slave owning churches in virgina

8/22/2019 Slave Owning Churches in Virgina

1/35

"The W orst Kind of Slavery":Slave-Owning Presbyterian Churches inPrince Edward County, Virginia

By JENNIFER OAST

I N 1851 PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER WILLIAM HILL LOOKED BACK OVER HIS LONGlife of service to his faith and wrote his autobiography. Hill spent partof his ministry at Briery Presbyterian Church in Prince Edward County,Virginia, between 1834 and 1836. In the autobiography, he recountedthat his time at Briery was so brief because of "the state of slavery,as connicted with this cong'n. Their minister was supported by a fundwhich consisted of Slaves, who were hired out from year to year, to thehighest bidder, which I considered the worst kind of slavery."' BrieryPresbyterian Church had been an institutional owner of slaves since the1760s. As Hill lamented, the congregation annually hired out its slavesat auction. This variant of slavery was particularly difficult for theBriery slaves because they were hired out every year of their lives, frombirth to death, often to different masters; slaves owned by individualswere also hired out but rarely for their entire lifetime. Further, becausethe Briery slaves were owned by a congregation rather than an individ-ual, they lacked the basic protections that a master's self-interest usu-ally brought. In an era when many southernersand the PresbyterianChurch leadership in particularvigorously defended slavery withimages of benign slaveholders protecting the bondpeople, the slaves ofBriery Presbyterian Church had no such paternal, identifiable master.

Hill was not the only one to consider slaveholding by congrega-tions "the worst kind of slavery." Many other Presbyterian minis-ters and church members felt uncomfortable about slave owning bytheir churches, even while defending slavery itself as an institution

' William Hill, Autobiographical Sketches of Dr. William Hill Together with His Account of theRevival of Religion in Prince Edward County . . . (Richmond, 1968), 98. The author is grateful


2/35

868 T H E J O U R N A L O F S O U T H E R N H I ST O R Ysanctioned by God as part of the natural, hierarchical order of humandomestic relations. Slavery was, however, so deeply embedded inPresbyterian culture in the American South by the antebellum periodthat it was very hard for churches to rid themselves of the pracdce.Slave ownership by congregations was profitable; it paid the minis-ter's salary and provided for other needs of the church. In many casesthe slaves were the only endowment the congregation required. Thisfreed members from the necessity of making financial contributionsto their churcha substandal benefit. Slaves were a good invest-ment; they often improved on the original outlay through childbear-ing, so that in a few generations, a humble purchase of a handful ofslaves might result in a substantial endowment of forty or fifty slaves.Congregational slave owning made all members of the church benefi-ciaries of slavery whether or not they owned slaves themselves or evenapproved of slavery.

For these reasons, slave owning by Presbyterian churches in an tebel-lum Virginia created a paradox by simultaneously strengthening andweakening slavery. On the one hand, the practice strengthened the com-mitment of whites to the slave regime both econom ically and ph ilosoph-ically. First, it increased the number of individuals who were economicbeneficiaries of slavery to include all the members of the congrega-don. Second, it bolstered the members' willingness to accept slavery: ifGod prospered their church's investment in slaves and used slavery topromote the Presbyterian faith, could slavery be wrong? On the otherhand, Presbyterian slave owning undermined one of the most signif-icant defenses of slaverythe paternalist ideal of the caring master.Thoughtful church members recognized this contradiction.

This study of Presbyterian congregations in Prince Edward County,Virginia, examines how the tensions evident in this paradox playedout. After tracing the congregations' policies and somedmes conten-dous debates from the 1760s to the 18 40s, the article details how hiringout affected Briery slaves in the 1840s. They succeeded in maintainingsome family des in spite of separadon, high infant mortality, and fre-quent moves among hirers whose temperament and social class variedwidely. Nevertheless, slave owning by churches could truly be called


3/35

SLAVE-OWNING CHURCHES IN VIRGINIA 869Davies, who visited Prince Edward County in the 1750s.^ As there w erefew Presbyterian ministers in Virginia before the American Revolution,congregations competed with each other for the scarce supply ofclergy. One way to attract a minister was to offer a competitive andstable salary, but coming up with the funds often proved difficult. Inthe decades before the American Revolution, religious dissenters likethe Presbyterians were still required to tithe to their Anglican par-ish. The parish vestry employed these tithes to support the minister ofthe Church of England, maintain the parish churches, and care for thepoor, but nothing was set aside to support dissenting groups. To find asolution to their church's financial constraints, Presbyterians, many ofwhom were slave owners, looked to their own experience as well as tothe example of other early V irginia institutions that held slaves, such asthe Anglican Church and free schools.^ In 1766, less than a decade afterthe congregation had coalesced in the late 1750s, the leaders of BrieryPresbyterian Church decided to raise money through a subscription topurchase slaves. They expected that the annual hire of these church-owned slaves and their progeny w ould pay the ministe r's salary and fundother needs of the church, such as building maintenance.'' NeighboringCum berland Presbyterian Church did the sam e one year later.^

When Briery chose to invest in slaves, the congregation appointedthree trustees, each to serve seven years, to raise funds to purchasesix slaves. The trustees were directed to buy three women and threemen, "these slaves & their increase [to] be in the care of the Trustees toraise money forever hereafter, for the benefit of a regular Presbyterianminister."^ A list dated October 18, 1766, reveals that seventy-two indi-viduals, most of whom were members of the congregation but a few of

^Herbert Clarence Bradshaw, History of Prince E dward County, V irginia: Erom Its EarliestSettlements Through Its Establishment in 1754 to Its Bicentennial Year (Richmond, 1955),74-76 .' A discussion of slave ownership by the Anglican Church and free schools in Virginia is foundin Jennifer Bridges Oast, "Forgotten Masters; Institutional Slavery in Virginia, 1680-1860" (Ph.D.dissertation. College of William and Mary, 2008), chaps. 1, 3. Other works that have looked at theintersection of religious institutions and their slaves include Jon Sensbach, A Separate Canaan:The Making of an Afro-Moravian World in North Carolina, 1763-1840 (Chapel Hill, 1998); andR. Emmett Curran, S.J., '"Splendid Poverty'; Jesuit Slaveholding in Maryland, 1805-1838," in


4/35

870 T H E J O U R N A L O E S O U T H E R N H I ST O R Ywhom were not (but may have been adherents of the faith who had notyet been baptized), promised sums ranging from 10 shillings to 50 ;altogether, these seventy-two donors contributed 3 0 8 .'According to the first extant list of the slaves bought using this fund,dated November 8, 1774, the first person the congregation purchasedwas Nell, a woman in her mid-twenties at the time she was boughtfor 67.10 on February 16, 1768, together with John, a one-year-oldwho was almost certainly Nell's son. A few months later, the trusteespurchased Tom, a boy who was about eleven years old, for 55.00.The congregation subsequently purchased two more women, Agga andAtha, each judged to be about twenty years old in 1774.* Although theoriginal plan called for the trustees to purchase three men and threewomen, these five slavesthree adult women, a youth, and a babywere probably the only slaves the congregation ever purchased. Fromthis small group, however, the Briery congregation reaped the profits ofmany dozens of laborers until slavery was abolished almost a centurylater.

Briery was fortunate that its three slave women bore several children.The list of slaves from 1774, made only six years after the first bond-people were purchased by the congregation, shows that the wom en hadgiven birth to four sons during those half dozen years: London and Scipioin 1772 and Isham and Tom in 1774. Later notations document fourmore births in the following years: Bob in 17 7 5, Am ey in 17 7 7 , Nancyin 1779, and Jamey in 1781 . ' If these bondwomen were already beinghired out annually, as their descendants would be, it would have beendifficult for them to maintain stable relationships with their spouses, yetthese wom en managed to have children. Their fecundity made B riery'sinvestment profitable. The congregation received immediate incomefrom the hire of its slaves, while at the same time the enslaved women,through childbearing, provided a sound economic base for the next gen-eration of Presbyterian church m em bers.

Another sign of Presbyterian slave owning's profitability is that itwas practiced by several Presbyterian congregations in Prince EdwardCounty over a period of several decades. Besides Briery there wasCumberland Presbyterian Church, founded in 1754, whose congrega-


5/35

S L A V E - O W N I N G C H U R C H E S IN VIRGINIA 871p u r c h a s e s l a v e s , th e n e i g h b o r i n g C u m b e r l a n d c o n g r e g a t io n f o l l o w e ds u i t. I n D e c e m b e r 176 7 i ts m e m b e r s g a v e a f ew h u n d r e d p o u n d s to in v e s ti n l a nd a n d s l a v e s to s u p p o r t a m i n i s t e r . ' " I n a d d i t io n . C o l o n e l S a m u e lV e n a b l e a n d a n o th e r c h u r c h l e a d e r d o n a te d t w o y o u n g s l a v e w o m e n f o rt h e c o n g r e g a t i o n ' s b e n e f i t . T h e i r e n s l a v e d d e s c e n d a n t s q u i c k l y g r e w ton u m b e r i n th e d o z e n s ; C u m b e r l a n d C h u r c h r e c o r d e d fo r ty - e ig h t s l a v e sb e t w e e n 1 7 8 8 a n d 1 8 2 3 . "

A n o t h e r n e a r b y P r e s b y t e r i a n c o n g r e g a t i o n , F a r m v i l l e P r e s b y t e r i a n ,w a s n o t o r g a n i z e d u n t i l 1 8 2 8 , b u t i t, to o , f o l l o w e d th e l o c a l c u s t o mo f i n s t i t u t i o n a l s l a v e o w n i n g . I n a n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e c e l e b r a t i n g th ec h u r c h ' s c e n te n n i a l . J u d g e N a t W a t k i n s r e c a l l e d th a t " F a r m v i l l e C h u r c ho w n e d t w o f e m a l e s l a v e s , w h o w e r e d o n a te d b y a r ic h g e n t l e m a n o f th ev i c i n i t y , a n d t h e y w e r e h i r e d o u t , w i t h th e p r i c e o f t h e i r l a b o r g o i n g toth e c h u r c h . " T h e a r ti c l e a l s o m e n t i o n e d th e A f r ic a n A m e r i c a n m e m b e r so f t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n : " t h e g a l l e r y r a n a c r o s s t h e r e a r w h i c h w a s r e a c h e db y s t e p s g o i n g u p o n t h e i n s i d e o f th e b u i l d i n g a n d t h e s l a v e s o c c u p i e dt h i s l o c a t i o n . " ' ^ I r o n i c a l l y , e n s l a v e d m e m b e r s o f th e F a r m v i l l e c o n g r e -g a t i o n w e r e in th i s s m a l l s e n s e th e i n d i r e c t b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f s l a v e r y .

