A Profile of Runaway Slaves in Virginia and South Carolina from 1730 through 1787

Lathan A. Windley

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781317777731
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

First published in 1996. Lathan Algerna Windley's study, A Profile of Runaway Slaves in Virginia and South Carolina from 1730 through 1787, has informed and influenced dozens of scholars of slavery and African American culture.

Chapter 1

The Legal Setting

In the eighteenth century, thousands of slaves ran away from owners in Virginia and South Carolina as evidenced by the many runaway slave advertisements. The following is a typical example:

RUN AWAY from the subscriber, on the 4th of this month, a mulatto man named GEORGE, about 20 years old, about 5 feet 4 or 5 inches high, a tailor by trade; had on when he went away a lightish coloured cloth coat, and Russia drill waistcoat and breeches. He has a scar on his upper lip, occasioned by a fall, which appears something like a hairlip. I expect he has made for Carolina. I will give 50s. reward if taken in the colony, and 5£. if out thereof, besides what the law allows, to any who will deliver him to

JOHN GENTER.¹

“Indeed,” writes Winthrop D. Jordan, “the problem [or fugitives] was as old as bound labor in America.”² His considered judgment is that “probably more time, money and energy were expended on the problem of runaway slaves by white slaveowners, legislators, constables, jailers and newspaper printers than on any other aspect of administering the slave system.”³ From such notables as George Washington,⁴ Thomas Jefferson,⁵ and James Madison⁶ to the humblest masters, few slaveowners escaped the loss of slaves by their running away.

A fugitive slave presented multiple problems to an owner. He presented a problem to his master through the lose of labor and other services. Also, such a runaway slave was often a menace to the peace of the community and his running away affected not only his master but other persons who might be the victims of his depredation.⁷

The number of runaways was large enough to sap a part of the economic advantage of a slave labor force,⁸ but not to jeopardize the institution of slavery. Slaveowners in Virginia and South Carolina took precautions to prevent the problem from growing out of proportion.⁹ There was established in Virginia and South Carolina an elaborate network of laws for the prevention, apprehension and treatment of runaway slaves. This legislation developed gradually and covered a variety of areas. Although not wholly effective, as proven by the number of runaway slave advertisements, the legislation provided an interesting kind of historical evidence. While quite likely the laws did not always reflect what was actually done in Virginia and South Carolina, they did reflect what a group of wealthy planters, as legislative body, thought should have been done.¹⁰

It is the purpose of this chapter to review laws passed in Virginia and South Carolina during the eighteenth century to show the legal framework by which the runaway slave was governed.

The “Ticket” or “Pass”

In an effort to keep slaves from absconding, the physical mobility of the slave was much restricted. In Virginia, no slave was to leave his master’s plantation without a ticket.¹¹ In South Carolina, except for those slaves who wore liveries or waited on their owners, no slave was to leave his master’s plantation without consent in writing, usually a ticket, unless a white person in his company could vouch for his having permission to be away from his place of abode.¹² The ticket contained certain basic information as can be seen in the following example of the form as prescribed by the South Carolina law:

Permit this slave to be absent from the Charlestown, (or any other town or if he lives in the country, from Mr. ___ plantation, ___ parish) for ___ days or hours, dated ___ day of ___.¹³

Inevitably this legislation designed to restrict the movement of slaves and to determine if they were runaways, also restricted the movement of free negroes, the presumption in the South being that every black man must be a slave. The color of the black man’s skin not only provided a means of tracing him, “but also made him liable at any moment to questioning and arrest.”¹⁴ When the status of a black man was questioned or in doubt, the burden of proof was left upon him to show that he was free. In discord with the English principle of law which provided that “every man be regarded as innocent till his guilt is established by the evidence, a free negro taken up and deprived of his liberty as being a slave had, in order to procure his release, to produce evidence that he was not a slave.”¹⁵ One means by which this could be done was to produce a certificate of freedom.

