. Slaves desired freedom and through their religious practices were able to gain a sense of it. The relationship between master and slave in Little Dixie encouraged the slaves to develop a greater sense of autonomy. Little Dixie’s religious fabric offers insights into the complex relationship between master and slave and the place of religion in the transmission of culture in the region. In part, religion represents the disparity and delicate balance, which existed in the master-slave relationship—that is, the assertion of slave autonomy and the exercise of the master’s power. The Great Revival that occurred during the early nineteenth century did not ignore Little Dixie. The religious zeal of this movement coincided with the rapid population growth in Missouri after 1816, and the people of Little Dixie demonstrated their pride and enthusiasm at the prospects of being a part of a thriving region. One observer wrote in the Missouri Intelligencer, that the wilderness of central Missouri has been “converted into productive fields,” and is now filled with an “intelligent” and “dense” population that will soon be “improved by art, and drawing wealth from its rich sources of commerce.”8 As this population increased and the prospects of a thriving community became clear, many of the Christian denominations dispatched their traveling ministers to the region. The itinerant ministers and circuit riders were principal figures in the religious lives of the people in central Missouri during the 1820s. They roamed much of the Little Dixie region teaching and spreading the gospel, which laid much of the foundation for religious instruction for both slaves and owners throughout the antebellum period. In 1818, the Baptist minister and ardent educator, John Mason Peck, one of the most prominent traveling ministers to teach the gospel in Little Dixie, sought to educate those living in this newly settled area. As a traveler to this region, Peck had a different view of the people of central Missouri from what many of the Little Dixie people had of themselves. Peck, who once met and preached to Daniel Boone, believed most of the early residents who were looking to live a life away from civilization were lacking in family government, somewhat superstitious, and very irreligious. But, he noted that among these “squatters” were some upright and pious families with more settling in every day, and with proper religious education would help the region thrive with pious, Christian families.9 As late as 1835, the

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

52

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 52

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

Methodist minister, Jacob Lanius, considered Liberty in Clay County to be filled with irreligion. “Wickedness abounds in this village yet and gambling is becoming very fashionable and popular,” he wrote in his diary in 1835. That same year, Lanius wrote that he was excited when a judge attempted to control much of the gambling, drinking, and billiard playing.10 One of Peck’s goals was not only to expose the people of Little Dixie to the gospel, but also to find particular individuals qualified to continue preaching the gospel after his departure. Peck often wrote detailed descriptions about many of the families he encountered, judging whether they could bear the burden of the ministry. He concluded that most of the people he contacted needed the guidance and wisdom of well-trained and intelligent ministers. On a visit to Salem Church, a Baptist congregation in Chariton County, Peck encountered two men, William Coats and Thomas Smith, who were quite involved in the church by leading prayer meetings until traveling ministers, like Peck, arrived to preach more formal messages. According to Peck, Coats was not quite prepared to preach the gospel until he had further training. He wrote: the mind of Brother Coats, before referred to, had been stereotyped with the fallacies he had heard, mixed up with gospel truth, from early life. He was a plain, strong-minded man, who read the Bible and thought out its meaning for himself; but he had been trained under that mode of preaching which hampered his feelings.11

Brother Thomas, on the other hand, Peck believed was ready to undertake the ministry. Thomas, Peck wrote, “was an active intelligent man, with a clear, strong mind, and one of the very few lay-brethren I found who understood the duty of a Christian professor.”12 Peck was convinced that it was important to spend time instructing the more pious families and individuals he encountered because those who lived in remote areas rarely had the opportunity to visit with a minister to receive consolation.13 During the first few years of rapid settlement, the people of central Missouri lived rather precarious lives. The secluded living conditions for some of these people were welcomed; however, for most it was foreboding. Although many of the families remained isolated, most of these people preferred some social contact, which often came in the form of an occasional itinerant minister.14 One of the goals of many of these early missionaries was to bring some stability and organization in these people’s lives, particularly in their spiritual lives. It was not uncommon for the ministers to set up in advance organized meetings or services with prepared sermons before arriving at a church, a home, or a settlement.15

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

Religion

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 53

53

Organizing churches or assisting already established churches was also a part of the plan for the early itinerant ministers. Ministers and denominations assisted in a variety of ways. Of the preachers from the two most dominant denominations, the Methodist circuit riders were most likely to travel from settlement to settlement helping and establishing churches while Baptist ministers attempted to live among the people they served.16 William Coats and Thomas Smith established Salem Church just six months prior to Peck’s visit. He was the first itinerant minister to visit the church since its beginning. People from throughout the settlement traveled between 10 and 15 miles in December to hear Peck preach the gospel to them. In his efforts to help solidify the church, Peck had long conversations with William Coats about the duties, responsibilities and hardships of the ministry. Peck’s advice and teachings must have paid off because within two years, Coats was numbered as one of the Baptist ministers.17 In struggling to establish churches, itinerant ministers and circuit riders in Little Dixie faced many challenges in their ministry throughout the antebellum period. Not only did they have to battle the elements when traveling, but they also had to contend with drunkards and lawless people who had little tolerance for the preaching by traveling evangelists. The settlers, who lived an exciting and stressful frontier life, often turned the Sabbath into a day on which to enjoy recreation such as hunting, fishing, card-playing, dancing, and drinking. Sunday church services were infrequent, particularly during the 1820s, and many of the frontiersmen refused to hear a minister speak about giving up ungodly ways and living a pious life.18 Most of the services during these early settlement years were camp meetings. They were highly charged emotional meetings that often lasted for several days. The message preached at these meetings were designed to fill the listener with such passion toward changing his or her lifestyle by leaving the sinful life and believing in the salvation. It was not uncommon for those attending the camp meeting to display fainting, body jerking, and dancing. Although Peck was not against the camp meetings, he had reservations about them. He believed that they should be controlled and monitored so that they were not mere social gatherings and to insure that excessive emotionalism did not overshadow true conversion experiences.19 Between 1820 and 1830, camp meetings were common in Little Dixie until more churches with full-time ministers were established. However, some churches were established in Little Dixie during these early years of statehood. After 1830, camp meetings for both slaves and owners continued but they became less frequent. By 1820, the newly founded Mount Pleasant Baptist Association, which included five churches: Concord,

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

54

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 54

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

Mount Zion, Mount Pleasant, Salem, and Bethel Baptist, had grown to 213 members and seven pastors. In Cooper County, the Mount Pisgah congregation had 34 members in 1820 with three elders presiding. By 1822, it had grown to four churches and over 200 members. Churches were later founded in other parts of Little Dixie as well. Lexington in Lafayette County had eight organized churches, all founded by varying Protestant denominations in 1853.20 In Little Dixie, the conversion of slaves to Christianity increased throughout the antebellum period because of the widespread religious revivals and the founding of several churches. By the late antebellum period Christianity became a central feature in the lives of the slaves. Throughout the antebellum period, most of the slaves in Little Dixie had been exposed to a deeper sense of Christianity and had all but expelled the ideas of conjuring and magic for such things as healing wounds or bringing a loved one back home. H.C. Bruce recalled that the slaves he knew in Howard County and the surrounding area: were above the ordinary slaves in the more extreme Southern states in intelligence and education, and did not believe in voodooism or conjuration nearly as much as those in old Virginia, and when one was brought to Missouri who claimed to be able to exercise those miraculous powers, he was immediately laughed at and openly defied by all excepting a few of the more illiterate.21

Camp meetings and Sunday church services brought together slaves and slave owners in Little Dixie. These times of worship afforded the slaves time to gather together with slaves from other farms. Unlike many parts of the Deep South where slave owners built churches on their own plantations and hired preachers to minister to their slaves, many Little Dixie farmers took their slaves to local churches or camp meetings. As the slaves worshipped together, they were able to make new contacts, interact with other slaves, formulate friendships, develop existing relationships, and hold their own religious meetings. This gave the slaves the opportunity to exercise some control over their own affairs. Although they were not able to gain total control of their lives, they were able to monitor their own behavior and on many occasions listen to black preachers who ministered to them in ways that appealed to them. The noted southern historian, John Boles, has shown that in many parts of the antebellum south, slaves actively attended church services and became members. In most regions, he stated, the slaves represented between 20 and 40 percent of the Baptist congregations, while in a few

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

Religion

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 55

55

areas the percentage was more than 50 percent. Regardless of the percentage of slaves that attended from region to region, owners and slaves worshipped together. They prayed together, sang from the same hymnals, heard the same sermons, and participated in communion with each other. Boles observed that when some congregations built new church buildings, slaves were usually given the old buildings that were adjacent to the new building to hold their own services. Although white members usually monitored these services, they did recognize the special religious needs of slaves that only they could provide themselves.22 In addition, Boles argued that “the so-called underground church, the invisible institution of covert worship services held deep in the woods or secretly in slave cabins and urban cellar,” were “insufficiently understood and greatly exaggerated.”23 According to Boles, church worship, whether in mixed churches or all black churches, was more important to slaves than attending backwoods services. Although he acknowledged the existence of the underground church and did not deny its importance, Boles claimed that the worship conducted by the slaves outside the church was an extension or supplement to the public worship that was conducted inside the church. On Sunday afternoons, slaves often gathered together to review, supplement, and preach what they learned at the morning service with greater enthusiasm with little observation by the whites.24 For slaves in Little Dixie, this seemed to hold true, that is, that there was little need or desire to hold covert services in the backwoods. Rather, they preferred to worship together either through Sunday church services or camp meetings. It is difficult to determine with certainty what percentage of Baptist church congregations, or any of the other denominations in antebellum Little Dixie, were slaves because church records are sketchy. However, some of the churches kept records of the number of slaves that joined, Blacks did represent between 20 and 40 percent in some of the churches. For example, between 1837 and 1844, the Columbia Baptist Church in Boone County indicated that of the 129 members, 49 were slaves, which is 37 percent of its members.25 In stark contrast, the Bear Creek Christian Church in Boone County identified that very few slaves were members. Between 1824 and 1860, only five slaves joined the church compared to the numerous whites that joined.26 By 1844, the minutes of the Little Bonne Femme Baptist Church in Boone County pointed out that their membership had grown to 120 members, of which 33 were slaves. Between 1844 and 1860, the church grew by 167 members of which 31 were slaves.27 Slaves in the seven county region actively participated in church services, although they were often segregated from the whites. Slaves were usually required to sit in galleries or in rows behind the whites. Isabelle

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

56

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 56

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

Henderson, a young slave girl in Saline County who was interviewed in 1937, remembered joining her master’s church. The interviewer quoted Isabelle, “sometimes the slaves did funny things . . . I remember j’inin’ the white folks church in old Cambridge. They had a gallery for the slaves.”28 Sometimes the slaves became emotionally involved with the sermon and began to shake. Isabelle went on to say that, “There was one old woman named Aunt Cindy . . . One Sunday she got ‘happy’ and commenced shoutin’ and throwin’ herself about. White folks in the seats below hurried to get out from under the gallery, fearin’ Aunt Cindy, was goin’ to lose her balance and fall on them.”29 “Uncle” Peter Clay of Liberty also recalled attending his master’s church and being required to sit in the gallery. He commented that during communion, the whites would be served the cup first, and the same cup would then be passed to the slaves.30 Slave owners also took their slaves to camp meetings for further religious experiences. These camp meetings were less formal than Sunday church services because segregation rules were more lenient. Richard Bruner, a Saline County slave, remembered that, “we went to de white folks church on Sundays, when we went to camp meeting we all went to de mourners’ bench together. De mourners bench stretch clear across de front of de Arbor; de whites and de blacks, we all just fell down at de mourners’ bench and got religion at de same place.”31 Some slaves were permitted to choose the church they wanted to join, and did not have to join the church of their masters. As Bruner explained, “ole Marsa let us jine whichever church we wanted, either de Methodist or Baptist.”32 Camp meetings were usually supplemental to the Sunday services. Slaves would sing the songs and repeat the prayers that they learned in church with their masters. Many of the slaves of antebellum Little Dixie exercised their faith with a conviction knowing that they were promised salvation after their earthly injustices were completed. As evident in their camp meetings and songs they sang, slaves believed that they were a downtrodden and mistreated people, but soon would be released from their bondage and experience the wonders of Heaven. Charles Butlington recounted that the slaves “possessed but little book knowledge but their sincerity and trust in a Supreme Being was typical of the colored race of that day.”33 He also remembered attending an all black camp meeting at a place called Bell Air in Cooper County: I member berry distinctly of a camp meetin’ held close to my Marster place. The place was called Bel Air in Cooper County . . . Preachers in that day conducted the services in the following manner. He would

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 57

Religion

57

word out the song two lines at a time, the congregation committing this to memory would sing these two lines, then two more lines were worded out and so on until that song was ended. One of the songs used worded out as follows: 1. Come let us now forget our birth and think that we must die—all sing. 2. What are out best delights on earth, compared with those on high—all sing. 3. O here the mortals weep no more and there the wearied rests.” Then the preacher he’d get up and call on some one to pray, just like today. Some could gather up something to say, others expected the Lord to do it all. By using such expressions as Lord help, Lord make me what I orter be, I wants to be a Christian, Lord I believe, Lord pour down the Holy Ghost” etc. Then we’d sing some more such as “Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. Then pray again, using the same expressions and others as Lord, don’t you know me, I’m your follower, Yes Lord, we adores thee, come Gabriel any time we’se all ready to go. Had very little preaching, mostly praying and singing.34

In addition to the importance of the spiritual fulfillment of these slave camp meetings, the significance is also evident in the fact that even after spending most of their time laboring for their masters; slaves would often put in additional time to construct shelters and benches for their services. Many traveled barefoot five to six miles from surrounding farms to participate in the services. They built roofs out of logs cut down from near-by trees, covered them in brush, and split logs for benches. They used drip-lamps made from strips of cloth and pig grease for light.35 Many churches allowed slaves to meet and hold services on their own. In an 1855 letter to his wife, J. E. Hawley indicated that slaves were given the opportunity to occupy a church in Columbia in the afternoon. He wrote, “this afternoon one of the largest churches was occupied by the colored gentlemen and ladies (slaves!).” He went on to point out the seriousness, pride, and respect the slaves had toward their faith. He wrote: would to God this Hariet Beecher Stowe could have witnessed the streets thronged with the happy groups of the finest looking blacks you ever believed, dressed in the tip of the fashion in silk furbolos [sic.] and