B r i e r y P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h r e c o r d s a l s o i n d i c a t e t h a t w h i l e s e v e r a ls la v e s w e r e m e m b e r s o f th e c h u r c h i n th e e i g h t e e n t h c e n tu r y , i n t h e n i n e -te e n t h c e n tu r y m a n y f e w e r b l a c k s j o i n e d . B r i e r y w a s n o t a l o n e a m o n gP r e s b y t e r i a n c o n g r e g a t i o n s i n t h i s r e g a r d ; b y t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r ym a n y b l a c k V i r g i n i a n s w e r e c h o o s i n g B a p t i s t a n d M e t h o d i s t c h u r c h e si n s t e a d . ' ^ O n l y t w o o f t h e s l a v e s B r i e r y o w n e d b e c a m e m e m b e r s o f th ec o n g r e g a t io n : A g n e s , w h o j o i n e d th e c h u r c h i n t he l a te 1780s , a n d E l i z .J u l ia , w h o jo i n e d t h e c h u r c h o n O c t o b e r 12 , 1 82 8 . '" N o t a b l y , t h o u g h .P r i n c e E d w a r d C o u n t y ' s S h a r o n B a p t i s t C h u r c h h a d o n i ts r o l l s s e v e r a ls l a v e s o w n e d b y t h e B r i e r y a n d C u m b e r l a n d P re s b y te r ia n c o n g r e g a -t i on s . ' ^ A l t h o u g h th e p r o p e r t y o f o n e d e n o m i n a t i o n , t h e s e s l a v e s w e r ea l l o w e d t h e f r e e d o m to w o r s h i p i n a n o t h e r .

'" E g g l e s to n , " P r e sb y t e ri a n C h u r c h e s , " 3 2 3 ." / /bW., 346.' ^ " 100 th A nn i ve r s a r y o f Loc a l P r e sby t e ri a n Ch u r c h I s He ld , " F a r m v i l le Leader, N o v e m b e r2 8, 1928, c l ipp i ng in P r e sby te r ia n Ch u r c he s Fo l d e r , Box 54, S e c t ion 30 , E g g l e s ton F am i ly P ap e r s ,


6/35

872 T H E J O U R N A L O F S O U T H E R N H I ST O R YPresbyterians could not force the slaves they owned to worshiponly with their denomination (it was not at all practical given that

the bondpeople were scattered through the hiring process each yearand under the day-to-day supervision of hirers, not church fathers).However, the fact that only two of the slaves whom Briery held choseto worship with their institutional owners implies that the church mem-bers did little to prom ote the Presbyterian faith among these slaves. Thisfact stands in stark contrast with the message that Presbyterian leadersin Virginia put forth conceming the religious requirements of Christianmasters. In the Virginia Religious Magazine, a Presbyterian publicationthat Douglas Am brose calls "[p]erhaps the most forceful evangelicalvoice promoting patem alism in early na tional Virginia," the editors fre-quently took slave owners to task for neglecting the religious instruc-tion of their slaves.'^ In 1804 the editors opined, "we would entreatparents and heads of families, seriously to consider the tmst commit-ted to them; the injuries they may do to their children and servants,by neglecting their religious instruction, the guilt they will themselvescontract by omitting their duty, and the strict account they must ren-der of their stewardship.'"'' The slave-owning congregations, in doinglittle or nothing to promote the religious life of their slaves, were notliving up to their own denomination's expectations of Christian slaveownership.

While church-owned slaves provided economic security forPresbyterian congregations, slaveholding also brought philosophicaldivision to Briery and other Presbyterian congregations in the nine-teenth century. The existence of slavery in general distressed somePresbyterians throughout the nation, particularly some ministers; how-ever, in the southem states like Virginia, most Presbyterians still whole-heartedly supported slavery. Soon after the close of the AmericanRevolution, antislavery Presbyterians attempted to fight the institutionwithin the church. In May 1787, for example, a committee at a meet-ing of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, the highest govern-ing body for the Presbyterian Church in the United States during thisperiod, urged "in the wannest terms to every member of their body andto all the Churches and families under their care, to do every thing in


7/35

S L A V E -O W N IN G C H U R C H E S IN VIRGINIA 873a b o l i d o n o f Slavery , a n d t he ins t ruc t ion o f N eg ro e s w he the r bond o rfree." '* T h e c ommi t t e e ' s p r opo s a l , how eve r , w a s d e e m e d to o s t rong .The s t a t emen t o n s lavery that the s ynod a pp r oved w a s tho rough lyw a t e r e d dow n . Wh i l e it sa lu ted " t h e gene ra l p r i nc ip l e s in favor o f un i -ve rsa l L ibe r ty tha t p reva i l in A m e r i c a ; a n d t he i n t e r e s t wh ich many o fthe States have taken in p r o m o d n g th e a b o l i d o n o f Slavery ," it ca l l edon P re sby t e r i an s on ly to prepare the i r s l aves fo r even tua l f r e edom b yeduca t i ng them a n d to give those s laves w h o s e e m e d c a p a b l e o f self-g o v e r n m e n t the oppo r tun i t y t o b u y their o w n f reedom " a t a m o d e r a t era te . " T h e r ev i s ed s t a t emen t conc luded w i th a r e c o m m e n d a d o n t h a tm e m b e r s " u s e t he mos t p ruden t measu re s cons i s t en t w i th the in te res t s& the state o f c iv i l Soc ie ty . . . t o p rocu re even tua l l y the f ina l abo l idonof S lavery in A m er ic a . " '^ I n c ap ab l e o f ca l l i ng fo r an i m m e d i a t e e n d tos lavery , the na t iona l P r e sb y t e r i an C hurch s truck a careful tone in i t s r e s -o l udo n , a t te m p t ing to app ea se bo th no r the rn a n d s ou th e r n membe r s .

In the l a te e ighteenth century , the p ro s l a v e r y movemen t w i t h i n th ePre sby t e r i an Church con t i nued to s t rengthen , pa r t i cu la r ly i n the Sou th .F o r e x a m p l e , in 1795 the church leadersh ip re fused to d i s c ip l i ne s l ave -o w n i n g m e m b e r s b u t r a t h e r a dmon i sh ed a nd s l a v e r y P r e s by t e r i a n s inK en tu c ky w h o d i d n o t w a n t to worsh ip a longs ide s l aveho lde r s to " l i vein charity a n d pe ac e" w i th each o ther de sp i te d i ffe rences ove r s lave ry .^"The conf l i c t w a s i n ev i t ab l e , though ; many i nd iv idua l s , bo th i n s ide a n dou t s ide the Sou th , ha d c o m e to be l ieve tha t s l ave ry w a s w r o n g , d u e tothe inf luenc e o f Revolu t ionary rhe tor ic tha t sa id a l l m e n w e r e e qua l , a sw e l l a s G rea t Aw ake n ing id eas tha t the sou l s o f a ll m e n a n d w o m e n w e r ee qua l l y p r e c i ou s i n the s ight o f G o d . T h e p r e s e n c e o f s l ave s a s chu rchm e m b e r s a l s o m a y have i n f l uenced many peop l e to oppose s l ave ry .Such f e e l i n g s made s l a v e - ow n i ng c ong r eg adon s p a r d cu l a r l y o f f e n -s i v e b e c au s e opponen t s o f s lavery w ho freed their o w n s l ave s migh tsti l l indirectly benefit from the i n s d t u d o n if s lave l abor sus ta ined the i rchu rches . Eve n som e P re sby t e r i an s w ho be l i eved tha t s l ave ry its e l f wa saccep t ab l e a rgued tha t cong rega t i ons shou ld n o t o w n s l a v e s b e c au s ec hu r che s , a s co r po r a t e bod i e s , c ou l d n o t p rov i d e a d equa t e c a r e fo r a n ds up e r v i s i o n o f their s laves t he w a y a m as te r p r e s um ab l y w ou l d .