Any free black, suspected of being a fugitive though professing to be free, was held in custody and in the end, in default of proof of being free, and of master’s claims, might be sold into slavery by the authorities at the public auction. Eighteenth-century newspapers carried several examples of negroes being detained while claiming to be free. Note the following example:

COMMITTED to Norfolk county jail, on the 10th of September last, a slim negro man, who says his name is WILLIAM PARROT, that he is a freeman, and he was born about a mile from Williamsburg; he is about 6 feet 2 inches high. His owner (if any) is desired to take him away, and pay charges.

SAMUEL PORTLOCK, Jailer¹⁶

Not only was the free negro subject to being taken up, questioned and detained as a slave, but he was also subject to being kidnapped by unscrupulous persons and carried away to be sold as a slave. While there were laws in Virginia and South Carolina to prevent the stealing of slaves,¹⁷ there were no laws, during the years covered by this study, against the kidnapping or stealing of free blacks.¹⁸

The slave was detained and found to be without a ticket was, as aforesaid, suspected of being a runaway. He was thereupon subjected to various punishments, usually in the form of a whipping. For instance, in Virginia, laws before 1785 provided that runaway slaves be whipped by a constable, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes.¹⁹ A law in 1785 provided that a justice of the peace could order punishment of stripes or not, at his discretion.²⁰ In South Carolina, a slave caught without either a ticket or a white person in his company, was to be given twenty lashes.²¹ In some instances, slaveowners gave specific instructions as to the treatment of their runaways. For example, Henry Armistead of Caroline County, Virginia, in 1745, specified that his runaways, Will and Peter, be given twenty lashes by each constable with whom they came in contact.²² On other instances, slaveowners advertised that if their runaways would return, they would be pardoned. One such case was that of Thomas Whitesides of South Carolina who advertised that if his two slaves, Jemmy and Athy, would return home they would be pardoned, and further, would be given tickets to look for a new master.²³

It was unlawful for owners and oversees to kill by excessive punishment any slave who had run away. A case in point was that of Andrew Bourne, an overseer of a plantation in Virginia, who was so angered by a slave who had run away often that when the fugitive was last brought home, he gave him such immoderate punishment that the slave died from it, for which a jury found Bourne guilty of murder.²⁴

South Carolina not only punished slaves caught without a ticket, but also penalized persons apprehending a slave without a ticket who neglected to punish him by giving him a whipping. In such cases, the person had to forfeit twenty shillings, one half of which went to the poor (i.e., the public treasury) and the other half to the informer.²⁵

Any person presuming to give a slave a ticket in the name of his master, without the consent of the said master, was also penalized. However, the unauthorized writing of passes for slaves was quite common throughout the eighteenth century. As one historian has remarked, “the greatest forgery problem in eighteenth-century Virginia continued to be forged passes used by runaway slaves and indentured servants.”²⁶ As late as 1795, Ishmael Lawrence was indicated and found guilty of feloniously forging, uttering and disturbing freedom passes to slaves, and was fined ten dollars.²⁷

Persons endeavoring to take a runaway or examine any slave for his ticket could beat, maim, assault and even kill such a slave if he refused to show his ticket or resisted or ran away to avoid being apprehended.²⁸ In 1748, Agnes McElroy of South Carolina petitioned the commons House of Assembly, stating that one of her two slaves absented himself from his duties about sixteen days, resolving that he would not be taken alive. Unfortunately, when an attempt was made to take the said slave, he was shot dead. The loss, according to the petitioner, was a burden inasmuch as she was a widow stricken in years, with two children and much in debt, and was incapable of making a living for the future. She asked that she can be granted relief in her present distress. Her petition was refused on the grounds that it was lawful for any person to kill a slave if he ran away, or resisted to avoid being apprehended.²⁹

Any individual who was injured or disabled in pursuing or taking any runaway slave was to be paid by the public.³⁰ John Pagett of South Carolina presented a petition on April 27, 1...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables Comprising the Appendix
• Acknowledgments
• Editor’s Introduction
• Introduction
• 1. The Legal Setting
• 2. The Fugitive As a Physical Specimen
• 3. The Fugitive’s Degree of Acculturation
• 4. Fugitive Demeanor and Discourse
• 5. Flight and Destination
• 6. The Development of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitutional Convention
• 7. Summary and Conclusions
• Appendix: Tables
• Bibliography
• Index