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

58

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 58

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860 flounces. I would have given a ten dollar bill to have had my family group at home, to behold the scene with me.36

The Bethel Baptist church in Saline County hired a white minister to preach to the slaves once a month “for the benefit of the cold. people of the neighborhood.”37 On numerous occasions, the Methodist Circuit Rider, Jacob Lanius mentioned in his diary preaching at all-black church services and camp meetings in Little Dixie.38 When slaves had their own services whether camp meetings or Sunday services a black preacher often presided over the ceremony. The significance of Christianity in Little Dixie was never more apparent in any other area than in the slaves that served as preachers. Slaves that had licenses to preach had a profound influence in their community. Several slaves rose to positions of leadership because not only did slaves prefer preachers that were slaves, but also because owners understood their special needs. James Hudson, a slave who moved from Alabama to Columbia and joined the Columbia Baptist Church in 1840, was given a license to preach the gospel to the slaves of the church. The letter that accompanied him stated that James possessed the talents and skills of a minister of the gospel and should be allowed to preach.39 The Grand Prairie Baptist Church, a white church in Callaway County, asked a black man by the name of Lewis to preach in its church. They must have been impressed with his talents because the minutes read that Lewis had the “privilege of preaching or exercising his gifts as a preacher whenever circumstances may make it convenient for him to do so.”40 For a black preacher in antebellum Little Dixie to have the “privilege” of preaching whenever it was convenient for him most likely meant that he pleased the white population, and most particularly the white owners, with his words that did not include the concept of freedom. It was widely practiced throughout the antebellum south that black preachers, whether slaves or free, were allowed to exercise their gift of preaching but could not produce sermons that spoke of freedoms. According to many white owners, a good slave preacher was one that not only preached in an eloquent style, with an oratory prose that captivated both white and black audiences, but also chiefly centered his sermons on obedience and submissiveness. Although having accorded a higher status within their community, slave preachers were usually monitored so as to not deviate from this principle.41 The enslaved preacher in Little Dixie was most likely treated in the same way. Yet, the talented slave preacher was usually admired by both whites and slaves and viewed as a leader in the broad Little Dixie slave community which gave the slaves a sense of ownership in directing their own lives.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

Religion

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 59

59

Slaves that did not possess the gift of preaching and believed in the importance of their church involved themselves with their congregation in other ways. For example, the Cedar Creek Primitive Baptist Church in Callaway County hired a slave by the name of Sam for the purpose maintaining the meetinghouses and bringing water. Apparently, these duties were in addition to his slave duties because he received payment for his work. After seven months of working for the church, the church decided to double his wages because of his outstanding performance.42 The church often provided significance to the lives of the slaves as well as a strong measure of self respect in the slave community. If the slaves did not possess the talent of preaching, many often made attempts at providing their services in other capacities through maintenance and construction of shelters and benches for camp meetings. The slaves’ church services and general practice of their Christianity in Little Dixie was often different than their white owners. To the slaves, Christianity was an emotional religion of the heart in which they would submerse themselves in ecstatic joy, talk to their God as a friend, sing hymns with great energy, and dance. Their owners, on the other hand, usually showed more emotional restraint despite the fact that they were usually attending the same service, hearing the same message, and sharing the same communion cup. This was a shared experience by both whites and slaves, but with varying degrees of enthusiasm and participation. Although many owners meddled in the lives of their slaves and influenced them to attend, and in some cases join churches, the slaves found solace from their enslaved and subjugated life through the Christian faith. By doing so, they shaped their own lives by practicing Christianity in the way that best fit their needs. Congregations, both white and black, were expected to supervise the moral conduct of their members and to counsel those who disobeyed the moral standards of the church. In essence, churches functioned as moral courts and for the slaves this had important social implications. Private and public lives were critically examined and anyone who broke the rules could be censored or even dismissed from the church. According to Boles, when slaves participated in the hearings of a church member who was accused of moral misconduct, they were often treated as equals to whites.43 Whether it was the emotional feeling of being filled with the spirit, preaching, or maintenance work, by engaging themselves in religious affairs, slaves were given the opportunity to gain some control over their lives, particularly when it came to the monitoring of each other’s behavior. Monitoring the moral conduct of fellow church members was a significant part of religious life in antebellum Little Dixie. Beginning with the

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

60

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 60

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

first itinerant ministers until the Civil War, the citizens of the frontier faced the moral codes of their churches. In a frontier society, the scrutinizing of morals was perhaps more significant than in the larger cities in the east because of the sparse population. Any deviation of proper conduct was newsworthy and church trials became well known. If a fellow church member were to break the rules, his or her standing within the community was in jeopardy. Church members feared both the discipline imposed by the church and the fact that news of their transgression would spread throughout the community.44 Church members of all denominations who broke the customary rules were often disciplined for actions relating to fighting, gambling, swearing, adultery, drunkenness, disturbance of worship, and Sabbath breaking. The standard procedure for many churches on the frontier, particularly the Baptists, was to hold a meeting once a month on Saturday or Sunday afternoon to conduct business. The discussions usually centered on the moral conduct of its members. The accused would stand before a committee and be judged according to testimony presented by witnesses. If the accused failed to appear or his or her explanation was not accepted by the committee, then the member was found guilty and punished. A guilty member was often asked to confess and promise to mend his or her ways with the church and God or faced expulsion from the church.45 Disciplining members was often individualized. Depending on the church, the severity of the infraction, and the mood of the congregation, the punishment ranged from the mild to the severe. The Bear Creek Christian Church in Boone County asked Brother Renurd Pig, a white, to leave the church for two infractions—intoxication and beating his slave girl to death. Another member, Brother Carlisle, was denied admission to the church only because he took two oaths that contradicted each other.46 The Cedar Creek Baptist Church cancelled Leroy Mullins membership because of swearing. The same church required Roger Wiggington to stand before his congregation and apologize for beating his wife.47 Slaves were also brought before the moral courts and disciplined for their transgressions. They were generally held to the same moral standards as whites. Cedar Creek Primitive Baptist Church in Callaway County brought up charges against a slave named Adam for disorderly conduct, which was a standard charge against church members. Adam was found innocent of this charge. However, he was found guilty of a later charge of committing adultery and excommunicated for it.48 Another Church in Callaway County, the Grand Prairie Baptist Church, also held a trial for a slave named George in 1852. He was accused of not properly conducting himself as a member of the church. He was brought before the committee, but was found innocent and exonerated of the charges.49

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

Religion

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 61

61

It is very significant that slaves were involved in supervising moral conduct and were sometimes asked to serve on the committees when a slave was charged with moral misconduct. The Bethel Baptist Church in Saline County believed that one should be judged by his peers. In 1851, the church asked some of its members who were slaves to serve on the disciplinary committee. The minutes read, “the cold. members be required to cooperate with the whites in conducting cases of discipline, and whatever else may be necessary to promote good and piety amongst themselves.”50 This encouragement of “good and piety” most likely not only included monitoring each other in attending church, practicing the fundamental elements of Christianity, encouraging righteous living, and holding each other accountable according to the Word of God, but also it meant that white owners relied on their slaves to scrutinize each other and report on their general conduct. Just as the slave preacher was monitored for “proper” preaching, so too were the slave congregational members for “proper” behavior. As owners and slaves interacted in the realm of religion, slaves in Little Dixie were able to forge some sense of autonomy and to have some control of one very important aspect of their lives. In no other public arena could the slaves have achieved this. As Charles Butlington proclaimed about the importance of camp meetings, “in these meetings there were no bickerings and every particle of knowledge possessed was used to the greatest advantage.”51 Through the practice of moral supervision and certain talented slaves rising to leadership roles within the church, slaves experienced a sense of equality to that of their white owners. The judicial system prevented slaves from gaining autonomy because slaves could not testify against whites, but through their church they considered themselves to be on a more equal basis. Many of the slaves in Little Dixie eagerly embraced the Christian religion because they understood that all men are equal in the eyes of God. Sunday church services and sporadic camp meetings brought slaves together from different farms, which allowed them to act somewhat as a community. As they socialized at religious meetings, communicated with each other about Christianity, learned the moral codes, and watched over each other as Jesus directed, the slaves of Little Dixie did not totally concede to their master’s power and therefore gained some control over their own spiritual education.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 62

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 63

Chapter Four

Slaves and Families

Children have their sorrows as well as men and women; and it would be well to remember this in our dealings with them. SLAVE-children are children, and prove no exceptions to the general rule.1 Frederick Douglass

Like religion, the slave family in Little Dixie also provided an environment in which slaves were able to forge some control over their own lives. Gaining what little control they could was not an easy task because they faced many challenges in the master slave relationship like owners selling or hiring out members of a slave family. Nevertheless, the slave family was important in Little Dixie during the antebellum period in that it linked generations of slaves and their cumulative experiences, as well as broadened the slave community beyond the local farm. The slaves developed a strong oral tradition in many aspects of their family and religious lives. Members of the family were together nearly every evening and weekend enjoying each other’s company, telling stories, or working on personal chores, which allowed families to become the most powerful transmitter of slave culture. Children learned from their parents the importance of family life and how fragile the slave family could be. Besides religion, the family was perhaps the slaves’ primary escape from the harsh realities of bonded life. Historians have studied slave families from many perspectives. However, when he wrote his book, The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750–1925, Herbert G. Gutman set off a string of debates about slave families in the Antebellum south. He discounted many of the earlier views that slave parents had little impact on their children; and, that fathers were simply used to sire children. He claimed that slaves aspired to having two-parent families with the children living in the same household. Some children may have come from previous partners, but he asserted that two-parent 63

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

64

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 64

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

households were predominate among slaves. The families were more maternally influenced because the fathers were usually the first to be sold or hired out. According to Gutman, broken unions did not necessarily destroy the family or the belief in it. Some stable, long-lasting marriages were broken up by the death or sale of one partner, but the separated couple usually found a new partner, or other kin to assume the role of parents, and began family life once again.2 Gutman argued that although slaves could not legally marry, “marriages” were common and widely recognized by both the slave community and the owners. These marriages, particularly long lasting marriages, served important functions for the community and the farm. When slaves lived and worked on the same farm or plantation for most of their lives, they had the opportunity to develop extended kin relationships, which was important in the development of the slave community. Marriages or unions that endured the hardships of slave life, usually produced several children, and in a small slave community with limited choices, their children had few opportunities to seek a mate beyond the plantation boundaries or neighboring farm. According to Gutman, long lasting “marriages” that existed on the same farm provided a degree of “stability” which contributed to the development of “expanded kin networks” among slaves.3 Long-lasting slave marriages may have provided some “stability” to the slave family and to the slave community as a whole, but the slaves knew that their marriage was susceptible to break up for reasons beyond their control. In essence, they understood that their marriages were insecure. Thus, slave families lived with the constant fear that they could be separated from their loved ones. The deep personal and social pain felt by the slaves of broken up marriages by force or death cannot be measured, but what can be determined is that slaves attempted to prepare themselves and their children for what might happen. Gutman continued to explain: that all slave marriages were insecure. No slave could predict when an owner would die and how his estate would be divided. No slave could affect the vicissitudes of the business cycle. And no slave could shape an owner’s decision to reallocate his investments in human or other capital. That is why slave marriages—however long they lasted—cannot be characterized as stable. And that is why slave parents everywhere had good reasons to socialize their children to prepare for either the possible breakup of their marriages or sale from an immediate family.4

However, when a slave family was broken, Gutman clarified, it did not necessarily mean that the slaves accepted it as a “fact of life.” It was

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

Slaves and Families

10:10 AM

Page 65

65

unlikely that when a slave, particularly a child, was sold that the family merely accepted the owner’s decision. “It is far more likely that slave parents and older kin accommodated their behavior, not their beliefs, to the expectation that a child might be sold.”5 The master-slave relationship, according to Gutman, caused panic and hatred toward the owners among slave families. He went on to argue, “Parents and other kin forced into such difficult relationships with slave children had very good reason to ‘hate’ those who had imposed that circumstance upon them. ‘Good’ masters hesitated making such sales; ‘bad’ masters did not; all masters poisoned the relationship between slave parents and their children.”6 Although his work has received both praise and criticism, many of the ideas Gutman posited seem to hold true for many Little Dixie slave families. Many Little Dixie owners not only understood that the slaves aspired to two-parent families, but also made attempts at keeping slave families intact or at least close together on neighboring farms. As was shown in chapter two, many Little Dixie slave holders had a paternalistic nature. That is, they wanted to make sure their slaves were well cared for, at least from the owners’ perspective. One way in which some owners showed their concern and to keep the two-parent household was by providing in their wills that their slave families be kept together and that they be well taken care of by trusted family members. John Locke Hardeman of Saline County wrote in his will that “I wish my Negro man Charley and his family not to be separated and also my Negro man Stephen and his family to be kept here and to go the same person.”7 Henry M. Clarkson also wished that every effort be made so that slave families in his care not be separated. In his will, Clarkson wrote that, “my slaves shall be divided among my said children . . . families of slaves shall not be separated in such divisions, where it can readily be avoided; but that all members of the same family of slaves should when practical, be distributed to the same heir.”8 In some cases, owners not only attempted to designate where a particular slave went, but also considered when the future children that that slave might produce would go. Generally, these wills stipulated that future children stayed with the heirs. In a study of Callaway County slaves, Philip V. Scarpino discovered that several wills indicated a careful division of the deceased owners’ slaves. Younger female slaves and their “future increase” were willed to heirs, or some other trusted recipient, forever.9 Owners who willed future offspring suggest that these owners may have been promoting family unity and wanted to ensure that the future familial life of both their heirs and their slaves would be secure. Many farmers in Little Dixie included provisions in their wills that broke up slave families, but they did not necessarily break up slave unions