8/35

874 T H E J O U R N A L O F SO U T H E R N H I ST O R YIn 1818 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church adopteda statement on slavery that carefully walked the tightrope of senti-

ment between abolitionists and proslavery mem bers of the church. Onthe one hand, the statement labeled slavery "a gross violation of themost precious and sacred rights of human nature; as utterly inconsis-tent with the law of God, which requires us to love our neighbor asourselves [Matthew 22:39] and as totally irreconcilable with the spiritand the principles of the gospel of Christ." It also called for the aboli-tion of slavery and for improving the social and econom ic conditions ofAfrican Am ericans, both free and enslaved.^' On the other hand, in thisstatement the General Assembly also advised against the harsh censureor formal discipline of slave-owning church members. The resolutionnot only showed "a tender concern for the feelings of slaveholders"but also "sought to deal with the practical difficulties of slaveholdersand expressed deep sympathy for them."^^ Concerned that immediateand total emancipation of slaves in the South would lead to chaos, thewriters of the resolution also called for gradual emancipation and pro-moted the American Colonization Society (ACS) as a possible solutionto the Sou th's problem with slavery. The General Assembly, in adop tingthe resolution, sought to please both sides in this contentious national

It is in this larger context of tension a n d indecision over slaveryin th e national Presbyterian Church that th e slave-owning congrega-t ions of Prince Edward County experienced local confl ict over slavery.Suggestively, th e first record of Briery Presbyterian's discomfort withslaveholding appears in the church 's session book o n M a rc h 20 , 1819 ,just months after the national church made its compromise-dr iven s ta te-ment o n slavery. A t a meet ing of church elders, " a motion w as m a d e tochange the fund of the con gre gatio n by the sale of the sla ves now be long-ing to it; and after some discussion i t w as determined to submit the sub-j ec t to a committee."^"* T h e arguments fo r this proposed change in th echurch endowment were n o t recorded, b u t church members m a y havebeen influenced b y the recent condemnat ion of slavery by the GeneralAssembly. However , it is important to note that a motion w as m a d e tosell th e church's slaves, no t to free them. T h e church elders were n o t


9/35

S L A V E - O W N I N G C H U R C H E S I N VI RGI N I A 875w i l l i n g to p a r t w h o l l y w i t h t h e i r v a l u a b l e e n d o w m e n t ; t h e i r i n t e r e s t i ns e l l i n g t h e s l a v e s w o u l d h a v e b e e n to r e m o v e t h e s t a i n of s l a v e o w n e r -s h i p f rom t h e c o n g r e g a d o n o r p e r h a p s to i m p r o v e t h e s l a v e s ' s t a n d a r do f l i v i ng a n d to p r o m o t e t h e i r s p i r i t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t b y t u r n i n g t h e mo v e r to C h r i s d a n m a s te r s . W h a t e v e r t h e m o d v a t i o n f o r t h e m o d o n , i tf a i l e d ; n o t h i n g w a s d o n e to c h a n g e t h e s i t u a t ion o f th e c h u r c h ' s s l a v e sa t t h a t t ime .

F o u r y e a r s l ate r , C u m b e r i a n d P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h w a s c h a l l e n g e d b ya l a r g e r c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r s l a v e r y . In 1 8 2 3 t h e R e v e r e n d J o h n D . P a x t o na c c e p t e d t h e p o s i d o n o f m i n i s te r to th e C u m b e r i a n d a n d C ol l e g e C h u r c hc o n g r e g a d o n s . P a x t o n l a t e r r e c a l l e d , " T h e c o n g r e g a t i o n o w n e d a n u m -b e r of s l a v e s , w h o w e r e h i r e d o u t a n n u a l l y , a n d th e p r o c e e d s a p p l i e dto p a y th e s a l a r y o f t h e i r p a s to r . . . . [O ]n f ind ing tha t m y s u p p o r t w a sd r a w n a l m o s t e n d r e l y f r o m t h o s e s l a v e s , fo r w h o s e i n s t r u c d o n v e r y l i t -tl e w a s d o n e , I fe l t m o r e a n d m o r e u n e a s y , a n d d e s i r e d m u c h t o d os o m e t h i n g for th e m . "^ ^ P a x t o n firs t t r i e d w i t h n o s u c c e s s t o o r g a n i z ea c h a p t e r o f th e A m e r i c a n C o l on i z a d o n S oc i e ty a m o n g th e m e m b e r s ofh i s c o n g r e g a t i o n . H i s a tte m p t s to e v e n r a i s e m o n e y fo r t h e s o c i e ty w e r er e s e n t e d b y m e m b e r s o f h i s c h u r c h , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e o n e o f h i s a i m sw a s to u s e t h e fu n d s to f r e e t h e c h u r c h ' s s l a v e s a n d s e n d t h e m to A f r i c a ,i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e m i s s i o n of the ACS.^*"

B e c a u s e o f P a x t o n ' s g o a l f o r t h e l i b e r a d o n o f t h e c o n g r e g a d o n ' ss l a v e s , c h u r c h m e m b e r s w e r e s u s p i c i o u s w h e n P a x ton fr e ed h i s o w ns l a v e s a n d s e n t t h e m t o L i b e r i a i n 1 8 2 6 . H e h a d b e c o m e a n u n w i l l i n gs l a v e h o l d e r w h e n h i s fa th e r - i n - l a w g a v e s l a v e s to P a x t o n ' s w i f e . P a x t o nk e p t t h e s l a v e s j u s t l on g e n o u g h to p r e p a r e t h e m fo r f r e e d o m a n d t h e np a i d t h e i r p a s s a g e to L i b e r i a . H e wro t e t h a t h e f e l t t h a t i t w a s h y p o c r i d -c a l fo r a m i n i s t e r t o o w n s l a v e s a n d t h a t h i s c o n g r e g a n t s w o u l d f e e l j u s -d f i e d i n o w n i n g s l a v e s i f h e d i d . T h e f r e e i n g o f h i s o w n s l a v e s m a d e i tp o s s i b l e fo r h i m to s p e a k o u t a g a i n s t s l a v e r y . ^ ' '

^' J. D . P ax ton , A Mem oir ofJ. D. Paxton, D.D., L ate of Princeton, Indiana (Ph i l ad e l ph i a , 1 870),73 . See a l s o E rn e s t T r i c e T homp son , Presbyterians in the South. Vol. I: 1607-86 ( R i c h m o n d1968), 33 7.

^ ' J . D . P ax ton , L etters on S lavery; A ddressed to the C umberland C ongregation, V irginia


10/35

876 THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORYA few months after Paxton freed his slaves, he published an anti-slavery piece in a religious newspaper called The Family Visitor. This

article was the beginning of the end of his pastoral work in the South.A few years later, in 1833, in a published letter to his former congrega-tion meant to explain his part in the contention that followed, Paxtonasserted that he preferred to publish his view on slavery rather thanpreach it from the pulpit because "[t]here were . . . usually a few slavesin our worshiping assemblies, and I thought such discussions not pru-dent before them ." He further argued that few A frican Am ericans couldread or would have access to The Family Visitor, making publicationa safe and discreet way for him to share his antislavery argument withfellow Presbyterians.^^ However, many in his congregation were upsetby the article, resulting in a request for his resignation. Pax ton sold hisland at a loss and moved north with his family, where he continuedto serve as a Presbyterian minister until his death after the Civil War.George Bourne, a Presbyterian clergyman who was barred from minis-try because of his own antislavery views, wrote that Paxton, "for com-plying with the recommendation of the General Assembly, was drivenfrom his pastoral charge amid universal hatred."^^

"Universal hatred" was not entirely correct, though; at least one ofPaxton's church members, a young Hampden-Sydney College studentnamed Jonathan Cable, was looking on with sympathy. A New Yorknative. Cable studied at Union Theological Seminary (then a part ofHam pden-Sydney) between 1828 and 1831 and was there just w hen thePaxton controversy was at its highest pitch. Cable later wrote in detailabout the slaves owned by the Cum berland and College Church con gre-gations. His opening words echo those of William Hill:The worst kind of slavery is jobbing slavery, that is, the hiring out of slaves frotnyear to year. What shocked me tnore than anything was that the church engagedin this jobbing business. The college church which I attended . . . held slavesenough to pay their pastor . . . $ 1,000 a year. The slaves, who had been left tothe church by sotne pious tnother in Israel, had increased so as to be a large andstill increasing fund. They were hired out on Christmas day of each year, the dayin which they celebrate the birth of our blessed Saviour[,] to the highest bidder.There were four other churches near the college that supported the pastor, inwhole or in part, in the same way.'"


11/35

S L A V E - O W N I N G C H U R C H E S I N VI RGI N I A 877f r o m y e a r to y e a r . " J o b b i n g " s l a v e r y , a s C a b l e pu t i t , w a s p a r t i c u l a r l yi n h u m a n e .

