Week 30: The Whim of the Court - A Look at Jacob, Stacy, Lett; March & Peter; Jeffrey & Peter

In Shenandoah County chancery cases, there are three cases of barn burning, in which enslaved individuals - Jacob, Stacy, and Lett - were charged during different years from 1796 to 1806.  

Jacob, a "mulatto man slave" (Shenandoah County's Order Book 1795-1798, p.157) was charged in March 1796 with burning a barn. Those at court found him not guilty and diverted a charge to someone else. This other person was a man of European descent and although he had to pay a fine, he was not harmed in any other way. 

Stacy, "a negro slave" (Order Book 1799-1802, p.96), was charged with burning a barn on March 31, 1800. She was released as not guilty, which was also her plea.

Lett, "a slave the property of L.B. charged with feloniously Burning a barn belonging to W.L. at the Courthouse this 9th day of June 1806" (Minute Book 1806-1810, p.29), pleaded "not guilty." Sufficient evidence allowed her to go free, as it did for Jacob and Stacy above - some of the few instances of justice in Shenandoah County's circuit court system when enslaved individuals were involved.

But, the point is that the rulings in regard to enslaved African Americans and free mulattos are not consistent. Throughout the chancery cases, a majority of the public lashings and hangings noted in the records are in relation to people of color. The same crimes would only warrant a monetary fine for people of European descent and very often (as we will see next week), they weren't even held in custody of the sheriff between trials.

Other cases show a very different story.

March and Peter, who were both described as a "negro man slave" (Shenandoah County Minute Book 1781-1785, p.158) but of two different men in Orange County and as "prisoners" (p.158), were tried in Shenandoah County on "Stealing of a Peticoat and other articles..." (p.158) of three men of European descent and who were not their owners. March pleaded "not guilty" and Peter pleaded "guilty." The Court found both men guilty and weighed their decision thus: "the said March receive on his [bare] back Thirty lashes well laid on and that the said Peter receive on his [bare] back twenty lashes well laid on at the Publick Whiping Post (spelling as is) and that the Sheriff execute the same" (p.158). Why were their punishments different? Did our court give an extra ten lashes to March because we thought he was lying?

Jeffrey, "a Negroe man slave the property of W.Y. of the County of Culpeper... stands charged with the killing of Peter a negroe man slave the property of I.S. of this county" (Shenandoah County Order Book 1795-1798, p. 415). More specifically, the charge states: "Jeffrey... on the 8th day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety seven, and within the Jurisdiction of the County of Shenandoah with force and arms, then and there being feloniously wilfully and of his malice afore-thought, did make an assault upon one Peter... then and there being in the peace of God and of the Commonwealth, and the said Jeffrey with a Billet of Wood ... of the value of one cent which he the said Jeffrey then and there held in his right hand beat, bruised and wounded the said Negroe Peter on the head of which said beating, bruising and wounding the said Peter died in two days, afterwards..." (p. 415) and thus, according to the court, Jeffrey "did kill and murder the said Negroe Peter, against the Peace and dignity of the Commonwealth" (p. 415).

Jeffrey claimed he was "in no wise guilty of the crime aforesaid" (p. 415). The trial of general assembly was the usual method of such cases, as has been seen in previous posts (see Week 28: The Loss of Fortune for the most similar case), and as such, Jeffrey "putteth himself upon the Court" (p. 415). After listening to Jeffrey's testimony, the Court found him not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter, which is commonly defined as the unlawful killing of another human being without intent, malice, or forethought. He was punished by being burned on the hand, and given twenty-five lashes on his bare back well laid on at the Publick Whipping Post.

The point of perusing these cases is to recognize the inconsistency and harshness of punishments used against African Americans; the visibility of these punishments to people in the community at a public whipping post, most likely located in front of the courthouse in downtown Woodstock, VA; as well as to remind us that the testimony of African Americans was always secondary to that of European Americans. There is no way a court would charge a "White" man unless a "White" man brought him forward. In Shenandoah County, the word of a "Black" man was only good for his own person, and usually not even good enough for himself in the eyes of the Court, which would have required verified testimony from "White" men. For example, the September 16, 1806 Virginia Herald notes in a Virginia case that "some of the strongest testimony exhibited before the called court and before the grand jury, was kept back" because "it was gleaned from the evidence of negroes, which is not permitted by our laws to go against a white man" (Vol 20, No 1572, p. 2). 

These aspects of our county's history are pertinent to decisions related to the public that we make today. It's imperative to remember all of the past so that we can do better in the future: sowing spaces with equality and justice for all community members, especially in those spaces where once these qualities were missing.