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

66

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 66

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

or “marriages.” Although they viewed slaves essentially as property and distributed them like any other inheritable item, these owners did not necessarily separate their slaves permanently. Often, the slaves who were sold lived on near-by farms, allowing the slave families to at least visit on weekends, hear news about loved ones, and even get together with at church meetings or social gatherings. A common practice among many Little Dixie owners was to divide their slaves equally among their children, which meant that many of the distributed slaves stayed close to their families because the owners’ children usually lived on near-by farms. Throughout the antebellum period, owners usually distributed their slaves according to their worth. To the eldest son went the most expensive slaves, and to the next son went the next valuable slaves. In one instance, Elijah Warden of Howard County distributed three of his most valuable slaves to his eldest son, while the next three most valuable slaves were willed to his second son.10 Many owners died suddenly without leaving behind a will, which not only shows the insecurity of slave life, but also shows that the courts broke up families. This caused tremendous fear among slave families because in many cases the owner may have had high debt. Slaves knew that if their owner died they could be put up for sale to pay the debt. In 1839, a Boone County slave family of six was broken up when James Kirtley’s estate was sold at public auction. The mother and the youngest child at age of three went to one owner, while the rest were sold to different owners.11 Some owners believed it was difficult to keep slave families on the same farm and resorted to selling or hiring out their slaves. According to slave historian, John W. Blassingame, most owners wanted to keep slave families intact to maintain plantation discipline. “In spite of the fact that probably a majority of the planters tried to prevent family separations in order to maintain plantation discipline, practically all of the black autobiographers were touched by the tragedy.” Separating families was one of the most brutal aspects of slavery and it haunted the daily lives of the slaves. But, because of economic necessity owners believed they were forced to sell slaves when needed. Blassingame continued to explain: Death occurred too frequently in the master’s house, creditors were too relentless in collecting their debts, the planter’s reserves ran out too often, and the master longed too much for expensive items for the slave to escape the clutches of the slave trader. Nothing demonstrated his powerlessness as much as the slave’s inability to prevent the forcible sale of his wife and children.12

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

Slaves and Families

10:10 AM

Page 67

67

Although some slave owners in Little Dixie did over extend themselves with their money and investments and resorted to selling slaves, owners like Walter Raleigh Lenoir of Boone County relied on hiring out his few slaves that he owned rather than selling them when he was in financial difficulty.13 Keeping the slave family together on the same farm may have been important to some owners because not only the length of contracts for hiring out often extended for no more than a year, but also because when owners hired out their slaves, they would make efforts to only hire out unmarried slaves. The Reverend John Robinson of Callaway County remembered his father hiring out his slaves. He pointed out in a series of letters about his childhood in Callaway County between 1832 and 1847 that his father wanted to ensure that when he hired out slaves that he avoided breaking up families. Robinson wrote, “most of the unmarried servants were hired out, the women at thirty to forty dollars, and the men at sixty to eighty dollars a year, the hirer to clothe and feed them and return them at the close of the year with good clothing and a blanket worth two dollars.”14 The Lenoir family also avoided breaking up families when they hired out slaves. In one case, Mrs. Lenoir mentioned in a letter to her sisters in North Carolina that they kept a slave woman and her children together when they were hired out. “Anthony and Solomon [sic], the two moulders, are hired for $175 a piece this year, 4 others at $125, 20, 15 [i.e. $125, $120, $115] each—a Negro woman for $40. having children with her, do not hire for much.”15 Although the letter reveals that Mrs. Lenoir was disappointed in the amount her family was to receive for the slave hire, the point is that they accepted a lower amount to keep the family intact. Hiring contracts often stipulated the work involved, where the work was to take place, safety for the slaves, condition of the slaves when returned, and any debts incurred for the health of the slaves. One of the conditions that were included in many of the contracts was that the renter could not remove the slave from the county, which meant that if the hired slaves were married, they had the opportunity to be close to their families. In Callaway County for example, the estates of Charles T. Brooks and Henry Cave specifically stated that their hired out slaves could not leave Callaway County.16 Some owners seemed proud of the fact that they could hire their slaves out close to home. Walter Raleigh Lenoir of Boone County, made it a point to tell his brother in a letter that “I have six fellows hired out now and expect to hire another next week and all within a mile & a half of home . . .”17 Although there was no mention that these slaves were married

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

68

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 68

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

or had children, the point is that many hired out slaves were usually kept close to home. Keeping slaves close to home was advantageous for the small farm slave owner because it allowed for owners the ability to more closely monitor their property while in the care of another individual or family. However, this may not have always been advantageous for the slave because it did remove them from the comforts of family and friends. As stipulated in the contracts, they were placed under someone else’s care that may not have had the same paternalistic nature as the owner. The relationship between the employer and slave was much more functional than between master and slave.18 Nevertheless, the hiring of slaves in Little Dixie provided them with opportunities to broaden their experiences beyond the master’s farm. It also allowed the slaves the prospect to temporarily live their lives in the way that they wanted. Sometimes slave children were hired out, which not only took the slave child away from the parents, but also the master as well. The child was forced to immediately contend with learning new skills, understanding the behaviors of the interim master, and developing new relationships with other whites and slaves. Although this practice separated children from parents, it was usually not a permanent situation. And, in most cases, the hired slaves went to local renters, which provided the opportunity for slave parents to visit, or at least possibly hear news about their children. Children often went to work as housemaids, babysitters for ill white mothers, and tavern waiters.19 As mentioned in chapter two, in 1827, Abiel Leonard rented a boy, probably between the ages of 8 and 12, for one year. They paid the owner $40.50 for the boy to do light farm work. Leonard agreed to return him to his owner in good condition with a good blanket and clothes.20 Some slave children may not have been as lucky. Because some children left the local farm when they were hired out, they may have had more chances to be exposed to disease. Summer months often produced diarrhea and cholera, and children seemed to be the most susceptible. In 1852, in a letter to her sister, Mrs. Walter Raleigh Lenoir explained that when boats came through and stopped in Columbia, many of the passengers often carried illnesses that took the lives of not only the passengers, but some of the people in Columbia. She went on to state that she lost a slave named Anthony to cholera in August.21 Those children who were hired out to distant owners, especially near river towns may have been more vulnerable to contagious diseases. Some owners that hired out their young slaves, however, often took strides in preventing their slaves from working in areas that might get them sick. RM Craghead hired out his young slave boy named Willis in 1851 to

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 69

Slaves and Families

69

James and Thomas Atkinson of Callaway County. The contract length was typical for hired out slaves, which usually ran from January 1 to December 25. But, it also stipulated that Willis will be treated humanely and not allowed to leave the county or work around the Missouri River.22 Throughout the south, when the contracts ended, it was a joyous celebration for the slave family because it meant the return of a loved one and the celebration of the Christmas season. Gifts were often given to slaves and their children by their owners, work schedules were often shortened, and dances and dinners were often held. Children often received money or candy in which they delighted.23 Slave hiring provided owners the luxury of utilizing and profiting from their slaves during slow farming times as well as provided others with short term labor needs. Several factors determined the cost of hiring a slave. Things like, age, sex, and the physical condition of the slave determined the value of the hire. Children usually drew a much lower rate than adults. In 1829, a slave girl named Malinda was hired out at $58.00 a year, and in 1831 the same owner hired out a boy, William, for $83.37. In the 1850s in Little Dixie when hire cost was at its highest, slave children were hired out anywhere between $8.00 and $156.00 a year, while adults were hired out for a year at a cost between $100.00 and $250.00.24 Some historians have argued that the practice of slave hiring circumvented Southern society. For example, Peter J. Parish contended that: Slave hire was a great convenience but also a considerable hazard, actual or potential, to Southern society. Obviously, when a slave owner was willing to hire out slaves to another employer, another element of both flexibility and complexity—not to mention uncertainty—was added to the system. Inevitably it altered the master-slave relationship and intervened in the direct connection between owners and owned. In the eyes of some whites, it looked like a dangerous step toward freedom.25

Nevertheless, the practice continued throughout the antebellum period in Little Dixie and became an integral part of its society. Indeed, to some owners, slave hiring may have provided a closer step toward freedom as well as contributed to the alteration of the relationship between master and slave. But, the fact that the practice continued in Little Dixie not only indicates that many slaves had the opportunity to develop relations with other whites and slaves beyond their master’s farm, not to mention beyond their own family, but also that a certain degree of trust had developed between the master and the hired out slave in order for the agreement to be made between the owner and the temporary supervisor of his property.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

70

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 70

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

Many slave owners in Little Dixie knew the benefit of keeping slave families together. Permanent separation was emotionally devastating to the slaves and often financially damaging to the owners. Some slaves who knew that they were going to be permanently separated from family members often maimed themselves for devaluation or took their own lives to show their anger; that is, they would not accept the master’s decision. One such event happened in Boone County in 1835 with a slave named Michael and his wife. J.E. Fenton of Boone County decided to send his recently purchased slave, Michael, to the Deep South. However, Michael’s wife was to remain in central Missouri. Michael escaped while in route to his destination, and when he was captured he refused to be sent away without her. The thought of him not seeing his wife anymore made him take his own life while in jail.26 Some owners thus included provisions in their wills like distributing their slaves to their children, hiring them out close to home, to prevent such tragedies. These actions helped prevent permanent separation of slave families. However, not all owners showed a deep desire to keep slave families intact or on neighboring farms. Several owners put unwanted or no longer needed slaves up for sale. Most of the time, these sales were economically motivated and the owners or traders displayed little concern for family unity. The forced separation of husband from wife, parent from child, or relative from relative was perhaps the most devastating experience to the slaves. The sale of a slave to a slave trader meant most certain that if they had family they would probably never see them again. It was a very wrenching situation and most assuredly permanent. The slave trader, John R. White, purchased a mother and daughter for $600 and sold them separately for a profit of $275. The mother went to an owner in Louisiana and the daughter remained in Boone County.27 In another episode that took place in Cooper County, probably in the 1850s, not only shows the pain involved with breaking a slave family, but also the fragility of the family unit and unpredictable ways of slave life. The story is told by an ex-slave named Joe Higgerson. A slave woman and her child were put up for sale not knowing whether she and the child would be sold together. Higgerson states: Why down at Boonville, woman and a baby was put up to be sold, and de buyer he want de woman, but he don’t want de baby, so they separated ’em, and was getting’ ready to put ’em on de boat for Noo Orleans, and ship ’em down de river, and de woman she ran back to kiss de baby goodbye, and de trader picked up a whip and cracked it

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 71

Slaves and Families

71

and shouts, ‘A bellerin cow will soon forget its calf!’ She was sold down de river and never saw de baby again. Now dat was sad.28

This woman may have previously suffered the loss of her husband by sale or death because there was no mention of a husband or father of the child in this story. Nevertheless, there were many owners who believed that slave families should be kept together or at least on neighboring farms. In fact, in Boone County when slave families were divided by wills, most slaves remained within the county on farms belonging to the owners’ children.29 The story told above by Joe Higgerson was not a common occurrence in the antebellum south, particularly in Little Dixie. The majority of slave owners throughout the south believed in the importance of as well as supported slave families. They paid attention to their slaves’ marital and family relationships, not only for their own economic self-interest, but also because of the paternalistic nature for the well-being of their bondsmen. The majority of the slaves during the antebellum period lived together in families and young children were rarely removed from their mother’s care.30 Another aspect that shows how many slave owners in Little Dixie believed that slave families were important was the apparent lack of slave breeding. Most slaves in Little Dixie were not owned to just produce offspring that were later hired or sold for profit. Although owners usually benefited from the increase in slaves, most evidently allowed the increase to come naturally. In Howard County in 1850, the birth rate for slaves was not much higher than the birth rate for whites. Of the 9,087 whites, 204 births were recorded which is about two percent. This percentage was the same for the slaves. There were 4,890 slaves and ninety-six births recorded. It is assumed that if slave breeding were common in Little Dixie, the birth rate for slaves would be much higher.31 Although there were several instances where owners broke up slave families, the fact that slave breeding was not common in Little Dixie shows that many owners saw the value of the family unit, either as an economic benefit or a moral imperative, and encouraged the slaves to naturally select their mates from the immediate household or from near-by farms. Many owners had a desire that their slaves marry and produce children for either profit or family stability. However, there is little if any evidence that owners attempted to specifically “pair off” their slaves in order to create offspring for profit. However, Thomas Houston of Cooper County sold a family of slaves for $3,000 in 1857 so that he could purchase several boys. His plan was that, as they grew older to pair them up with the young girls he already

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

72

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 72

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

owned. Although this is not a case of forced breeding, this represents the extent to which a few owners actually came close to breeding.32 Ex-slaves from around the south often wrote about marriages within the slave community. Their narratives provide some insight into slave marriages and families during the antebellum period. William Wells Brown, a fugitive slave from St. Louis, Missouri, contemplated the seriousness of slave marriages and questioned whether he should be married while in bondage. He had been planning an escape and he knew that if he were married, an escape would be much more difficult. Although he had strong feelings toward a female slave named Eliza, Brown wrote, I gave but little encouragement to this proposition, as I was determined to make another trial to get my liberty, and I knew that if I should have a wife, I should not be wiling to leave her behind; and if I should attempt to bring her with me, the chances would be difficult for success.33

He promised his mistress that he would marry Eliza, but did not have any intention on marrying her. He made this promise to his mistress to keep her satisfied because she wanted him to have a wife. However, Brown followed up on his plans and escaped to Canada without marrying Eliza.34 The ex-slave Henry Bibb of Kentucky also provided his perspective on slave marriages in his narratives. According to Bibb, slave marriages were not only delicate propositions with many intricate nuances, but also were fragile and could be broken at any time. “For marriage among American slaves, is disregarded by the laws of this country. It is counted a mere temporary matter; it is a union which may be continued or broken off, with or without the consent of the slaveholder, whether he is a priest or a libertine.”35 The fear of break-up did not prevent him from marrying; however, Bibb noted that getting married was very difficult. “The time and place of my marriage, I consider one of the most trying of my life.” The reasons were because nearly everyone, fellow slaves included, opposed the union for various reasons except for his wife’s master.36 The slave that Bibb was to marry lived on another farm and he desperately wanted to see her. After a few months of living separately, they found themselves being owned by the same master, which to Bibb was bittersweet. Getting married became a hurtful time because, according to Bibb, “to live where I must be eye witness to her insults, scourgings and abuses, such as are common to be inflicted upon slaves, was more than I could bear.”37 The helpless feeling of not being able to protect one’s wife or family against the abuses of slavery was difficult for many slave fathers to handle. Bibb recalled how hard it could be for anyone to imagine the helpless feeling one