A l s o i n th e 1 8 2 0 s , J a m e s W . D o u g l a s , t h e n t h e m i n i s t e r o f B r i e r yP r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h , r e f l e c t e d o n s o m e o f h i s m e m b e r s ' d i s s a t i s f a c -ti o n w i t h s la v e o w n i n g b y th e i r c h u r c h . In D e c e m b e r 1 8 2 8 h e p ub l i s h e dA M anua l fo r th e M embers of the Br iery Pr esbyterian C hurch, Virg inia,w h i c h i n c l u d e d a n a c c o u n t o f th e c h u r c h ' s e a r ly h is to r y . C o n c e m i n g th ef o u n d e r s ' d e c i s i o n to i n v e s t i ts e n d o w m e n t i n s l a v e s , D o u g l a s w r o t e , " Int h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f t h e i r f u n d s m a n y w i l l t h i n k t h e y e r r e d ; b u t i t w a st h e e r r o r o f th e a g e in w h i c h t h e y l i v e d , a n d t h e i r n a m e s a n d m o t i v e ss h o u l d b e r e s p e c t e d b y t h e i r d e s c e n d a n t s . " ^ ' W h o w e r e t h e " m a n y " i n1 8 2 8 w h o f e l t t h e i r a n c e s t o r s " e r r e d " i n c h o o s i n g t o b u y s l a v e s f o r th eb e n e f i t o f t h e c o n g r e g a f i o n ? D o u g l a s m u s t h a v e b e e n r e f e r r i n g t o m e m -b e r s o f h i s c o n g r e g a t i o n f o r w h o m th i s b o o k w a s i n t e n d e d w h oo p p o s e d s l a v e r y o n m o r a l g r o u n d s . D o u g l a s c a l l e d t h e i n i t i a l p u r c h a s e" t h e e r r o r o f t h e a g e i n w h i c h th e y l iv e d , " th i n k i n g b a c k to th e p r e - R e v -o l u t i o n a r y e r a , a t i m e b e f o r e s l a v e r y w a s w i d e l y q u e s t i o n e d a n d w h e nt h e f o u n d e r s o f th e c h u r c h h a d f e w d o u b t s a b o u t t h e m o r a l i t y o f u s i n gs l a v e r y t o s u p p o r t t h e i r p i o u s d e s i g n s . B y i n s t r u c t i n g h i s a n t i s l a v e r ym e m b e r s t o s t i l l r e sp e c t t h e " n a m e s a n d m o t i v e s " o f t h e i r f o r e b e a r s ,D o u g l a s w a s f o l l o w i n g t h e e x a m p l e o f t h e n a t i o n a l c h u r c h i n t r y i n g t os t r i k e a c h a r i t a b l e b a l a n c e b e t w e e n o p p o s i n g s i d e s o f t h i s i n c r e a s i n g l yc o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e .

D o u g l a s w a s f o l l o w e d i n th e pu lp i t b y W i l l i a m H i l l , w h o c a m e t oB r i e r y P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h i n th e m i d - 1 8 3 0 s w h e n th e q u e s t i o n o f s l a v eo w n i n g b y l o c a l c o n g r e g a t i o n s w a s s ti ll v e r y c o n te n t i o u s . H i l l e x p l a i n e din h i s a u t o b i o g r a p h y t h a t o n e o f t h e p r i m a r y r e a s o n s h e a c c e p t e d t h ec a l l t o m i n i s t e r a t B r i e r y w a s h i s d e s i r e t o " a m e l i o r a t e t h e s t a t e o f s l a v -e r y , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h t h o s e w h o b e l o n g e d t o B r i e r y . " H e r e c o l l e c t e d t h a th e s p e n t h a l f o f e v e r y S u n d a y m i n i s t e r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t o s l a v e s . H e w a sn o t j u s t c o n c e r n e d f o r t h e sp i r i t u a l w e l f a r e o f th e s l a v e s , h o w e v e r ; H i l la l s o t r i e d t o c o n v i n c e t h e l e a d e r s o f t h e B r i e r y c o n g r e g a t i o n t o f r e e o ra t l e a s t i m p r o v e t h e c o n d i t i o n o f th e i r s l a v e s . H i l l r e c a l l e d t h a t h e " u s e da l l p m d e n t e x e r ti o n s t o i n d u c e t h e E l d e r s to a g r e e e i t h e r t o l i b e r a te t h e m& g i v e t h e m u p t o t h e c o l o n i z a t i o n [sic] S o c i e t y t o s e n d t o A f r i c a ; o r to


12/35

878 T H E J O U R N A L O E S O U T H E R N H I ST O R YThis, fixed my determination to remain there no longer." Hill felt thateven if the church was unwilling to liberate its slaves (thereby destroy-ing its endowment), the slaves would benefit if the church at least soldthem to masters of their own choosing. In 1835, while WiUiam Hillwas the minister at Briery, Cumberland Presbyterian did sell its slaves;Hill was on the committee that oversaw this process. He persuaded thecommittee to allow the slaves to choose their own masters, "much tothe satisfaction of the slaves & the congregation."^^ William Hill wasnot an abolitionist, and he did not call for the slaves to be freed unlessthey were going to be sent to Africa through the efforts of the AmericanColonizafion Society. He understood slavery "as a Christian relationwith particular duties and responsibilities" for both mas ters and sla ve s."Hill was a paternalisthe believed that slavery was ordained by Godas part of the natural order of mankindbut he also worked to see thatmasters upheld their responsibilities to their slaves. William Hill andothers who otherwise accepted slavery opposed institutional slaveryprecisely because it did not conform to the church's own standards forslaveholding.

An event at Briery Presbyterian C hurch ten years later sheds light onCumberland's motivation for selling its slaves. In 1845 the Briery con-gregation again debated taking the same step. A committee ultimatelydecided that the congrega tion w ould not do so. However, those com mit-tee members who disagreed with that decision submitted a "MinorityReport to Briery Congregation" the following May in which they laidout the reasons they wished to see the congregation's slaves sold. Inthis remarkable docum ent, penned by prom inent local slave owner AsaDupuy, the first argument against congregational slave ownership con-cerned the unstable family life of the slaves. Dupuy asserted that the stateof "the slaves in the hands of good and humane masters would be betterthan it is, at present. We believe their present condition is unfavourableto their moral and religious Character, with their family Connectionsformed one year in One neighbourhood and the next be removed so farthat they can but seldom visit (or be visited by) their families and in thatway liable to have them broken up, and new Connections formed."^''Because the Briery slaves (like many other institutional slaves) were


13/35

S L A V E - O W N I N G C H U R C H E S I N V I R G I NI A 879t h e c o m m i t t e e m e m b e r s w e r e p r o b a b l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e m a r i t a lr e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g t h e s l a v e s . T h e s e m a r r i a g e s , t h o u g h n o t h o n o r e db y t h e la w , w e r e s t il l p r o m o t e d b y m a n y ( e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e r e C h r i s t i a n s )a s m o r a l l y i m p o r t a n t f o r s l a v e s . A l l s l a v e s w e r e i n d a n g e r o f b e i n g s e p a -r a t e d f r o m t h e i r s p o u s e s t h r o u g h t h e w h i m o f a m a s t e r , b u t s l a v e s w h ow e r e h i r e d o u t y e a r l y b y a n i n s t i t u t i o n h a d t o a n d c i p a t e s e p a r a t i o n a s a na n n u a l o c c u r r e n c e . W h a t h o p e d i d th o s e s l a v e s r e a ll y h a v e o f m a i n t a i n -i n g m o n o g a m o u s re l a t i o n s h i p s w h e n th e y k n e w t h e y m i g h t n e v e r l i v ein t h e s a m e p l a c e t w i c e ? T h i s p r o b l e m p u t t h e c h u r c h i n t h e a w k w a r ds i t u a t i o n o f f o s t e r i n g m a r i t a l i n f i d e l i t y a m o n g i t s s l a v e s .

T h e " M i n o r i t y R e p o r t " a l s o a d d r e s s e d t h e p h y s i c a l w e l l - b e i n g o fB r i e r y ' s s la v e s . T h e c o m m i t t e e m e m b e r s w e r e c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e s la v e sw e r e " b u t s e l d o m s o w e l l a t t e n d e d t o i n s i c k n e s s & f r e q u e n t l y n o t w e l l ,c l o t h i n g e t c . a s t h e y w o u l d b e b y t h e ir o w n m a s t e r s i f k i n d a n d h u m a n e .W i t h r e g a r d t o i n c r e a s e t h e y c e r t a i n l y h a v e n o t i n c r e a s e d i n t h e s a m er a t io th a t o t h e r n e g r o e s h a v e w h i c h w e th i n k i s p r o b l y [sic] o w i n g t o t h ew a n t o f a t t e n t i o n w h i c h i t w o u l d b e t h e i n t e r e s t a s w e l l a s t h e d u t y o fm a s t e r s t o g i v e t o t h e C h i l d r e n o f t h e i r S la v e s. "^ ^ T h i s c o n c e r n r e f l e c t sw h a t w a s c o n v e n t i o n a l w i s d o m a m o n g s l a v e h o l d e r s t h a t t h o s e w h oh i r e d s l a v e s d i d n o t t a k e a s g o o d c a r e o f t h e m a s t h e i r o w n e r s d i d ; h i r -e r s s i m p l y l a c k e d t h e l o n g - t e r m f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t t o d o s o . I n a n 1 8 5 2c o u r t c a s e r e g a r d i n g s l a v e h i r i n g l a w , a T e n n e s s e e S u p r e m e C o u r t j u d g ec o n c l u d e d t h a t " i t i s t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e h i r e r t o g e t a l l t h e l a b o r h e c a no u t o f t h e h i r e d s l a v e , w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o h i s c o m f o r t , o r t h e e f fe c t u p o nh i s p e r m a n e n t h e a l t h a n d valu e.''^* " E n g l i s h - b o r n o b s e r v e r F r a n c e s A n n eK e m b l e c o m m e n t e d , " T h i s h i r i n g o u t o f n e g r o e s i s a h o r r i d a g g r a v a -t i o n o f t h e m i s e r i e s o f t h e i r c o n d i t i o n ; f o r if , o n t h e p l a n t a t i o n s , a n du n d e r t h e m a s t e r s t o w h o m t h e y b e l o n g , t h e i r l a b o r i s s e v e r e a n d t h e i rf o o d i n a d e q u a t e , t h i n k w h a t i t m u s t b e w h e n t h e y a r e h i r e d o u t f o r as t i p u l a t e d s u m t o a t e m p o r a r y e m p l o y e r , w h o h a s n o t e v e n t h e i n t e r e s tw h i c h i t i s p r e t e n d e d a n o w n e r m a y f e e l i n t h e w e l f a r e o f h i s s l a v e s , b u tw h o s e c h i e f a i m i t m u s t n e c e s s a r i l y b e to g e t a s m u c h o u t o f t h e m , a n de x p e n d a s l i t t l e o n t h e m , a s p o s s i b l e . " ^ ' In o t h e r w o r d s , t h e m o r e t h a th i r e r s c o u l d s k i m p o n f o o d , c l o t h i n g , a n d m e d i c a l c a r e f o r t h e i r h i r e ds l a v e s , t h e g r e a t e r w o u l d b e t h e r e t u r n o n t h e s h o r t - t e r m i n v e s t m e n t i ns l a v e l a b o r .