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

Slaves and Families

10:10 AM

Page 73

73

could get to witness the beating of one’s own child. He saw his new infant daughter slapped repeatedly by the owners’ wife for crying for its mother. “Who can imagine what could be the feelings of a father and mother, when looking upon their infant child whipped and tortured with impunity, and they placed in a situation where they could afford it no protection.”38 Missouri Law did not officially recognize slave marriages, but many slave owners in Little Dixie allowed their slaves the freedom to choose their own spouses. In other words, masters did not take complete control over the slave family. Most slaves who were owned by the same master were able within limits to choose their mates. It was common in Little Dixie for men and women slaves who desired to live together and make a family to do so. In an interview conducted by the slave historian, Harrison A. Trexler, the ex-slave “Uncle” Henry Napper of Marshall reported that when two slaves living on the same farm liked each other they “took up” or “simply lived together” and not much was said to oppose it.39 Although very few Christian wedding ceremonies existed in the antebellum south, a common wedding ritual after a short, usually informal, ceremony was for the slave couple to “jump the broom.” To symbolize their marriage, slaves would literally jump a broomstick together.40 Because most slave holdings in Little Dixie were small, many slave marriages often spilled over farm and plantation boundaries creating a broader slave community. The fact that slaves were able to marry slaves from other farms also shows that they were able to forge some control over their lives. They were often able to choose their own mates without the owners’ intrusion. These slave marriages joined slave communities across small farm boundaries. Ed Craddock of Saline County, who was born a few years before the Civil War, was a child whose parents lived on separate farms. Apparently, he stayed with his father because in an interview, it was stated that his mother was owned by the “family of Marmadukes, one of whom was an early-day governor of Missouri.”41 One Saline County slave named John Austin remembered as a child that separate slave owners owned his parents. Apparently, the slaves had the consent of the owners as well and were married by the squire.42 Thomas Shackelford told a story about a married slave couple in Howard County. A slave named Brown and his wife lived on neighboring farms. The owner of Brown’s wife was having financial difficulty and contemplated selling her and her children to help pay his debt. However, as she worked on his farm, she was allowed to hire herself out and make money for her family. She had earned enough money to buy herself and children out of slavery, but Missouri Law stated that slaves could not do this. Shackelford purchased the woman and her children for $1,000 that she brought

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

74

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 74

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

to him. Although the woman was still legally a slave, Shackelford allowed her to live her life as if she were free to be with her husband and continue to make money by hiring herself out.43 Many masters in Little Dixie apparently did not interfere with their slaves who wanted to marry slaves from other farms and plantations. In most cases, slaves had to have the permission of both owners for the marriage to take place. In 1859, two slave holders in Howard County agreed to permit two of their slaves to marry. Leland Wright sent an approval letter to Abiel Leonard that his slave named Flemming wanted to marry a servant girl of Leonard’s. He wrote, “I have owned him some eighteen months and am much pleased with him. I expect him to remain in my family as long as he lives.”44 Wright must have not only trusted his slave to marry a slave from a near-by farm, but also wanted to keep slave families intact by allowing this cross-farm marriage. Slaves who married slaves of neighboring farms not only wanted to see each other, but also they undoubtedly made arrangements to visit their families. It was difficult but not impossible. Most likely, they visited each other on weekends, the father making his way to his family’s quarters. If they had lenient masters and the masters trusted their slaves, they might have been able to see each other during the week. Cross-farm marriages and families were not the ideal for large plantations in the Deep South, but for the small farms in places like Little Dixie, slave owners had to accept the practice of it.45 It is evident that married slaves living on different farms usually took their marriages seriously and would try to visit, males in particular, their families when they did not have permission. Runaway slave notices in Little Dixie often referred to the fugitive slaves as escaping to see their families. In Columbia in 1850, George B. Forbis of Rocheport had a slave named George run away to most likely get to his wife. A notice in the Columbia Missouri Statesman stated that George “will probably aim to get to Randolph County near Roanoke where his wife is.” Two years later, another notice ran in the same paper that a slave named Jim ran away from Noah Robinett. According to the notice, Jim was suspected of trying to get to Columbia where his wife was living.46 To many Little Dixie slaves, their marriage and time spent with their family was important enough to risk being punished. It is no doubt that many slave marriages and families in Little Dixie survived various obstacles, adversity, and intrusions. Being separated from one’s mate presented serious obstacles, but the separation did not always destroy the marriage or the family. Parents and children in Little Dixie who had been hired were separated from their families, but not from their belief

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 75

Slaves and Families

75

in family ties. In addition, as separated slaves made their way across farm boundaries to visit spouses and children, they created more connections between slave quarters. Cross-boundary marriages helped break down isolated slave holdings and created a more extensive slave community. With all the adversity that was inflicted on the slave family in Little Dixie, the broader slave community provided the spiritual, familial, and cultural wherewithal to combat it. The broader community was vital to the slaves in Little Dixie, particularly when it came to children who were sold or hired out near-by. Children were often instructed to be polite to everyone but trust only other slaves. Parents often wanted only other slaves to take care of their children, and a common practice for children was to refer to older, unrelated slaves who helped with caring for them as “Uncle” or “Aunt.” This not only reinforced the idea of family and community hierarchy, but also trained the children to allow other slaves to care for them.47 Peter Clay, a slave in Liberty, became known as “Uncle” Peter Clay.48 Isabelle Henderson, who was probably born around 1850 in Saline County, remembered a well-known older slave in her community as “Aunt” Cindy.49 The fact that many farms in Little Dixie were linked by slave marriages does not negate the fact that family separations caused pain and anxiety. Sales and separations occurred throughout the south and slaves often had little voice in their fate. Frederick Douglass, a slave in antebellum Maryland, perhaps captured the feelings of anxiety and resentment best when he wrote about family separation. Upon the death of his entire master’s family in a short period, he and his fellow slaves were divided among strangers. He wrote, “now all the property of my old master, slaves included, was in the hands of strangers,—strangers who had had nothing to do with accumulating it. Not a slave was left free. All remained slaves, from the youngest to the oldest.” His grandmother was one of the slaves on the plantation that was divided among the strangers. His resentment toward slave owners is quite clear when he tells the story of how his grandmother was treated. He continued to write: If any one thing in my experience, more than another, served to deepen my conviction of the infernal character of slavery, and to fill me with unutterable loathing of slaveholders, it was their base ingratitude to my poor old grandmother. She had served my old master faithfully from youth to old age. She had been the source of all his wealth; she had peopled his plantation with slaves; she had become a great grandmother in his service . . . she was nevertheless left a slave—a slave for life—a slave in the hands of strangers; and in their hands she saw her

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

76

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 76

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860 children, her grandchildren, and her great-grandchildren, divided, like so many sheep, without being gratified with the small privilege of a single word, as to their or her own destiny. And, to cap the climax of their base ingratitude and fiendish barbarity, my grandmother, who was now very old, having outlived my old master, and all his children . . . and her present owners finding she was of but little value . . . took her to the woods, built her a little hut, put up a little mud-chimney, and then made her welcome to the privilege of supporting herself there in perfect loneliness.50

However, many slaves in Little Dixie responded by taking some control of their family’s way of life, namely in their children’s upbringing. They protected their children as much as possible from the cruelties of slave life. Slave parents understood that separation or beatings could happen any day. Many times, they saw their relatives and their friends whipped or separated. They learned that slave life was unpredictable and harsh, and when they were disciplined, they could experience unbelievable humiliation in front of their community and family, particularly their children. Threatening to sell slaves or hire them out was one of the greatest sources of control the owners had at their disposal, and the slaves did everything they could to resist these efforts to control them. When together and when they were not working, slave families in Little Dixie often played games, sang songs, told stories, and danced with other slaves and families. Usually on Saturday evenings, they would get together with the owners’ permission on one of the farms and celebrate. The ex-slave, Richard Bruner of Saline County, stated that “No’m dey didnt care ef we had dances and frolics.” Apparently, the owners not only viewed this for their own entertainment, but also to help keep their slaves from becoming “obstreperous” as well. Bruner went on to say, “We had de dances down at de quarters and de white folks ud come down and look on. Whenever us niggas on one plantation got obstreperous, white folks hawns dey blowed” signaling for neighbors to come help control the contentious slave.51 Although owners or other whites were usually present at large slave gatherings, the slaves never allowed the whites to totally control their socializing. They continued to have their festivities despite white supervision and possible punishment for unwanted behavior. During their festivities or family time, many of the stories told by slave parents and other older slaves taught children to fear places that they should not go. Isabelle Henderson remembered a story told to her while she was a child that a tobacco factory on a neighboring farm that was owned by her master’s brother-in-law was haunted.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 77

Slaves and Families

77

The slaves on master’s plantation said this factory was haunted. None of ’em would go near this factory after nightfall. When the nights was still and the moon was full, you could hear ’em workin’ in the factory. You could hear the ting-ting-ting of the lever all night long and the voices of the slaves a cryin’ out and complainin.’ An’ you knew there wasn’t anybody there at all. Jest hants. That’s all.52

Parents used as many opportunities as possible to educate their children in many different ways such as this story retold by Isabelle. Because parents were usually in the fields working or performing other duties, they could not always supervise and educate their children until evenings. One historian observed that, “evenings served as special times to educate and entertain.”53 In addition to parents attempting to teach their children from exploring dangerous areas like factories after dark, folktales such as this, offers insights into the slave society of Little Dixie. Through these stories and others like them slaves not only entertained one another, but also showed, as Peter Kolchin pointed out, “their very existence as strong evidence of autonomous slave behavior and consciousness,” and that they, “provided only thinly disguised reference to surrounding social relations and enabled the slaves to poke vicarious fun at their masters, themselves, and the world in which they lived.”54 Some slaves remember their childhood slavery days as being a warm and affectionate time. Mr. Dean D. Duggins of Marshall in Saline County stated that, “I was but a lad in slavery days, 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.”55 Duggins was too young as a slave to remember the harsh reality of slavery because he probably did not work in the fields or witness severe beatings. However, his thoughts, as well as stories like the one Isabelle Henderson retold, provide some insight into slave childhood. Slave children in Little Dixie were often protected by their parents or other older slaves and kin from at least some of the most unforgiving and cruel ways of slave life. Slave parents in Little Dixie were careful in the way they protected and educated their children. Play time was a significant learning experience for slave children because it was not only an area in which parents made attempts to guide their children, but it is also an area in which slave children learned much about the world around them. As one historian noted, “play was essential to the slave children because it was one means through

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

78

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 78

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

which they learned the values and mores of their parents’ world.”56 Parents tried to teach their children to be careful about what to reveal when white children were around. Slave children and the owners’ children often played together usually under the supervision of the mistress or an older slave. Older slaves were cautious in what they said and did around the white children because they feared that their owner would find out information that the slaves did not want revealed. Dean D. Duggins recalled that when slave parents were around their owner’s children they “were very careful of the language used before the white children.”57 As slave children played with either other slave children or their white counterparts, they learned early on that they could take some control over their lives through selective play and speech. Not knowing fully their position on the farm, they re-enacted many of the events they saw unfold before their eyes—the good and the bad. These re-enactments aided in their understanding of their complicated world and eventually the difference between master and slave.58 Slave owners in Little Dixie often encouraged their children and slave children to play together. They apparently believed that this not only helped cement the relationship between the children to long lasting friendships, but also reinforced in the children that they were subordinate to the white children. As the slave historian, Marie Jenkins Schwartz, explained, “through play, slave children learned to obey, slaveowning children to command.”59 Captain Joseph A. Wilson of Lexington remembered when he was a child that his brother struck a young slave girl when she would not follow proper directions. One day my brother, a slave girl, and myself were playing with sticks which represented river boats. We had seen the boats run past the landing and then turn about and land at the docks prow foremost. But the slave girl insisted on running her boat in backwards. My mother, who was in an adjoining room, soon heard the slave girl give a great howl, screaming that Henry had slapped her. ‘Henry, why did you strike that child,’ said mother. ‘Well, she is always landing stern first,’ protested Henry.60

Captain Wilson did not mention in the story that his brother Henry was punished by his mother for striking the girl, but it is probably safe to assume that he was not because he went on to claim that this story showed how paternal the slave system was in central Missouri.61 This caste system often developed over time between slave children and white children within their realm of play. As the children aged, their play reflected much of the everyday interactions between the adult slaves and their masters. As a

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 79

Slaves and Families

79

result, slave children gained a better understanding of the complicated world in which they lived, and began to realize their place in it.62 Many slaves throughout the south learned through their childhood play activities that their owners did not have total control over their lives. Even though both white children and slave children imitated their adults, slave children did not allow themselves to totally submit themselves to the children of their owners. According to slave historian David K. Wiggins, many slave children throughout the south considered themselves morally and physically superior to their white counterparts. He argued that: prior to their realization that they occupied an inferior position in the plantation community, slave children were unaware of the usual decorum that normally existed between the races and therefore were probably more inclined not to comply with the desires of their white playmates.63

According to Wiggins, slave children often exhibited a feeling of moral and physical superiority over their white counterparts in several ways. Most notably slave children had to be creative in the design of their toys while white children usually had their toys purchased by their parents. This creativity made the slave children to not only realize how important it was to make something as simple as a ball to kick around, but also they found great pleasure in treasuring their created toys and passing them down to their younger siblings. Wiggins also argued that during play time slave children recognized that they usually out played the white children in games, dances, running, jumping, and throwing.64 Slave parents in the south during the antebellum period obviously had a difficult task in educating their children. Slave children often grew up feeling like they had two sets of parents—their own and their owners. It was often difficult for the children to determine which set of “parents” were to be obeyed. Some children not only witnessed their parents or other respected adults being whipped, but also received gifts and treats from their masters. This showed the children that their parents were not the final authority. This caused tremendous confusion among the children. Slave children were taught by their owners that the family unit included the owners as well; that is, that they belonged to someone else other than their parents.65 Young children between the ages of 8 and 12 in Little Dixie began to see first hand that they did not belong to their parents. Young boys and girls were introduced to the work force by either being hired out or working in the fields next to their parents. Boys who were designated to work the fields started out by working as water boys. Richard Bruner of Saline

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

80

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 80

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

County remembered when he was introduced to the fields. “Yas’m I remembers befo de wah, I remember bein a water-boy to de field hands befor I wer big enough to wuk in the fields. I hoed tobaccer when I was about so high.”66 Young girls often went to work in the master’s house. Unlike children who went to the fields, children who went to work inside their owner’s home usually learned a trade or skill from adults rather than other slaves. Isabelle Henderson, a young slave girl in the 1850s, not only learned to be a seamstress in her master’s house, but also learned nursing skills as well. “I was taught to sew and had to help make clothes for the other slaves. I nursed all the children of my mistress and one time I was hired out to the white preacher’s family to take care of his children when his wife was sick.”67 Her former master, Judge Gilliam, must have been impressed with her work because he willed to her a plot of his land where she resided the rest of her life.68 Just as in their religion, slaves in Little Dixie were also able to forge some control over family life. Slave owners usually did not interfere with slaves in choosing their own marriage partners, which often extended to neighboring farms. Kin relationships were further extended by the sale or hiring out of family members. Although nuclear families in Little Dixie were broken up by sales and hiring out, the slaves worked hard to maintain family ties. As kin relationships extended beyond the boundaries of the local farm, and when older slaves cared for the young children, they effectively denied their masters’ total control of their children’s education.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 81

Chapter Five

Summary and Conclusion

Before the family retired to rest, they were all called together to attend prayers. The man who but a few hours before had bound my hands together with a strong cord, read a chapter from the Bible, and then offered up prayer, just as though God had sanctioned the act he had just committed upon a poor, panting, fugitive slave.1 William Wells Brown

As noted earlier in this study, John Hardin Best asserts that historians of education have not sufficiently explored the relationship between southern culture and education. Best argues that although “education and other institutions” of the American South differed from other regions in the United States, they should not be overlooked by education historians.2 Southern culture, he believes, is a distinctive part of the history of the United States and the “non-formal education and formal institutions were a product of the larger culture of the South,” which in turn “influenced and sustained this distinctive culture.” According to Best the “interaction of the culture of the South with southern institutions of learning created the framework essential for understanding education in the forming of the American South.”3 In addition to Best’s call for more study of education and southern culture, Barbara Finkelstein encourages education historians to sustain their “sense-making capacities and critical traditions” by examining “whole new intellectual genres.”4 As she explains, in order to understand “how economic, political, and ideological realities became transformed through human agency,” it is vital for education historians to focus on learners and learning, and to recognize the wide variety of cultural, psychological, material, and intellectual environments in which learning occurs and culture is defined and transmitted.5 This study has been an attempt to 81

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

82

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 82

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

act on Best’s and Finkelstein’s advice. “Little Dixie” in central Missouri during the American antebellum period provided an excellent setting in which to examine non-formal education history in terms of the masterslave relationship and southern culture. Several themes became clear as I examined Little Dixie. In terms of the overall master-slave relationship, it can be concluded that owners were generally paternalistic: they tended to keep slave families together, they usually instructed them in some aspects of the Christian faith, and they used discipline to encourage obedience. However, owners sometimes punished their slaves severely and permanently separated families. The slaves, on the other hand, did not always accept their master’s paternalistic tendencies and attempted to forge a more independent life for themselves. In some cases, the slaves showed independence by generally resisting excessive punishments, sales, and overall poor treatment, and even on occasion by turning on their masters by threatening them, physically harming them, or killing them. In more subtle, less direct ways, they were able to resist the dehumanizing effects of slavery. They were able to form relationships through work, church, and family with slaves on other farms and plantations, which, in turn, created a broadened slave community in Little Dixie. This broader community was cultivated by the hiring out of slaves, by marriages that extended to surrounding farms, and by religious experiences brought on by itinerant ministers and local church services. Paradoxically, the lack of large slave holdings virtually prevented the slaves from forming isolated slave communities. The slaves were able to build some sense of a distinct community for themselves despite their master’s paternalistic attitudes. However, slaves obviously lacked many basic choices that their masters enjoyed such as when to wake up in the morning, when to take a break from work, choosing where they would like to work, and when and where they would like to travel. Masters in Little Dixie attempted to control and dictate their servant’s lives, leaving them little freedom to make their own choices. However, the slaves managed to forge some choices to direct their own lives. More specifically, they did not become totally submissive to their masters, and did not allow their masters to eliminate their desire for freedom. The small family farm was the primary social and educational setting for slaves in Little Dixie. Because the farms were generally small, this meant that the slaves were in close contact with their masters’ family. The family farm is where most of the every-day interaction between the master and slave occurred, and slave owners expected their slaves to learn farming skills. Slaves in Little Dixie, particularly male slaves at an early age, were taught agricultural skills like hemp breaking, tobacco farming, and pork

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

Summary and Conclusion

10:10 AM

Page 83

83

production. Many slaves, particularly girls, were hired out to other farms to learn and perform other skills like child rearing, nursing, and sewing. Religion and family life were two of the most important educational elements for slaves living on farms in Little Dixie. If anything, slave owners regarded religion and family life as means of slave control. Many slave owners in Little Dixie apparently believed that Christianity supported the slave system and encouraged slaves to be obedient. They were convinced that the social system in which they lived was dictated by God and that it was their duty to teach their slaves that it was God’s will that they be servants to whites into eternity. They told their slaves that it was not shameful to be a slave because God had designed the system. Furthermore, these owners believed that God ordained certain whites to be “owners” in order to take the Word of God to the depraved. Thus, according to this view, Slave owners had an obligation to protect, feed, and clothe their “flocks, both spiritually and physically.”6 The Christian religion was an important part of the education of slaves. One way in which many slave owners taught this system to their slaves was through church attendance. Many either took their slaves to church or allowed them to choose their own church. Nevertheless, in the church, both the slave owners and the slaves learned how to conduct themselves according to the standards of the day. Many owners felt that they would be blessed if they brought their slaves into the faith. Furthermore, they taught their slaves that if they conducted themselves in a “Christian” manner—that is, if they obeyed their masters, then they would be blessed by both God and their owners. However, from the point of view of many slaves, Christianity offered spiritual freedom. By attending their master’s church or, in some cases, the church of their choosing, slaves encountered new opportunities for learning. Although many of the sermons they heard by white and slave preachers alike were most likely telling them to obey their masters, the experiences they had within the church taught them that they had choices beyond what the masters usually allowed. Isabelle Henderson’s story about Aunt Cindy, a well-known older slave in Saline County, illustrates how slaves could gain some control over their religious life. “One Sunday she got ‘happy’ and commenced shoutin’ and throwin’ herself about. White folks in the seats below hurried to get out of from under the gallery, fearin’ Aunt Cindy, was goin’ to lose her balance and fall on them.”7 In this case, Aunt Cindy chose to worship in a way that was not determined by the whites. Slave families were also an important educative force in Little Dixie. Although slaves and many slave owners attempted to keep nuclear families together, kin relationships extended beyond local family units. The sale of

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

84

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 84

Slavery, Culture, and Education in Little Dixie, Missouri, 1820–1860

slaves to local farmers, the breakup of nuclear families, the hiring out of slaves, and marriages that crossed farm boundaries created broader slave communities. Even for the slaves, it was sometimes difficult to determine where the ties of the immediate nuclear family ended and where the larger extended community began. As Thomas L. Webber noted, “the structure and influence of the extended family or the religious brotherhood merged with, and sometimes supplanted, the structure and influence of the community.”8 According to Webber, the educative functions of extended families provided children with role models other than their parents, enforced strong sanctions against slaves who could not be trusted as well as rewards for those who protected their community members, and were part of a well-developed communication system between farms and plantations that kept the slaves informed of events surrounding their community. To Webber, slave communities in different regions had many similarities. Slaves who were separated from the communities in which they had once lived were usually transplanted into new, but somewhat familiar communities. Thus, the character and structure of the slave communities throughout Little Dixie taught slaves how to understand the world in which they lived, and how to interact with whites and other slaves.9 Within these communities, slaves in Little Dixie also learned more about the concept of freedom through choices that they managed to garner from their masters. They learned that although they could not be legally or physically free, they could attain some degree of mental and spiritual freedom. Families, including extended families, constituted social and cultural environments where slaves could exercise some control over their lives. Here, they were able to create and transmit a slave culture that was to some extent independent from white influence and control.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 85

Notes

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION 1. During the heyday of massive migration westward between 1810 and 1820, as well as its first years of statehood, central Missouri was often referred to as the Boone’s Lick Country (sometimes spelled Boonslick). The area was named after the famous Boone brothers’ successful business venture. Although the Boone’s Lick Country has no definite boundaries, historians have agreed that the counties of Cooper, Howard, and Boone comprise the bulk of the region. R. Douglas Hurt, Agriculture and Slavery in Missouri’s Little Dixie, (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992), 1–23. John Mason Peck Forty Years of Pioneer Life (Philadelphia 1864). Also see “The Boone’s Lick Country,” Missouri Historical Society Bulletin 6 (July 1950), 442–445; Stuart F. Voss, “Town Growth in Central Missouri, 1815–1880: An Urban Chaparral, Part I,” Missouri Historical Review (October 1969), 64–66; and Public Relations Committee, Columbia Chamber of Commerce, The First Forty Years, (October 1965), 1–11. 2. Bernard Bailyn, Education in the Forming of American Society (New York: 1960), 14. 3. Barbara Finkelstein, “Education Historians as Mythmakers,” Review of Research in Education 18 (1992), 286. 4. John Hardin Best, “Education in the Forming of the American South,” History of Education Quarterly (Spring 1996), 44. 5. Later, most of central Missouri became known as “Little Dixie.” It has been speculated that the origin of the term dates back to the end of the Civil War. The boundaries of the region have been redefined on several occasions. However, the first attempt to place boundaries on the region was in 1941 when Paul I. Wellman wrote “Missouri’s Little Dixie is Real Although it Appears on No Maps,” Kansas City Times, Dec. 5, 1941. By drawing his conclusions based on Democratic Party lines, he claimed that the region consisted of 14 counties. Robert M. Crisler redefined the

85

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

86

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 86

Notes to the Introduction

6.

7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

16. 17. 18.

boundaries in 1948 with his study, “Missouri’s ‘Little Dixie’” Missouri Historical Review, 32 (January 1948). He claimed that not only election returns but the popular use of the term “Little Dixie” by the residents defined the region more accurately to include only eight counties. Slavery, a strong component of antebellum southern culture, was not utilized as a yardstick in these studies. By using economic and cultural criteria, R. Douglas Hurt in his Agriculture and Slavery in Missouri’s Little Dixie, (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992), defined “Little Dixie” as this seven county region. Historians agree that these seven counties are included in the boundaries of “Little Dixie.” There are many good histories that illustrate this and provide statistics on slave populations per farm and plantation. For example, see Lewis C. Gray, History of Agriculture in the Southern Untied States to 1860 (2 vols., Washington D. C., 1933). Of course, the United States census records provide vital statistics on slave populations. Ulrich B. Phillips, American Negro Slavery: A Survey of the Supply, Employment, and Control of Negro Labor as Determined by the Plantation Regime, (New York: Peter Smith, 1918), 342. Ibid., 261. Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Antebellum South, (New York: Knopf, 1956), 282. Ibid., 364. Stanley M. Elkins, Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), 82. Ibid., 82. Thomas L. Webber, Deep Like the Rivers: Education in the Slave Quarter Community, 1831–1865 (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1978), 246. Other good histories that focus on the view of slavery from the standpoint of the slave include John W. Blassingame, The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), Eugene D. Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1974). For an interesting critical analysis of Blassingame’s The Slave Community, see Al-Tony Gilmore, ed., Revisiting Blassingame’s The Slave Community: The Scholars Respond, (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1978). Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619–1877 (New York: Hill & Wang, 1993), 105. Ibid., 150–55. See also, Peter Kolchin, “Reevaluating the Antebellum Slave Community: A Comparative Perspective,” Journal of American History 70 (1983), 586. Wilma King, Stolen Childhood: Slave Youth in Nineteenth-Century America, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 24 Ibid., 1–114. Marie Jenkins Schwartz, Born in Bondage: Growing Up Enslaved in the Antebellum South, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 78.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Notes to Chapter One

Page 87

87

19. Ibid., 79–81.

NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE 1. For an interesting article on the founding fathers of Missouri see Floyd C. Shoemaker, “David Barton, John Rice Jones, and Edward Bates: Three Missouri State and Statehood Founders,” Missouri Historical Review 65 (July 1971): 527–543. See also Floyd C. Shoemaker, Missouri’s Struggle for Statehood, 1804–1821, Jefferson City: The Hugh Stephens Printing Co., 1926; and David March, “The Admission of Missouri,” Missouri Historical Review 65 (July 1971): 427–449. 2. Hattie M. Anderson, “Frontier Economic Problems in Missouri, 1815–1828, Part I,” Missouri Historical Review 34 (October 1939): 52–58. Dorothy B. Dorsey, “The Panic of 1819 in Missouri,” Missouri Historical Review 29 (January 1935): 81. 3. Hattie M. Anderson, “Evolution of a Frontier Society in Missouri, 1815–1828,” Missouri Historical Review 32 (April 1928): 299–301. 4. John Mason Peck, Forty Years of Pioneer Life, edited by Rufus Babcock, (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965), 144. Nicholas Patterson, “The Boone’s Lick Country,” Missouri Historical Society Bulletin 6 (July 1950), 450. 5. Peck, 146. 6. Patterson, 451. Peck, 144 7. Kenneth M Stampp, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South, (New York: Vintage Books), 29. 8. Patterson, 451. 9. R. Douglas Hurt, Agriculture and Slavery in Little Dixie, (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992), 216–217. 10. Ibid., 216–17; Stampp, 387–88. 11. Robert W. Duffner, Slavery in the Missouri River Counties, 1820–1865, (Ph.D. Diss., University of Missouri, 1974), 14. 12. Peck, Forty Years of Pioneer Life, 136–137. Captain Sarshall Cooper was the brother of the famous pioneer Colonel Benjamin Cooper of Madison County, Kentucky who was elected as Commander-in-Chief of the volunteers in the Boone’s Lick. It is not clear but this event probably occurred in either 1814 or 1815. At this time the Boone’s Lick country was not recognized as part of the Missouri Territory and the inhabitants had to set their own laws. The statement is from Peck’s diary. It is not clear why he chose to present this story in a stereotyped dialect. 13. Harrison A. Trexler, Slavery in Missouri, 1804–1865, (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series 32, no. 2, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1914), 10–13, 102–103. 14. Timothy Flint, Recollections of the Last Ten Years in the Valley of the Mississippi, ed. George R. Brooks, (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968), 146.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