14/35

880 T H E J O U R N A L O F S O U T H E R N H I ST O R YSignificantly, those who hired the Briery slaves likely were leastinterested in maintaining the welfare of the young children of the

women they hired and in easing the workload of an enslaved womanwho became pregnant or gave birth during the period of her hire. Anindividual owner of a new slave mother might have given her morefood, more time to rest and to nurse an infant, and lighter dudes, look-ing forward to the long-term benefit of owning another slave; the short-term cost in the lost producdvity of the woman would have been morethan paid for by the future productivity of the child. However, for theperson who hired a slave, there was no long-term interest in either thewoman or her children; there was only the gain to be made that yearand the financial requirement that the woman not only make back themoney spent on her but also bring in as much profit as possible. Anordinary master probably would not have hired out a pregnant womanor new mother to begin with; the church, however, had no "home" inwhich to keep slave mothers and their very young children during thismost vulnerable dme all had to be put out someplace every year, fromthe youngest infant to the most elderly slave.

The com mittee members w orried that their slave wom en did not haveas many children as other slaves did, and the churchmen attributed thisdeficiency to the lack of care that those who hired Briery's bondpeopleprovided. However, the women's lower fertility rate might also havebeen connected to the committee's other concern over family relation-ships. If an enslaved woman was separated from her husband for longperiods of dme, it does indeed seem less likely that she would havemany children, unless she was willing and able to form new "connec-dons" (or they were forced on her). Thus, the church members werefaced with two unpleasant alternatives when they hired out slaves sepa-rately from their spouses. If the slaves were unfaithful to their spousesand created new reladonships, the church was abetting adultery, but ifthe slaves stayed diie to their spouses, they would not have as manychildren, which was a financial disadvantage to the church.

The remainder of the "Minority Report" examines the financialeffects of selling the slaves and addresses some of the congregadon'sworries on that point. The committee members argued in the report


15/35

SLAVE-OWNING CHURCH ES IN VIRGINIA 881were turned into money, it would be easier for the trustees of the fundto dip into the principal, rather than just spending the interest. Slaveswere m ore difficult to "spend" than cash, of course. The minority reportcountered this concern by arguing for strict oversight of the funds by agroup of trustees.^^

The "Minority Report to Briery C ongregation" is an important win-dow into the minds of Presbyterians who were opposed to slave own-ing by their church. Unlike John Paxton, Asa Dupuy, the document'sauthor, was not opposed to slavery but was, in fact, a substanfial slaveowner himself. As the report's language indicates, Dupuy, like WilliamHill, believed that slavery was acceptable when the slaveholder wasa "kind and humane" master. It was not slavery itself that concernedDupuy but rather the significant problems connected with insfitutionalslavery at his own church. Dupuy was a thoughtful and reasonable man .He was a trustee of Hampden-Sydney College and had served thirteenyears in the Virginia legislature.^' He has been described as a "cool headduring the Nat Turner crisis and friendly neighbor" to the free blacks ofPrince Edward County. He wanted to preserve slavery but showed realinterest and concern for slaves and free blacks; for example, historianMelvin P. Ely states that "Asa Dupuy stands out iimong white citizensin Prince Edward in recognizing slaves' surnames.'"*" Dupuy seems tohave been a sincere paternalist. He believed in the moralityor at leastthe necessityof slavery, but he was interested in the welfare of theAfrican Americans around him. As a defender of slavery, however, heneeded to find ways to justify it in his own m ind as well as to the aboli-tionists who were steadily becoming more vociferous.

One of the primary defenses of slavery w as that slaves benefited pro-foundly from having a master rather than just an employer, because agood and reasonable master would have a personal financial interest intheir welfare. This connection supposedly put slaves in a better con-difion than the so-called wage slaves of the North to whom proslav-ery apologists so frequently referred. Yet how could Dupuy and otherthoughtful southerners make this argument when they had exampleslike Briery right before them? The Briery slaves were in the hands ofa committee with no personal stake in their well-being. In addition,


16/35

882 T H E J O U R N A L O F S O U T H E R N H I S TO R Ythe American Revolution, but what made the Briery situation funda-mentally different and ultimately more damning was that these slaveslacked an owner's self-interested desire to make certain that they werecared for by those who hired them. A committee of trustees (drivenonly by loyalty to the church, not self-interest) could not replace anowner. Jonathan D. Martin has described slave hiring in the AmericanSouth as a three-part arrangement that slaves could sometimes use totheir advantage when they played off the interests of their owner andtheir hirer."*' In the case of institutional slavery, the "owner" leg of thistriangle was inherently weak, leaving institutional slaves in a more pre-carious situation than slaves who were hired out by individual masters.For all these reasons, the patemalist defense of slavery fell apart in thepresence of slaves owned by the church. Men of conscience like Dupuyhad to oppose slave owning by their churches if they were to defend theinstitution of slavery at all.

Asa Dupuy's report on the Briery slaves offers valuable insightinto the lives of the slaves owned by his Presbyterian congregation, aswell as how some of the members of the church felt about this prac-tice. Fortunately, there is additional evidence on the Briery slaves fromthe same period that further illuminates the lives of the Briery slavesand allows historians to examine the assertions made in the "MinorityReport." No de tailed record of the slaves owned by Briery PresbyterianChurch survives for a fifty-year period after the Revolutionary era.Then, in the 1840s, the tmstees overseeing the slaves became partic-ularly meticulous for an eight-year period. Beginning in December1841, Briery began to keep detailed records of the slaves owned by thecongregafion in its session book, including a list of all of the church'sslaves, with their ages and some family connecons. Also, the churchmaintained annual lists of who hired these slaves between 1840 and1847 and for what price. These lists also contain a few annotations inthe margins about the slaves' births and deaths. As the 1840s were thedecade in which the congregation debated selling its slaves, perhapsthe tmstees, in the midst of this controversy, were trying to determinewhether the congregation's slaves were actually profitable. The resultof this renewed attention is a wealth of information on the lives of those


17/35

SLAVE-OWNING CH URCHES IN VIRGINIA 883These records help determine whether Briery's "Minority Report"was accurate. The first concern expressed in that document was that

slaves were moved around frequently due to the hiring-out process andthus often were separated from their families. The records from the1840s allow a partial reconstruction of this extended family of slaves,all presumably descended from the enslaved women purchased by thechurch in the 1760s. In December 1841 the trustees oversaw thirty-fiveslaves. Of this number, eight were adult men, ten were adult women,and seventeen were children. The names of the Briery slaves in 1841support the supposition that all were part of an extended family stretch-ing back eighty years. The repetition of names from the 1774 list isstriking. For example, one of the slaves originally purchased by BrieryPresbyterian was named Agga; in 1841 there were two adult womenwith similar names, Aggy and Aggy Woodson. A child born in 1842was named Mary Agnes. Were all three women descendants of Agga?The surnam e W oodson is interesting but hard to explain. There w as, infact, a white Woodson family of Presbyterians in the area; it is possiblethat one or more of the slaves originally purchased in the 1760s by thecongregation was purchased from a m em ber of the W oodson family andkept Woodson as a surname. When Lucy, another Briery slave, had achild in 1845, she named the child Nancy Woodson.**^

The name Nancy also appeared on the 1774 list. One of the threewomen originally purchased by Briery Presbyterian gave birth to achild named Nancy in 1779. In the 1841 list, there are two adult womenwith that name or a similar one: "old" Nanny and a Nancy who wasabout twenty years old. Another name that appears on both lists isAmey. An Amey was bom to the Briery slaves in 1777; in 1841 therewere two slaves named Amey (or Amy)one a young adult and theother a two-year-old daughter of Vilet and Frank. M ale nam es also w erepassed down between the generations: John, Tom, and Bob appear onthe 1774 list, while two Johns, a Thomas, and a Robert are listed in1841.'*^ While these are common names, and their repetition may becoincidental, it appears that Briery slave families, though lacking a per-manent home, were able to maintain family ties well enough that the


18/35

884 T H E J O U R N A L O F S O U T H E R N H I ST O R Ysame names were passed down over three or more generations in thefamily. Perhaps because they were hired out most often in two adjacentcou nties , the effects of the constan t hiring did not destroy family ties butrather caused sustained suffering among the slaves. The m ost fragile ofthese family relationshipsmarriageswere probably most affectedby the hiring-out process.