88

Page 88

Notes to Chapter Two 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

Ibid, 147. Missouri Intelligencer (Franklin), November 19, 1819. Ibid., (Franklin), May 27, 1820. Ibid., (Franklin), December 3, 1819. Ibid., (Franklin), July 9, 1819. Ibid. Ibid. Henry Carroll was the son of Charles Carroll who was the land register in Franklin. Henry served as the deputy register and was later killed by a disgruntled land speculator. See Hurt, Agriculture and Slavery in Missouri’s Little Dixie, 38. Robert W. Duffner, Slavery in Missouri River Counties, 5. Floyd C. Shoemaker, “Missouri’s Tennessee Heritage,” Missouri Historical Review 49 (January 1955), 129–40. Robert M. Crisler, “Missouri’s ‘Little Dixie,’” Missouri Historical Review 42 (January 1948), 130. Abiel Leonard Papers; Frederick A. Culmer, “Abiel Leonard, Part 2,” Missouri Historical Review 27 (January 1933), 232–38. Missouri Intelligencer (Franklin), November 13, 1824. See also October 12, 1826, and December 25, 1829. Hattie M. Anderson, “Evolution of a Frontier Society in Missouri,” 303–04. Stampp, 30. Ibid., 17. Ibid., 30. Ibid., 30–31. Duffner, 24. Manuscript Census Schedules, Slaves, 1830, 1840, 1850, and 1860. Stampp, 31. Duffner, 20. Hurt, 99–100. Ibid., 100–101. Ibid., 80–87. Ibid., 80–89. Miles W. Eaton, “The Development and Later Decline of the Hemp Industry in Missouri,” Missouri Historical Review 43 (July 1949), 344. Saturday Morning Visitor (Waverly and St. Thomas), July 14, 1860. Hurt, 123. Ibid., 109. William B. Lenoir to Walter R. Lenoir, November 26, 1834. Eaton, 344–48. Hurt, 109–110. Ibid., 111–13.

NOTES TO CHAPTER TWO 1. John Boles, Black Southerners: 1619–1869, (Lexington: University of Press of Kentucky), 80–2.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

Notes to Chapter Two

10:10 AM

Page 89

89

2. Letter of Walter Raleigh Lenoir, Boone County, Missouri, June 15, 1838, to William B. Lenoir at Lenoir’s, Tennessee. In Lewis E. Atherton, “Life, Labor and Society in Boone County, Missouri, 1834–1852, As Revealed in the Correspondence of an Immigrant Slave Owing Family from North Carolina, Part II,” Missouri Historical Review 38 (July 1944), 415. 3. Letter of Nathaniel Leonard to his brother Abiel Leonard January 22nd, 1841. 4. Harrison A. Trexler, Slavery in Missouri, 1804–1865, (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series 32, no. 2, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1914), 27–28. 5. Letter of Mrs. Walter Raleigh Lenoir, Greenwood, Boone County, Missouri, January 15, 1851 to Thomas Lenoir at Fort Defiance, North Carolina. In Atherton, 420. 6. Napton Papers. Melinda to William, June 21, 1846. 7. Napton Papers. William to Melinda, March 24 and 26, April 3, 1861 8. Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619–1877 (New York: Hill & Wang, 1993), 104. 9. Trexler, 90. 10. Ibid., 9–56. Robert Duffner, “Slavery in Missouri River Counties, 1820–1865,” (Ph.D. Diss., University of Missouri, 1974), 1–47. 11. George P. Rawick, The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography. Arkansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Oregon and Washington Narratives, Vol. 2 (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1977), 157. 12. Trexler, 91. 13. Lewis E. Atherton, “Life, Labor, and Society in Boone County, Missouri, 1834–1852, As Revealed in the Correspondence of an Immigrant Slave Owning Family from North Carolina, Part I,” Missouri Historical Review, 38 (April 1944), 301. 14. Philip V. Scarpino, “Slavery in Callaway County, Missouri: 1845–1855, Part II,” Missouri Historical Review, 71 (October 1976), 268. 15. Will of John Locke Hardeman, August 3, 1858, December 27, 1858, Glen O. Hardeman Papers. 16. Will of David Gordon of Boone County, April 21, 1848, Abiel Leonard Papers. 17. Trexler, 223–224. 18. Iibid., 46. 19. James William McGettigan, Jr., “Boone County Slaves: Sales, Estate Divisions and Families, 1820–1865,” Part I, Missouri Historical Review 72 (January-April, 1978), 193–94. 20. Columbia Missouri Statesman, January 13, 1860. 21. Henry Clay Bruce, Twenty Nine Years a Slave, Twenty Nine Years a Free Man, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996), 102. 22. McGettigan, 188–191. 23. American Citizen (Lexington), September 17, 1856. See Hurt page 233. See Duffner page 112–113. 24. Slaughter Crosby to J.L. Bates, February 15, 1858, Chinn Family Papers.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

90

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 90

Notes to Chapter Two 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

Slave Record Book, 1846–1860, John R. White Collection. Hurt, 206. Missouri Intelligencer, September 12, 1835 David R. McAnally, History of Methodism in Missouri, (St. Louis: Advocate Publishing House, 1881), 146. Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, (New York: Penguin Books, 1968), 65. Bruce, 67. Ibid., 84. Trexler, 97–98. Scarpino, 268. Thomas B. Hall, “John Sappington” Missouri Historical Review 24 (January 1930), 185–86. Rawick, 158–59. Nathaniel Leonard to Abiel Leonard December 16, 1846; Abiel Leonard Papers. William B. McLean to Abiel Leonard, December 29, 1837; Abiel Leonard Papers. Melinda Napton to William, October 31, November 3, 4 1858; Napton Papers. Laws of the State of Missouri; Revised and Digested, 2 vols. (St. Louis, 1825) I, 133. Trexler, 84. Bruce, 67. Columbia Missouri Statesman, April, 14, 1848. Kolchin, 120. George P. Rawick, The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography: Arkansas Narratives Part 7, and Missouri Narratives, (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing, 1972), 270–71. Duffner, 58–59, Hurt, 253–54. Hurt, 245. Columbia Missourian, February 19, 1925. Ibid., 54. State v. Billy and Barnett, Slaves, MS. Circuit Court Records, Boone County, Book A, 300, case 864 (1828). State v. Charles, Henry, and Manly, slave, MS. Circuit Court Records, Boone County, Book A, 347, case 878, (1829). Saturday Morning Visitor, July 2, 1859. Glasgow Weekly Times, December 9, 1858. Weekly Tribune, September 24, 1853. Weekly Tribune, September 24, 1853. Lexington Express, August 31, 1853. Rawick, 154. Ibid., 270. Ibid., 158. Trexler, 96.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Notes to Chapter Three

Page 91

91

60. Hurt, 252–253. 61. Robert W. Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, Time on the Cross, (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1974), 56. 62. Missouri Intelligencer, January 7, December 18, 1820. 63. Missouri Register, December 24, 1840. 64. Fulton Telegraph, December 28, 1849. 65. Fulton Telegraph, January 17, 1851. 66. Scarpino, 38. 67. Ibid., 38–40. 68. Although most slaves were hired out for these duties, some slaves were hired to work in tobacco factories, on road gangs, and saw mills. 69. Atherton, 284. 70. Frederick E. Voelker, “Ezekiel Williams of Boon’s Lick,” Missouri Historical Society Bulletin, 7 (October 1951), 37. 71. Hiring Contract, Abiel Leonard Papers, 1827. 72. Ibid. 73. Trexler, 29–30. 74. Scarpino, 40. 75. Missouri State Journal, February 7, 1856. 76. Bruce, 78. 77. Fulton Telegraph, July 21, 1876. 78. Shackelford, 9. 79. John Wilson to Thomas Shackelford, January 13, 1866, in Slave Papers, Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis. 80. Missouri Intelligencer, March 14, 1835. 81. Ibid., March 4, 1835. 82. Weekly Times, Glasgow, November 10, 1853. 83. St. Joseph, Commercial Cycle, November 2, 1855. 84. Laws of the State of Missouri, 9th General Assembly, 1st Session (Jefferson City, 1837), 3. 85. Glasgow Weekly Times, October 20, 1853 and February 5, 1858.

NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE 1. Eugene D. Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made, (New York: Random House, 1976), 6. 2. Ibid., 283. 3. Ibid., 91. 4. Ibid., 209–279. Although Genovese acknowledged that class distinctions were less prominent on small farms in the upper south with fewer slaves than the large plantations, it made little difference in the way owners treated their slaves. 5. Ibid., 7, 88–89, 283–284. 6. Ibid., 91 7. Ibid., 91. 8. Missouri Intelligencer (Franklin), April 1, 1820.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

92

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Page 92

Notes to Chapter Three 9. John Mason Peck, Forty Years of Pioneer Life, edited by Rufus Babcock, (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965), 126–7, 144–50. 10. Lanius Diary 11. Peck, 130. 12. Ibid., 130. 13. Ibid., 131. 14. R. Douglas Hurt, Agriculture and Slavery in Missouri’s Little Dixie, (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992), 189. 15. Peck, 144, 150. 16. Hurt, 189–90. 17. Peck, 129. 18. James A. Halzlett, “The Troubles of the Circuit Rider,” Missouri Historical Review, 39 (July 1945), 427. 19. Peck, 130–34, 151. 20. Hurt, 193–94. 21. Bruce, 58. 22. John B. Boles, Black Southerners: 1619–1869, (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky), 158–59. 23. Ibid., 163. 24. Ibid., 163–64. 25. Columbia Baptist Church Minutes, I, 1844. 26. Bear Creek Christian Church Minutes, p. 3–4, 27, 30–3, 38–40, 44. 27. Little Bonne Femme Baptist Church, List of Members, II, p. 5–13. 28. George Rawick, The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography, Vol. 2. (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1977), 194. 29. Ibid., 128. 30. Harrison A. Trexler, Slavery in Missouri, 1804–1865, (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series 32, no.2, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1914), 84. 31. Rawick, 154. 32. Ibid., 154. 33. Rawick, 157. 34. Ibid., 156–57. 35. Ibid., 156–57. 36. J. E. Hawley to his wife, June 10, 1855, in Hawley Papers. Although he did not indicate which day of the week; however, it was most likely Sunday afternoon. 37. Bethel Baptist Church, Saline County, Minutes, September, 1850, January, December, 1852, p. 49, 65, 76. 38. Jacob Lanius Diary, January 9, April, May 2, 1834, March 9, 23, 1836, July 22–24, 28, 1836, p. 12, 21, 22, 47, 48, 61, 62. 39. Columbia Baptist Church, Minutes, June, 1840, I. 40. Grand Prairie Baptist Church, Callaway County, Minutes, February, April, 1856, 68–9, 74.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:10 AM

Notes to Chapter Four

Page 93

93

41. John W. Blassingame, The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 131–133, Boles, 159–160. 42. Cedar Creek Primitive Baptist Church, Callaway County, Minutes, December, 1851, July, 1852, January, 1854, p. 65,67, 68, 72. 43. Boles, 160–61. 44. Leslie Gamblin Hill, “A Moral Crusade: The Influence of Protestantism of Frontier Society in Missouri,” Missouri Historical Review, 45 (October 1950), 22. 45. Boles, 161. 46. Hill, 26, 28. 47. Ibid., 30. 48. Cedar Creek Primitive Baptist Church, Callaway County, Minutes, October, November 1845, June 2, July, August, 1846, May, 1847, p. 47–49–52. 49. Grand Prairie Baptist Church, Callaway County, Minutes, July, August, 1852, p. 54–55. 50. Bethel Baptist Church, Saline County, Minutes, September, October, 1851, p. 62–3. 51. Rawick, 157.

NOTES TO CHAPTER FOUR 1. Frederick Douglass, My Bondage and My Freedom (New York: Dover, 1969), 1. 2. Herbert Gutman, The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750–1925, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1976), 128–133, 285–290. In his previous work, Gutman wrote: “When a young individual was sold from his or her slave family and thereby separated from parents and siblings, that sale counted as evidence of a broken slave family, not a broken slave marriage.” Slavery and the Numbers Game: A Critique of Time on the Cross (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975), 104. 3. Ibid., 102–143. 4. Ibid., 153. 5. Ibid., 319. 6. Ibid., 319. 7. Will of John Locke Hardeman of Saline County, August 3, 1858, Glen O. Hardeman Papers. 8. Will of Henry M. Clarkson, February 3, 1862, Will Book #1, Boone County Probate Court Records, Boone County Courthouse, Columbia, Missouri. 9. Philip V. Scarpino, “Slavery in Callaway County Missouri: 1845–1855, Part II” Missouri Historical Review, 71 (October, 1977), 269. 10. Duffner, 105. 11. James Kirtley, Estate Papers, Pack 167.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