Other family names on the list of 1841 do not hark back to thecolonial-era list of Briery slave names but are repeated on the 184 1 list.These naming pattems connect the men, in particular, to the extendedfamily, even though the tmstees rarely noted how adult men w ere relatedto rest of the group. The one exception was the marriage of Frank andVilet, which was recorded because they were sometimes hired outtogether with their young children. They may have been the only mar-ried couple owned by Briery Presbyterian. Their second son, Brister,shared his name with a forty-five-year-old Brister who otherw ise hadno stated connection to the rest of the family. W as he perhaps a brotherof either Frank or Vilet? Jiney, a forty-year-old mother of six, namedher first son Frank, implying a close family relationship there as well.Her other two sons were named Billey and Charles Anderson; interest-ingly, three men owned by Briery were Billey, age forty, and Charlesand Anderson, who were both about twenty years old. Emily also gavebirth to a son named Billey in 1844.''^

Nam ing practices am ong the Briery Presbyterian slaves dem onstratethat these slaves were all part of an extended family, descended froma small number of slaves purchased by the congregation in the eigh-teenth century. In some cases, family connections are clearly stated inthe records, particularly in the cases of women and young children.In other cases, they can be surmised from similar names. HistorianHerbert G. Gutman investigated the naming pattems of a large groupof antebellum slaves who lived on the Good Hope plantation in SouthCarolina. He found that the slaves there often named their children aftermembers of their immediate and extended families. Gutman noted that"[n]aming practices linked generations of blood kin" and that "[s]uchnaming practices reveal an attachment to a familial 'line' and suggestthe symbolic renewal in birth of intimate familial experiences identi-


19/35

SLAVE-OWNING CHUR CHES IN VIRGINIA 885members of their family, indicadng that they, like their contemporariesat the Good Hope plantadon, felt a connecdon to their extended familythat withstood the destrucdve forces of slavery. This persistence is espe-cially remarkable among the Briery slaves because they had to strug-gle even harder to maintain families ties than more traditional slavesdid because the Briery bondpeople were always hired out to differentmen and women. These church-owned slaves were clearly one largeextended family, and although they were hired out from year to yearand separated from their children at tender ages, these naming patternssuggest that they nonetheless maintained strong connecdons to theirfamily.Asa Dupuy raised several quesdons in the "Minority Report": wereBriery slaves frequendy separated from their families though the hiring-out process? Also, were they frequently hired to different householdsevery year? The hiring records from the 1840s indicate that the hiring-out process was as disruptive as Dupuy implied. Briery Presbyterianowned over fifty individuals between 1840 and 1847, though that num-ber was constandy fluctuating due to births and deaths. O ftha t number,only twenty-eight individuals appear in the church records each yearbetween 1840 and 1847 (the other slaves were either born after 1840 ordied before 1847). A study of those twen ty-eight slaves, therefore, pro -vides the most reliable gauge of how frequently the slaves were movedfrom household to household each year. Table 1 indicates the longeststay in one household that each of the twenty-eight slaves experiencedbetween 1840 and 1847.

TABLE 1LONGES T LENGTH OF RES IDENCE IN ONE HOUS EHOLD, 1840-1847

Number of Years in One Household Number of Slaves (N - 28)8 07 36 25 14 53 6


20/35

886 T H E J O U R N A L O F S O U T H E R N H I ST O R YThe first figure worthy of note is that none of the twenty-eight slaveswas hired by the same household throughout the eight-year period. On

the one hand, this statistic alone supports Asa D upuy 's assertion that theBriery slaves faced instability due to annual moves from one hirer to thenext. On the other hand, only two of the twenty-eight slaves, Vilet andher son, "Little" Brister, had a different hirer every single year. Mostof the slaves fell somewhere between complete instability and a moresecure situation, though more of them cam e closer to the former than tothe latter. Only six of the slaves were hired to one household for five ormore years. Eleven of the slaves fell in the middle, hired to one masterfor three or four years in a row but living in other households during therest of the eight-year period. F inally, the other eleven slaves worked in asingle household only for one or two years before being hired to some-one new. Thus, sometimes a master or mistress hired the same slaverepeatedly over a series of years, but more typically a slave moved fromhirer to hirer at least every two or th ree years."*^

The family of Vilet and Frank offers an interesting study of howBriery slaves were hired out. Vilet and "Little" Brister represent theextreme of instability: they were the two slaves who never lived in thesame household two years in a row, but they also had the advantage ofbeing hired with family members for many of these years. Vilet andFrank may have been cousins descended from the original eighteenth-century Briery slaves, although perhaps one of them instead was boughtlater by the trustees. If the latter is the case, Vilet was likely the one pur-chased, because another Frank was listed among the children of otherBriery slaves, while there were no other slaves named Vilet besidestheir own daughter. Frank and V ilet, both listed as "o ld" w hen the list ofall the slaves' ages w as made in Decem ber 18 41, were recorded at thattime with four children: Spencer, age seven; Brister, five; Catherine,four; and Am y, two. In 1842 Vilet gave birth to a little Frank ; two yearslater, a little Vilet followed. Finally, an unnamed, short-lived child wasbom to Vilet in 18 45. Vilet must have seemed "old," but she was cleariystill in her childbearing years in the early 1840s.'*''

Vilet had the good fortune of living with her husband and chil-dren between 1840 and 18 43. Though they worked for four differ-


21/35

SLAVE-OWNING CHURC HES IN VIRGINIA 887The Briery trustees clearly thought keeping this family together on hir-ing day was important . The t rus tees ' rewards , beyond the i r own senseof do ing the right thing , we re the son and dau ghte r born to Vilet in 1842and 1844the na tura l resul ts , perhaps , of le t t ing a husband and wifel ive together. Separat ion firs t hi t the family on Chris tmas Day of 1843,when the trustees must have fel t that Vilet and Frank's oldest knownson. Spencer, was ready at the age of nine to be hired out on his own.He was hired by the Reverend Samuel D. Stuart for $4.00 for the year1844. Stuart , the minis ter of Briery Presbyterian Church, already hiredother Briery s laves and was part icularly consis tent in hiring the sameslaves year after year. As a result . Sp enc er w as relat ively fortun ate to goto a household with other Briery s laves who were part of his extendedfamily. Spencer continued to be hired by Stuart for the next four years ,when the record ends."*^

The fol lowing years inc luded more separa t ion for Frank and Vi le t ' sfamily. In 1844 the family, other than Spencer, was hired by CreedJenkins, but in 1845 Jenkins only wanted Frank. As a result , the familywas separated; Frank returned to the Jenkins farm, while Vilet and herf ive remaining chi ldren were placed wi th John T. Merryman, who wascompensated $10.00 to subs idize the i r cos ts . For the hi r ing year 1846,two m ore of Vi le t ' s chi ldren w ere deem ed ready to be hi red as individu-als: ten-year-old "Li t t le" Bris te r and nine-year-old Cather ine . YoungBris ter was hired to A. G. Green for $2.50, and his s is ter Catherine washired to Thomas P. Fowlkes for $4.00. During tha t same year , Frank,Vilet , and the remaining three children were reunited in the householdof Wil l iam McCormack; however , in 1847 the spouses were hi red todifferent masters and thus separated once again.^^ Tracing Frank andVilet 's family reveals how disruptive and unstable l i fe could be foran inst i tut ionally owned slave. Both Vilet and her son "Lit t le" Bris ternever l ived in the same household two years in a row. The other fam-ily members tended to do only a l i t t le better , occasionally l iving in thesame place for a couple of years . Though he was separated from hisfamily. Spencer was hired for four years in a row by the same man. Thehistory of this family also makes i t c lear that there was no guaranteethat family t ies would be respected at hiring t ime. The trustees seemed


22/35

888 T H E J O U R N A L O F S O U T H E R N H I ST O R Ytheir mothers. By the time a child was about nine years old, he or shewas considered ready to be treated as an individual, despite the patheti-cally small amount the children earned for the church.In contrast, a few Briery slaves enjoyed a great deal of residentialstability from 1840 to 1847. Although none of them lived in the samehom e for the entire period, three lived in one hom e for seven of the eightyears. One hirer, the Reverend Samuel D. Stuart, was responsible forproviding stability to two of those three slaves, just as he came to pro-vide a stable home for Spencer when the boy first went on the auctionblock alone for the year 1844. Stuart was a twenty-six-year-old clergy-man w hen he first began h iring Briery slaves in 1841; that year he hiredLucy and the older Brister. He continued to hire these two every yearthrough the end of the period covered in the records . For the year 18 44,Stuart added Spencer and continued to hire the trio with equal consis-tency. Lucy was about eighteen years old when Stuart first hired her,and during the seven-year period, she bore children in 1843 and 1845.The pregnancies and the time needed to nurse and care for infant chil-dren would have reduced the amount of work Lucy was able to do, butStuart continued to hire her every year nonethelessat reduced rates,of course.^" The Reverend Stuart's willingness to consistently hire thesame Briery slaves raises questions about his motives. As a Presbyterianminister, he might have wanted to help support his congregation throughhiring its slaves, but if that had been his primary motive, then therewould have been no need to hire the same slaves every year. Other menwho frequently hired Briery slaves had no compunction about hiringdifferent ones every year. It is plausible , then , that the minister felt mor-ally compelled to help a few of the slaves by hiring them every yearto provide them with some degree of stability. Like other Presbyterianministers, he was, perhaps, trying to balance the demands of his con-science with the realities of life in antebellum Virginia. By hiring thesame slaves regularly, he may have been attempting to model Chrisfianmastery to the members of his congregation.