94

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

Page 94

Notes to Chapter Four 12. John W. Blassingame, The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 173–74. Arguing in similar fashion, Peter Kolchin stated that, “the most ultimate and dreadful form of interference in slave family life was the forced separation of family members. Although many slave owners strove to keep families together, separation remained a pervasive feature of the slave south. Good intentions alone proved insufficient to protect slaves against the dictates of economic interest, anger, or plain thoughtlessness; there were simply too many instances when it ‘made sense’ or was ‘necessary’ for masters with the best of intentions to separate their slaves.” Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619–1877, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993), 125. 13. Letter of Walter Raleigh Lenoir, Boone county, Missouri, June 15, 1838, to William B. Lenoir at Lenoir’s, Tennessee. In Lewis E. Atherton, “Life, Labor and Society in Boone County, Missouri, 1834–1852, As Revealed in the Correspondence of an Immigrant Slave Owning Family from North Carolina, Part 2” Missouri Historical Review, 38 (July 1944), 415. 14. Fulton Telegraph, July 26, 1876. 15. Letter of Mrs. Walter Raleigh Lenoir, Greenwood, Boone county, Missouri, November 18, 1851, to Thomas Lenoir, Fort Defiance, North Carolina. In Atherton, 422. 16. Scarpino, 40. 17. Letter of Walter Raleigh Lenoir, Boone County, Missouri, May 20, 1835, to William B. Lenoir at Lenoir’s, Tennessee. In Atherton, 293. 18. Kolchin, 110. 19. R. Douglas Hurt, Agriculture and Slavery in Little Dixie, (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992), 240. 20. Hiring Contract, Abiel Leonard Papers, 1827. 21. Letter of Mrs. Walter Raleigh Lenoir, Greenwood, Boone County, Missouri, September 29, 1852, to Selina Louisa Lenoir, fort Defiance, North Carolina. In Atherton, 424. 22. Scarpino, 30–31. 23. Wilma King, Stolen Childhood: Slave Youth in Nineteenth-Century America, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 59. 24. Duffner, 123–126. 25. Peter J. Parish, Slavery: History and Historians, (New York: Harper and Row), 106. 26. Missouri Intelligencer April 25, 1835. 27. John R. White, Slave Record Book, in Western Historical Manuscript Collection. 28. George P. Rawick , The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography. Arkansas Narratives Part 7 and Missouri Narratives, (Wesport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1972), 176. Quoted directly from the narratives. 29. James William McGettigan, “Boone County Slaves: Sales, Estate Divisions and Families, 1820–1865, Part 1,” Missouri Historical Review, 193–95, “Part 2,” 283–84. 30. Kolchin, 138–39.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

Notes to Chapter Four

10:11 AM

Page 95

95

31. Robert W. Duffner, “Slavery in Missouri River Counties, 1820–1865,” (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Missouri, 1974), 110. 32. Hurt, 263–64. 33. Paul Jefferson, ed. The Travels of William Wells Brown, including Narrative of William Wells Brown, A Fugitive Slave and The American Fugitive in Europe. Sketches of Places and People Abroad, (New York: Markus Wiener Publishing, 1991), 59. 34. Ibid., 58–59. 35. William L. Andrews and Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Slave Narratives, (New York: Library of America, 2000), 455. 36. Ibid., 456. 37. Ibid., 458. 38. Ibid., 458–459. 39. Harrison A. Trexler, Slavery in Missouri, 1804–1865, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1914), 88. 40. John W. Blassingame, The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 167. There has been some debate about the emphasis placed on this practice. Blassingame stated that in the WPA interviews of slaves not all slaves knew what this meant. According to him, many of the children were either too young to remember the wedding ceremony or never saw one. Another historian claimed that the ritual was much like the current ritual of the bride throwing the bouquet to see who would be married next. Apparently, this practice was to see who would rule the house. Wilma King, Stolen Childhood: Slave Youth in Nineteenth-Century America, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 64. 41. Rawick, 158. Ed Craddock must have known his father more intimately because after the war, Craddock was apprenticed under his father as a school building janitor at a local school. 42. Trexler, 88. 43. Thomas Shackelford, “Early Recollections of Missouri,” Missouri Historical Review, 2 (April 1903), 18. 44. Leland Wright to Abiel Leonard, August 21, 1859, Abiel Leonard Papers. 45. Kolchin, 123. 46. McGettigan, 285. 47. Marie Jenkins Schwartz, Born in Bondage: Growing Up Enslaved in the Antebellum South, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 168. 48. Trexler, 84. 49. Rawick, 194. 50. Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, (New York: Penguin Books), 61–62. 51. Rawick, 154. The words in the quotes are written exactly as they were written by the interviewer. 52. Ibid, 195. 53. Wilma King, Stolen Childhood: Slave Youth in Nineteenth Century America,” (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 71.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

96

Page 96

Notes to Chapter Five 54. Kolchin, 154. 55. Trexler, 93. 56. David K. Wiggins, “The Play of Slave Children in the Plantation Communities of the Old South, 1820–1860,” in Growing Up in America: Children in Historical Perspective, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 174. 57. Trexler, 93. 58. Wiggins, 187. 59. Schwartz, 94. 60. Trexler, 93. 61. Ibid., 93. 62. Wiggins, 184. 63. Ibid., 188. 64. Ibid., 185–186. 65. Schwartz, 93–95. 66. Rawick, 154. The words are written exactly as the interviewer wrote them. Also, the interviewer stated that Richard measured with his hand about 3 1/2 feet from the ground. 67. Ibid., 194. 68. Ibid., 193. The interviewer pointed out that Isabelle’s speech was “almost correct grammatically, attributable to the circumstance that as a slave she had been a house servant, with contacts largely among white people of culture.”

NOTES TO CHAPTER FIVE 1. William Wells Brown, Narrative of William Wells Brown, Paul Jefferson, ed, The Travels of William Wells Brown, (New York: Markus Wiener Publishing, Inc., 1991), 53. 2. John Hardin Best, “Education in the Forming of the American South,” History of Education Quarterly (Spring 1996), 44. 3. Ibid., 39. 4. Barbara Finkelstein, “Education Historians as Mythmakers,” Review of Research in Education 18 (1992), 286. 5. Ibid., 287–88. 6. For a good contemporary view of the Biblical position regarding slavery see George D. Armstrong, The Christian Doctrine of Slavery (New York: Charles Scribner, 1857). 7. George P. Rawick, The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography, Vol. 2, (Westport Conn: Greenwood Press, 1977), 194. 8. Thomas L. Webber, Deep Like the Rivers: Education in the Slave Quarter Community, 1831–1865, (New York: WW Norton, 1978), 224. 9. Ibid., 224–223.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

Page 97

Bibliography

PRIMARY SOURCES Abiel Leonard Papers. Western Historical Manuscripts Collection, University of Missouri, Columbia. Andrews, William L. and Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. Slave Narratives. New York: Library of America, 2000 Brown, William Wells. The Travels of William Wells Brown, including Narrative of William Wells Brown, A Fugitive Slave and The American Fugitive in Europe. Sketches of Places and People Abroad. Edited by Paul Jefferson. New York: Markus Wiener Publishing, 1991. Bruce, Henry Clay. Twenty Nine Years a Slave, Twenty Nine Years a Free Man. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996. Chinn Family Papers. Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis. Douglass, Frederick. My Bondage and My Freedom. New York: Dover, 1969. ———. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, New York: Penguin Books, 1968. Flint, Timothy. Recollections of the Last Ten Years in the Valley of the Mississippi, ed. George R. Brooks. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968. Glen O. Hardeman Papers, Western Historical Manuscripts Collection, University of Missouri, Columbia. J.E Hawley Papers. Western Historical Manuscripts Collection, University of Missouri, Columbia. James Kirtley, Estate Papers, Boone County Probate Court, Boone County Courthouse, Columbia, Missouri. John R. White, Slave Record Book, Western Historical Manuscript Collection, University of Missouri, Columbia. Jacob Lanius “Diary.” Western Historical Manuscript Collection, University of Missouri, Columbia. Laws of the State of Missouri, 9th General Assembly, 1st Session (Jefferson City, 1837): 3. Laws of the State of Missouri; Revised and Digested, 2 vols. (St. Louis, 1825) I. Leonard, Abiel. “Abiel Leonard, Part 1.” Edited by Frederick Culmer. Missouri Historical Review 27 (January 1933): 113–31.

97

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

98

Page 98

Bibliography

———. “Abiel Leonard, Part 2.” Edited by Frederick Culmer. Missouri Historical Review 27 (April 1933): 217–39. ———. “Abiel Leonard, Part 3.” Edited by Frederick Culmer. Missouri Historical Review 27 (July 1933): 315–36. ———. “Abiel Leonard, Part 4.” Edited by Frederick Culmer. Missouri Historical Review 28 (October 1933): 17–37. ———. “Abiel Leonard, Part 5.” Edited by Frederick Culmer. Missouri Historical Review 28 (January 1934): 103–24. Manuscript Census Schedules, Slaves, 1830, 1840, 1850, and 1860. Patterson, Nicholas. “The Boone’s Lick Country,” Missouri Historical Society Bulletin 6 (July 1950): 442–71. Peck, John Mason. Forty Years of Pioneer Life. Edited by Rufus Babcock. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965. Rawick, George P. (ed.) The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography. 11 vols. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1972. ———. (ed.) The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography, 2 vols, Westport Conn: Greenwood Press, 1977. Slave Papers, Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis. State v. Billy and Barnett, Slaves, MS. Circuit Court Records, Boone County, Book A, 300, case 864 (1828). State v. Charles, Henry, and Manly, slave, MS. Circuit Court Records, Boone County, Book A, 347, case 878, (1829). Will of Henry M. Clarkson, February 3, 1862, Will Book #1, Boone County Probate Court Records, Boone County Courthouse, Columbia, Missouri. William B. Napton Papers. Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis.

Church Records Bear Creek Christian Church Minutes. Western Historical Manuscript Collection, University of Missouri, Columbia. Bethel Baptist Church, Saline County, Minutes. Western Historical Manuscript Collection, University of Missouri, Columbia. Cedar Creek Primitive Baptist Church, Callaway County, Minutes. Western Historical Manuscript Collection, University of Missouri, Columbia. Columbia Baptist Church Minutes, I (1823–1844). Western Historical Manuscript Collection, University of Missouri, Columbia. Grand Prairie Baptist Church, Callaway County, Minutes. Western Historical Manuscript Collection, University of Missouri, Columbia. Little Bonne Femme Baptist Church, List of Members, II (1844–1888). Missouri Baptist Historical Society, William Jewell College Library, Liberty, Missouri.

Newspapers American Citizen (Lexington). Missouri Statesman (Columbia). Missourian (Columbia). Commercial Cycle, (St. Joseph). Fulton Telegraph.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

Page 99

Bibliography

99

Glasgow Weekly Times. Missouri Intelligencer (Franklin, Fayette, Columbia). Missouri Register (Booneville). Missouri State Journal (Columbia). Missouri Statesman (Columbia). Lexington Express. Saturday Morning Visitor (Waverly and St. Thomas). Weekly Tribune (Liberty). Weekly Times (Glasgow).

SECONDARY SOURCES Anderson, Hattie M. “Evolution of a Frontier Society in Missouri, 1815–1828.” Missouri Historical Review 32 (April 1928): 298–326. ———. “Frontier Economic Problems in Missouri, 1815–1828, Part I,” Missouri Historical Review 34 (October 1939): 38–70. ———. “Frontier Economic Problems in Missouri, 1815–1828, Part II,” Missouri Historical Review 34 (January 1940): 182–203. Armstrong, George D. The Christian Doctrine of Slavery. New York: Charles Scribner, 1857 Atherton, Lewis E. “Life, Labor and Society in Boone County, Missouri, 1834–1852, As Revealed in the Correspondence of an Immigrant Slave Owning Family from North Carolina, Part 2” Missouri Historical Review, 38 (July 1944): 408–29. Bellamy, Donnie B. “Free Blacks in Antebellum Missouri, 182–1860.” Missouri Historical Review 67 (January 1973): 198–226. Best, John Hardin. “Education in the Forming of the American South.” History of Education Quarterly. Spring (1996): 39–51. Blassingame, John W. The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Boles, John B. Black Southerners: 1619–1869. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1983. Crisler, Robert M. “Missouri’s ‘Little Dixie,’” Missouri Historical Review 42 (January 1948): 130–39. Dorsey, Dorothy B. “The Panic and Depression of 1837–43 in Missouri.” Missouri Historical Review 30 (January 1936): 132–61. ———. “The Panic of 1819 in Missouri,” Missouri Historical Review 29 (January 1935): 79–91. Duffner, Robert W. “Slavery in Missouri River Counties, 1820–1865,” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Missouri, 1974. Eaton, Miles W. “The Development and Later Decline of the Hemp Industry in Missouri,” Missouri Historical Review 43 (July 1949): 344–59. Elkins, Stanley. Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. Finkelstein , Barbara. “Education Historians as Mythmakers,” Review of Research in Education 18 (1992): 255–297.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

100

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

Page 100

Bibliography

Fogel, Robert W. and Engerman, Stanley L. Time on the Cross: Evidence and Methods—A Supplement. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1974. ———. Time on the Cross: Evidence and Methods: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. 2 vols. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1974. Genovese, Eugene D. Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made, New York: Random House, 1976. Green, Barbara Layeneet. “The Slavery Debate in Missouri, 1831–1855.” Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri-Columbia, 1980. Gutman, Herbert. The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750–1925. New York: Pantheon Books, 1976. Gutman, Herbert. Slavery and the Numbers Game: A Critique of Time on the Cross. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975. Hall, Thomas B. “John Sappington” Missouri Historical Review 24 (January 1930): 177–99. Hazlett, James A. “The Troubles of the Circuit Rider,” Missouri Historical Review, 39 July (1945): 421–37. Hill, Leslie Gamblin. “A Moral Crusade: The Influence of Protestantism of Frontier Society in Missouri.” Missouri Historical Review, 45 (October 1950): 16–34. Hurt, R. Douglas. Agriculture and Slavery in Little Dixie. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992. King, Wilma. Stolen Childhood: Slave Youth in Nineteenth-Century America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995. Kolchin, Peter. American Slavery, 1619–1877. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993. ———. “Reevaluating the Antebellum Slave Community: A Comparative Perspective.” Journal of American History 70 (1983): 579–601. Lee, George R. “Slavery and Emancipation in Lewis County, Missouri.” Missouri Historical Review 65 (April 1971): 294–317. McGettigan, James William, Jr. “Boone County Slaves: Sales, Estate Divisions and Families, 1820–1865, Part 1.” Missouri Historical Review 72 (January 1978): 176–97. ———. “Boone County Slaves: Sales, Estate Divisions and Families, 1820–1865, Part II.” Missouri Historical Review 72 (April 1978): 271–95. March, David. “The Admission of Missouri,” Missouri Historical Review 65 (July 1971). McAnally, David R. History of Methodism in Missouri. St. Louis: Advocate Publishing House, 1881. Merkel, Benjamin G. “The Abolition Aspects of Missouri’s Antislavery Controversy, 1819–1865.” Missouri Historical Review 44 (April 1950): 232–53. ———. The Antislavery Controversy in Missouri, 1819–1865. St. Louis: Washington University Press, 1942. Oakes, James. The Ruling Race: A History of American Slaveholders. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982. Oberholzer, Emil. “The Legal Aspects of Slavery in Missouri.” Bulletin of the Missouri Historical Society 6 (January 1950): 139–61.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