The third Briery slave to live in the sam e household for a seven-yearstretch was Pam elia, a young orphaned child who lived in the householdof Isaac Duffie during the years 18 41-18 47, Her mother, Aggy Woodson,


23/35

SLAVE-OWNING CHURC HES IN VIRGINIA 889brother, John, w ere sent to the hom e of Isaac Duffie. By 1842 John, w howas about eight years old at the time, was hired out individually, butPamelia remained in Duffie's household through 1847. Duffie appearson the hiring lists of Briery Presbyterian during every year the recordswere kept, but he rarely paid to hire a slave. Rather, he took in the"expensive" slaves and tried to make a small profit from providing themwith the necessifies of life for less than what the tmstees paid him forhis service. Besides Pam elia, he also took in slave women and their veryyoung children whom he was paid to care for or who worked "at par,"meaning that he paid nothing for them but expected them to eam theirfood and clothing. O ther times, he paid a pittance for a family of slaves,indicating that he expected to make very little profit from their work.For example, Jiney and her three children, Frank, Mary, and Billey,were hired out to Duffie in 1840 for only $5.00. The low value of thisfamily reflected that the three children were quite young, ranging fromthree to seven years of age. Jiney would have needed to spend some ofher work hours caring for them. More important, Duffie assumed theextra cost of feeding and clothing the unproductive children. The fol-lowing year, Duffie maintained the family even as Jiney had a baby inApril, and he also added little Pamelia to the group . Instead of charginghim, the Briery tm stees paid him $1 0.00 ."

Isaac Duffie was also involved in caring for elderly slaves belong-ing to Briery Presbyterian. In 1841, for exam ple, he was given "OldNanny"; the record states that he bought her for $0.00. In other words,the tmstees made an agreement with Duffie that they would give himall future rights to her labor if he would maintain her in her old age.This transaction reveals how the tmstees dealt with the tricky problemof supporting slaves who had passed the age of profitable work. Otherolder slaves like Mary, who was designated as "old," worked for onlytheir "victuals and clothes"; in those instances, the church eamed nomoney from these slaves but simply placed them with a master whowould feed and clothe them in exchange for their limited work.'^ Withno home plantation on which the slaves could grow old, an institutionthat owned slaves had few options for dealing with superannuated bond-people. Giving away elderly slaves, however, was a serious abrogation


24/35

890 TH E J O U R N A L O F S O U TH E R N H I S TO R YAnother way to measure family disruption among Briery slaves isto look at how often they were hired out alone, without other Briery

slaves. Although it is impossible to know whether slaves hired sin-gly were out of reach of other family members, this information canprovide insight into how often these slaves were separated from theirfamilies. For those same twenty-eight slaves who were hired out eachyear between 1840 and 1847, being hired out alone was very com m on.Twenty-one were hired out singly somedme during those eight years.The seven who were not either were mothers with muldple childrenwho always had at least one young child with them or were very youngchildren who were bom close to the 1840 mark and had not yet beenhired out separately. The majority of Briery slaves, however, were hiredout individually and often did not live in the same househo ld with otherBriery slaves. Of the twenty-one slaves who were hired out alone, eightwere hired out alone between four and seven times in the eight-yearperiod, another ten were hired out alone two or three times, and threewere hired out alone just once.^^

This evidence supports the assertions of the "Minority Report" thatthe Briery slaves were moved around frequently from household tohousehold, were often hired out singly, and were habitually separatedfrom their families as a result. A rare few were able to have one homefor more than two or three years in a row. While changing hirers didnot always split families, the hiring-out system often separated parentsfrom children and husbands from wives in the 1840s. The reladonshipsbetween Briery slaves and their spouses, children, and other familymembers who did not belong to the congregadon are more difficult togauge. The women who were bearing children in the 1840s had part-ners somewhere; likewise, surely some of the male slaves owned bythe congregadon found wives among women not owned by Briery. Asthe "Minority Report" hints, one of the committee's greatest concemswas that the Briery slaves were m aking and breaking "conn ecd ons" fre-quently because they were being separated from their spouses throughthe hiring process.^'* Th is separadon from spouses g am ered attendonfrom the comm ittee because in their eyes it led to sin, but Briery slaveswere separated just as often from their children, parents, grandparents,


25/35

SLAVE-OWNING CHURCHES IN VIRGINIA 891slaves who belonged to individual masters and mistresses. I t is impos-sible to quantify how well the Briery slaves were fed, clothed, andattended in sickness; these necessit ies were all provided by the hirers ,rather than the congregafion, al though the tmstees occasionally notedthat they supplied cer tain slaves with hats , blankets , or bedding. ' ' Thus,each slave was treated differently based on the wealth and custom ofthe person who hired him or her . Some were probably provided witha decent mater ial s tandard of l iving, while others may have been terr i-bly neglected. However , one element of the slaves ' welfare, child mor-tali ty, can be roughly determined from the records kept by the Brierytmstees in the 1840s. In the "Minority Report ," Asa Dupuy stated thatthe Briery slaves faced a higher level of child mortality than ordinaryslaves. Dupuy noted that "[w]ith regard to increase they cer tainly havenot increased in the same ratio that other negroes have which we thinkis probly [sic] owing to the want of attention which i t would be theinterest as well as the duty of masters to give to the Children of theirSlaves." '^ Dupuy, as a s laveholder himself, probably was a good judgeof whether the Briery slave children were surviving infancy as of ten asthe children of other s laves.

Fortunately, church records again can help answer this importantquestion about the overall well-being of these insdtufional s laves. InDecember 1841 the tmstees made a l is t of all the slaves owned by thecongregation and noted some of their family relationships and theirrough ages. Unfil sometime in 1846, someone updated these recordswith bir th and death information, making i t possible to determine themortali ty of very young children during this per iod. Children who diedat the age of two and under are included in the mortali ty rate; the twoolder chi ldren who died dur ing this same per iodMary, age ten, andLouisa , age twelvehave not been included. Ideal ly , only chi ldrenwho died before their f irs t bir thday would be counted to make statis t i-cal comparisons easier , but the available data does not allow for suchcareful determinat ions of age in most cases ."

In the years 1842-1846, four teen chi ldren were bom to the womenowned by Briery Presbyter ian Church. Of that number, s ix died beforereaching three years of age. Thus, about 43 percent of children born


26/35

892 THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORYtmstees kept complete records.'* This estimate compares unfavorablywith broader estimates of slave child mortality. The infant and childmortality rates among American slaves in general are extremely hardto quandfy. Economic historians have examined plantadon and censusrecords and reached estimates ranging from 150 to 350 deaths per 1,000births. The great disparity stems from dme period and location; forexample, slave children bom on large plantadons in coastal Louisianasuffered a higher rate of mortality than those bom on smaller farms inthe upper South.^' More recent work using the 1860 census of Virginiaasserts that in late antebellum Virginia, the infant mortality rate (of maleslaves) was closer to the lower esdm ate, or about 159 deaths per 1,000births. Thus , about 16 percent of Virginia slaves died in the first year oflife, compared with about 43 percent of Briery slaves who died beforethe age of three. While the figures do not compare flawlessly, the childmortality rate of Briery slaves apparently was considerably higher thanaverage for slaves in antebellum Virginia.*

Several factors influence child mortality rates. The first relates tomaternal health before and especially during pregnancy. The diet of themother-to-be and the amount of work performed during pregnancyparticularly labor requiring long periods of standingaffect the healthand the birth weight of the infant. One reason for the Deep South'shigher infant mortality was that the work on sugar, rice, and cotton plan-tadons was m ore onerous and labor scarcer; as a result, pregnant w omenwere forced to work harder there than in the upper South.^' The samephenomenon may have been at work among Briery Presbyterian's preg-nant slaves (and by extension, all pregnant slaves who were hired out).Because the hirer of a pregnant slave had no long-term interest in thewelfare of the woman or her infant, the temporary master would havebeen less likely to give the woman adequa te rest and the nutrition neces-sary to a healthy pregnancy. On the contrary, the hirer would have beenprone to annoyance at a pregnancy that would have limited the slave'sproducdvity. Recognizing this, the Briery tmstees occasionally madenotations in the hiring records promising to recompense the hirer if theslave gave birth during the year. On the list of 1842 hires they noted


27/35

SLAVE-OWNING CHURCHES IN VIRGINIA 893that Creed Jenkins would pay $25.00 for Martha and her child, Clem,but "if she has a child during the year $10.00 to be deducted."^^ Thisdeduction was meant to compensate the hirer not only for productivitylost during pregnancy, of course, but also for the recovery fime neededafter the birth and for the fime spent nursing and tending a new bom .W hile the return of part of the cost might assuage the hirer, it wouldnot do away with his or her desire to profit from the bondwoman. Inthis respect, being hired out by an insfitution was palpably differentthan being hired out by an individual owner. In his study of slave hiring,Jonathan Martin has found that concems about how pregnant womenand infants were treated by hirers "led owners, who had vested inter-ests in protecdng slave women's reproduction, to hesitate before rent-ing out such women to other people." In fact, MiU"tin emphasizes thatslave women somefimes fimed their pregnancies to show in the winterin order to avoid being hired out at all it was a way to resist the hiring-out process.*^ However, pregnant women who were owned by BrieryPresbyterian had to be put out somewhere every year, and even if thechurch paid som eone to take a pregnant slave, the temporary master sfillexpected some work from the woman and likely cared for her and herchild in the cheapest way possible.