Bibliography

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

Page 101

101

Owens, Leslie H. This Species of Property: Slave Life and Culture in the Old South. New York, 1976. Phillips, Ulrich B. American Negro Slavery: A Survey of the Supply, Employment and Control of Negro Labor as Determined by the Plantation Regime. Baton Rouge, 1966. ———. Life and Labor in the Old South. Boston, 1963. Rawick, George P. The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography. Arkansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Oregon and Washington Narratives, Vol. 2. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1977. ———. The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography: Arkansas Narratives Part 7, and Missouri Narratives. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing, 1972. Scarpino, Philip V. “Slavery in Callaway County, Missouri: 1845–1855, Part I,” Missouri Historical Review 71 (October 1976): 22–43. ———. “Slavery in Callaway County Missouri: 1845–1855, Part II” Missouri Historical Review 71 (April 1977): 266–83. Schroeder, Walter A. “Spread of Settlement in Howard County, Missouri, 1810–1859.” Missouri Historical Review 63 (October 1968): 1–37. Schwartz, Marie Jenkins. Born in Bondage: Growing Up Enslaved in the Antebellum South. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. Shackelford, Thomas. “Early Recollections of Missouri,” Missouri Historical Review 2 (April 1903): 1–19. Shoemaker, Floyd C. “David Barton, John Rice Jones, and Edward Bates: Three Missouri State and Statehood Founders.” Missouri Historical Review 65 (July 1971): ———. Missouri’s Struggle for Statehood, 1804–1821, Jefferson City: The Hugh Stephens Printing Co., 1926. ———. “Missouri’s Tennessee Heritage.” Missouri Historical Review 49 (January 1955): 127–42. Stampp, Kenneth M. The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. New York: Vintage Books, 1956. Trexler, Harrison A. Slavery in Missouri, 1804–1865. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1914. Urban, Wayne J. “History of Education: A Southern Exposure.” History of Education Quarterly 21 (Summer 1981): 131–145. Voelker, Frederick E. “Ezekiel Williams of Boon’s Lick,” Missouri Historical Society Bulletin, 7 (October 1951): 17–51. Webber, Thomas L. Deep Like the Rivers: Education in the Slave Quarter Community, 1831–1865. New York: WW Norton, 1978. White, Deborah Gray. Ar’n’t I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South. New York: Norton, 1985. Wiggins, David K. “The Play of Slave Children in the Plantation Communities of the Old South, 1820–60.” In Growing Up in America: Children in Historical Perspective edited by N. Ray Hiner and Joseph M. Hawes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985.

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

Page 102

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

Page 103

Index

A Abolitionism, 45–47 Adams, J.H., 35 African religion, 49 Alabama, 24, 58 Antebellum period, 3, 32, 33, 40, 82 abolitionists in, 46 and Little Dixie, 2, 3, 18–19, 21, 25–26, 46 black preachers in, 58 family farm, 29 population description, 12, 22 research on, 3–10 slave community, 43 slave families in, 63–66, 71–79 slave food supply, 36 slave hiring, 69 slave selling, 34 southern culture, 3, 22 westward expansion, 25 Apprentices, 38 Arrow Rock, 37 Atkinson, James, 69 Atkinson, Thomas, 69 Aull, James, 34 Austin, John, 73,

Blackbelt, 24 Black preachers, 54, 58 Blacksmith, 44 Blassingame, John, 66 Boles, John, 30, 54, 55, 59 Boone County, 3 demographics, 20–24 freed slaves, 33 punishments, 40–42 religion, 51, 55, 60 runaway slaves, 38 slave families, 70 slave hiring, 26, 43, 44, 67 slave trade, 34, 35, 66, 70 slave treatment, 35 wills, 33, 71 Boone, Daniel, 1, 51 Boone, Nathan, 1 Boone’s Lick Country, 1, 11–13, 15–17 Booneville, 1, 42 Bricklayers, 44 Brooks, Charles T., 67 Brown, William Wells, 73, 81 Bruce, H.C., 34, 36, 38, 44, 54 Bruner, Richard, 42, 56, 76, 79 Butlington, Charles, 32, 56, 61

B

C

Bailyn, Bernard, 2 Bear Creek Christian Church, 55, 60 Bell Air, 56 Bently, Thomas, 33 Best, John Hardin, 3, 81 Bethel Baptist Church, 54, 58, 61 Bibb, Henry, 72

Callaway County, 3 demographics, 20–24 medical attention, 37 religion, 58, 59, 60 slave hiring, 43, 44, 67, 69 wills, 33, 65 Camp meetings, 53–54, 55, 56–57, 58, 59, 61

103

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

Page 104

104 Carroll, Henry, 17 Cattle, 14 Cave, Henry, 67 Cedar Creek Baptist Church, 59, 60 Chariton County, 35, 44, 52, Cholera, 68 Christianity, 49, 54, 58–59, 61, 83 Civil War, 26, 60, 73 Clarkson, Henry M., 65 Clay County, 3 children, slave, 75 demographics, 20–24 families, 35 religion, 52, 56 slave hiring, 44 Clay, Peter, 75 Clergymen, 12 Cleveland, J.T., 43 Coats, William, 52–53 Columbia, 26, 32, 34, 40, 41, 55, 57, 58, 68, 74 Columbia Baptist Church, 55, 58 Community, 3, 7, 8, 9, 63, 79 broadened slave community, 42–47, 73, 82, 84 discipline, 76 marriages, slave, 64–72, 75 religion and the development of, 49–61 Cooper, Captain Sarshall, 14 Cooper County, 3, 19 abolitionism, 46 demographics, 20–24 families, 70, 71 master-slave relations, 32 overseers, 30 religion, 54, 56, 61 slave hiring, 43 slave trade, 35, 39 Concentration camps, 7 Concord Church, 53 Congress, United States, 16, 17 Craddock, Ed, 37, 42, 73 Craghead, J.M., 68 Crawford, 44 Cremin, Lawrence, 2

D Davis, Simon R., 44 Deep South, 3, 5, 11, 36 churches, 54 comparative population, 19–23, 29, 43

Index cotton manufacturing, 25 cotton production, 25 demographic trends, 22–24 hemp production, 26 hemp purchasing, 26 overseers, 30 plantations, 3, 5, 11, 19, 22, 24, 29, 43, 74 plantation society, 23–24, 29 religion, 54 slave families, 70, 74 slave purchase, 70 slave traders, 34–35 slave trading, 34–35 Diarrhea, 68 Douglas, Frederick, 1, 36, 63, 75 Duggins, Dean D., 77, 78

E Education advertised, 16 characteristics of Little Dixie, 27 children’s, slave, 80 family farm, 29, 82 history of, 2–10, 81–84 of slaves, 38, 54 religious, slaves, 51, 61, 82–83 tobacco farming, 25 Elkins, Stanley, 7 Ellis, John, 41 Emancipation Proclamation, 6 European Markets, 25

F Fayette, 19 Fayette County, 41 Finkelstein, Barbara, 2, 81, 82 Flint, Timothy, 14–15 Florida, 24 Forbis, George B., 74 Fulton Telegraph, 43, 44

G Garnett, John, 43 Genovese, Eugene, 49–50 Gilliam, Judge, 80 Glasgow Weekly Times, 46 Gordon, David, 33 Grand Prairie Baptist Church, 58, 60 Great Revival, 51 Gutman, Herbert, 63–65

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

Page 105

Index H Hardeman, Glen O., 33, 65 Harris, John, 45 Hawley, J.E., 57 Hemp, 13, 24, 26–27, 42, 82 Henderson, Isabelle, 75, 76, 77, 80, 83 Higgerson, Joe, 70–71 Hill, John, 43 Hiring, slave advertising, 43 children, 70 contracts, 67 deep-south, 30, 43 families, 66–67, 74, 80 for extra money, 26, 67, 69 master-slave relationship, 63, 68, 69 southern society, 69, 82 Hogs, 14, 37 Horses, 14 Houston, Thomas, 71 Howard County, 3 anti-slavery movement, 45–46 birth-rate, 71 demographics, 20–24 families, 73 freed slaves, 33 marriage, 74 master-slave relationship, 45 medical attention, 37 religion, 54 slave hiring, 44 slave trade, 35 wills, 66

I Interstate 70, 3 Iowa, 19 Ish, William, 42 Itinerant ministers, 12, 51–60, 82

J Johnson, Thomas, 33

K Kaestle, Carl, 2 Kansas, 2, 19 Kansas-Nebraska Act, 2 Katz, Michael, 2 Kentucky, 1, 12, 16, 18, 24, 29, 32, 72 King, Wilma, 8, 9 Kirtley, James, 66

105 Kolchin, Peter, 8, 31, 39, 77

L Lafayette County, 3 churches, 54 demographics, 20–24 literacy, 38 slave hiring, 43 slave trading, 34, 35 Lanius, Jacob, 52, 58 Larceny, 40 Lenoir, Walter, 30, 32, 43, 44, 67, 68 Lenoir, William, 26, 32 Leonard, Abiel, 19, 44, 68, 74 Leonard, Nathaniel, 30, 37, 44 Lexington, 41, 54, 78 Literacy, slave, 38, 54 Little Bonne Femme Baptist Church, 55 Louisiana, 1, 24, 35, 70

M Malaria, 37 Manumission, 33 Marriage, slave, 9 ceremony, 73 cross-farm marriages, 73–75 forced separations, 75 Missouri law, 73 research on, 64–66 slave views, 72 Marshall, 42, 77 Maryland, 75 Massey Iron Works, 44 Master-slave relationship, 2, 3, 82 and family farms, 29–47 and religion, 51–55 and slave families, 63–80 research on, 3–9 Maupin, Walter C., 41 McLean, William B., 37 Mississippi, 24 Mississippi River, 1, 18 Missourians, 2, 15 Missouri Intelligencer, 15, 16, 34, 35, 43, 45, 51 Missouri River, 14, 69 Missouri State Legislature, 25, 38, 46 Missouri Statesman, 41, 74 Missouri Supreme Court, 31 Missouri Territory growth, 11

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

Page 106

106 immigrants, 13 missionaries, 11–15 Mitchell, Charles, 42 Mount Pisgah Church, 54 Mount Pleasant Baptist Association, 53 Mount Pleasant Church, 54 Mount Zion Church, 54 Mullins, Leroy, 60

N Napper, Henry, 73 Napton, Melinda, 31, 37 Napton, William, 31, 37 Native Americans, 14 Naturalization, 19 Navy, United States, 27 Nelson, 42 New England textile mills, 35 New Orleans, 25 North America, 1 North Carolina, 67

O Overseers, 6, 30–31

P Panic of 1819, 11, 18, 19 Parish, Peter J., 69 Paternalism, 32 Paternalistic attitudes of masters, 5, 8, 33, 36, 39, 42, 50, 65, 68, 71, 82 Patterson, Delicia, 39, 42 Patterson, Nicholas, 11, 12–13 Peck, John Mason, 12–14, 51–53 Pig, Renurd, 60 Plantations, 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 19, 46, 54, 74, 82, 84 comparison, 22–24, 31 interaction between master-slave, 29, 43 research, 50 Pork, 82 Price, Robert B., 32 Punishment, of slaves, 6, 8, 9, 39–41, 50, 60, 76, 82

Q Quinine Pills, 37

R Roanoke, 74

Index Robinson, John, 44 Robiou, Louis, 43 Rocheport, 74 Runaway slaves, 38, 74 Russian hemp manufacturers, 27

S Salem Church, 52, 53 Saline County, 3, 19 Children, 77, 79–80 demographics, 20–24 extended families, 75–76 families, 73 master-slave relations, 36 medical attention, 37 overseers, 31 punishment, 42 religion, 56, 58, 61, 83 slave trade, 35 wills, 33, 65 Sappington, John R., 37 Saturday Morning Visitor, 40 Scarpino, Phillip, 37, 65 Schwartz, Marie Jenkins 9, 78 Shakelford, Thomas, 45, 73–74 Sheep, 14 Slave breeding, 71–72 Slave codes, 40 Slave owners, 2, 3, 5–9, 50, 82, 83 and overseers, 6, 30–31 and slave families, 70–80 death of, 33, 66 defense of slavery, 22–24, 27 hiring out slaves, 43–45, 65–69 interaction with slaves, 5, 19, 29–32 paternalistic attitudes of, 32–42, 54–56, 65–67, 70–76 punishment of slaves, 39–42, 60 selling slaves, 34–35 slave literacy, 38 willing of slaves, 33–34, 65–66 Slave patrols, 46, Slave quarters, 19, 44, 46, 50, 75 Smith, Thomas, 52–53 Smith, William, 37 Squatters, 11, 12, 51 South Carolina, 24 Southern Culture, 3, 27 and historians, 8–13, 81 development in Little Dixie, 2–6 master-slave relationship, 32, 82

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

Page 107

Index Stampp, Kenneth, 6, 7 St. Charles, 14 St. Louis, 13, 25, 35, 72 Stone masons, 44 Sunday church services, 53, 54, 55–58, 61, 83

107 southern culture, 18–19, 22

V Vigilantes, 41 Virginia, 1, 29, 31, 32, 38, 54 Voodooism, 54

T

W

Tennessee, 1, 12, 16, 18, 24, 31, 32, 43 Tobacco, 13, 24, 25–26, 76, 82 Todd, David, 40 Trexler, Harrison, 30, 32, 73 Typhoid fever, 37

Wagon Trains, 15 Warden, Elijah, 66 Waverly, 26, 40 Webber, Thomas, 7, 8, 29, 84 Weddings, slave, 73 White, John R., 35, 70 Wiggington, Roger, 60 Wiggins, David K., 79 Williams, Ezekiel, 44 Wills, 33, 65, 70–71 Wilson, John, 45 Wilson, Joseph, 38, 78 Wright, Leland, 74

U Underground church, 55 Upper south comparisons, 23 hemp industry, 26 immigrants, 11–13, 16 research on, 3–6

94544_Stone_12_22.qxp

12/22/2005

10:11 AM

Page 108