A second factor that affects the health of an infant is how he or sheis treated in the weeks and months after birth, including how often themother breast-feeds her child. On large plantafions, children were oftenpassed on to older women or young girls during the day w hile the m oth-ers, whose labor was too valuable to be spent nursing an infant, workedin the fields. As a result, the infants tended to be weaned early and fedsupplementary food by these other caregivers at an earlier age than wasdesirable. This reduced the infants' immunity to illnesses.^ Logically,many hired mothers were expected to hand off their infants to othersas well. Their labor was too necessary to the hirer, whose most impor-tant consideration was earning back the money expended on the hiredslave. While many enslaved mothers were forced to tum the care oftheir newborns over to others, it can be deduced that masters who hadthe most interest in the short-term producfivity of the mother, as well asthe least interest in the well-being of the child, would have been most


28/35

894 T H E J O U R N A L O F S O U T H E R N H I ST O R YFinally, infant health was affected by the amount of medical careavailable to the child. In the "Minority Report," Asa Dupuy specif-

ically noted that hired slaves were "but seldom so well attended toin sickness & frequently not well."''' One reason the mortality rateof slaves in general was so highin Virginia, twice as high as thatof whites and free blackswas that enslaved infants did not receiveequivalent medical care for potentially nonfatal afflictions. For exam-ple, slave children were much more likely to succumb to neonataltetanus, which can result from improper care of the umbilicus, thanwere free children of either race. Infant slaves were also more likelyto die of respiratory diseases like scarlet fever, whooping cough, andpneumonia. Other frequent killers were intestinal worms such as flat-worms and tapeworms, which were much more likely to lead to deathamong black infants than white ones.''*' If the slave children owned byindividual masters with a vested long-term economic interest in theirsurvival were less likely to receive the medical care needed to over-come these illnesses, then slave children who were, with their moth-ers, hirelings belonging to a church congregation likely received evenpoorer care. Thus, the information in the Briery church records fromthe 1840s concerning child mortality supports the assertions made inthe "Minority Report" of 1846 about the health and well-being of thecongregation's slaves.

Briery Presbyterian Church's hiring records from the 1840s pro-vide insight into an additional area of inquiry not directly related tothe "Minority Report": the identities of the hirers. This information,combined with U.S. Census records and slave schedules from 1840and 1850, allows for a good sketch of the economic situations of thosewho hired slaves from Briery Presbyterian Church. The sixty-fiveindividuals who hired slaves from the congregation in the years 1840through 184 7 came from nearly all the socioeconom ic classes of centralVirginia. They ranged from the richest men in the area to the surpris-ingly poor. Only twenty-eight of them appeared on the slave schedulesthat were made in 1850, a number that included both those who ownedslaves and those who had only hired slaves that year. Nearly all the hir-ers lived in Prince Edward County or in neighboring Charlotte County.


29/35

S L A V E -O W N I N G C H U R C H E S IN VIRGINIA 895a need for a good dea l on s lave labor than b y a ph i l an th rop i c de s i r e top romo t e t h e local Presbyterian church.*^

T h e e c o n o m i c a n d soc ia l backg roun d of the hirers of Briery s laves isre levan t to tw o i s sues . F i rs t , the wid e d iv i s ions of weal th and soc ia l c la ssa m o n g t h e hi rers suppor t t h e theory that insf i tufional s laveholding b ythe Presbyter ians benef i t ed a w ide ra nge of w h i t e s w ho o t h e rw i s e m igh tnot have h a d a c c e s s t o s lave l abor . Anyt ime whi tes benef i t ed f rom t h es l ave sys t em, t he i r commi tmen t t o main t a in ing s l ave ry w a s s t r eng th -e n e d . In th is way, ins t i tu t ional s lavery, a s pracficed b y t h e P re sby t e r i an sas we l l a s other groups , he lps exp la in why poorer whi tes were wi l l ing t osuppor t the secess ion of V irg in ia f rom the Un ion in 1861 . M any h i s to ri -an s have sugg es t ed t ha t nons l aveho ld ing w h i t e s fough t i n t h e Civ i l W a rfor honor a n d glory or to upho l d t h e sys tem of whi te supremacy fromwhich they der ived h igher se l f -es teem a n d a s e n s e of connec t ion w i ththose in higher soc ia l c la sses .*^ These h i s tor ians make impor tan t po in t s ,bu t it is a l so p laus ib le tha t some of t h e se m e n were w i l l i ng t o fight forthe con t inua t ion of s lavery because they a n d the i r fami l i e s were t h ebenef ic ia r ie s of s l aveho ld ing b y the i r church a n d other insfi tufions. T h esecond reason to i nve s t i ga t e t h e hirers of Briery s laves is tha t grea te ri n s igh t s c a n b e g l e an ed a bou t t h e l ives of t h e s l ave s t hemse lve s b y g e t -t ing a be t te r p ic ture of t h e househo ld s to which t hey were h i r ed .

M e m b e r s of the whi te work ing c lass usua l ly h i red the l eas t expens iveof Br ie ry ' s s l aves , ch i ldren w h o w ere j u s t b e g i nn i ng t o b e hi red sepa-ra te ly from their mothers . F or examp le , Wi l l i am H . F low e r s , a Pr inceE dw a rd Coun ty s hoemake r , h a d n o real or persona l proper ty wor thva lu ing i n t h e 1850 c e n s u s . I n 1843 h e hi red n ine -year-o ld John "a tpa r , " mean ing h e pa id no th ing for the ch i ld . John w a s ol d enough toearn h is k e e p a n d no th ing more . Pe rhaps John he lped F lowers in sma l ls hoemak i ng t a s k s , b u t Flowers mus t have fe l t tha t John w a s n o t worth

""A l is t of hires of the negroes belonging to the Briery Congregat ion," 1842-1843, pp. 6-7;Manuscript Census Returns, Seventh Census of the Uni ted States , 1850, Prince Edward County,V irginia , Populat ion Sched ule (hereinafter c i ted as 1850 LI.S. C ens us, Prince Edw ard C ounty,Va. , Pop.) , Nat ional A rchives M icrofi lm Series M -432 (hereinafter c i ted as NA M S M -432), reel970; Manuscript Census Returns, Seventh Census of the Uni ted States , 1850, Charlot te County,V irginia , Populat ion Sched ule (hereinafter c i ted a s 1850 U.S. C ens us, Ch arlotte Coun ty, Va. , Pop.) ,NAMS M-432, reel 940; Manuscript Census Returns, Seventh Census of the Uni ted States , 1850,


30/35

896 T H E J O U R N A L O F S O U T H E R N H I ST O R Ykeeping, because 1843 was the only year that Flowers hired a slave fromBriery P resbyterian. Flowers did not own slaves in either 1840 or 18 50,so it is likely that in 1843, young John came to a new home where hewas the only black person. This must have been a hard position for theboy, whether he was treated as one of the family at the Flowers hom e oroverburdened with work as the only servant in the house.*'

However, John might have been better off than the B riery slaves hiredby Susanna Cox between 1840 and 1843. In 1840 Cox was a sixty-year-old who worked in "manufacturing and trade," according to the cen-sus for that year. That same year. Cox hired seven-year-old Mary forthe cost of her food and clothingagain, "at par." The following yearCox paid $5.00 to the church to keep the child. The next year, however,Mary's value had surpassed what Cox was willing or able to pay, soshe hired a different young Briery slave, Martha, for $5.00. She hiredMartha again in 1843 for $10.00 and then ceased to do business withBriery Presbyterian Church. Cox's own decline in health and financialsecurity may have been the reason she stopped hiring slaves, because bythe 1850 census the seventy-year-old Cox was living in the poorhouseand was listed as a pauper. Cox's impending poverty makes it easy toimagine that young Mary and Martha may not have had the best stan-dard of living when placed in her care.^Several middle-class farmers and professionals also hired Brieryslaves. For example, James A. Allen Jr. hired two young Briery slavesin 1845: Fred for $5.00 and Louisa for $6.00. When Louisa died inFebmary ofthat year, Allen received a refund. Allen, a farmer in his early

sixdes when he hired the slave children, was worth $825.00 accordingto the 1850 census and owned several slaves. The value of his propertyput him in the category of a small but respectable farmer.^' Another manwho was eminently respectable but not rich was the Reverend SamuelD . Stuart. He had property worth only $100.00 in the 1850 census, butas a minister he received a substantial annual salary. He does not appearin the records as having owned slaves himself, but his income madeit possible for him to hire the same few slaves from the congregadon


31/35

SLAVE-OWNING CHURCH ES IN VIRGINIA 897every year betwee n 1841 and 1847.^^ A no ther mid dle-cla ss profession alwho hired Briery s laves was Dr. John Peter Mettauer. Of al l the indi-viduals who hi red s laves f rom Briery Presbyter ian Church, Met tauerleft the greatest legacy. A Prince Edward County native, he founded theMedica l Depar tment of Randolph-Macon Col lege and is widely cons id-ered the founding father of plastic surgery in the United States.^-'

The wealthiest men in the local counties also appeared at hir-ing t ime when they needed addit ional labor for their plantat ions. Oneprominent example is Wil l iam M. Watkins Sr . of Char lot te County . In1850 his land and property, including seventy-nine s laves, were val-ued at $22,000. Watkins was able to afford to hire the most highly val-ued s laves owned by Briery Presbyterian Church. In 1840 alone, forexample , Watkins h i red Jacob ($45.50) , Coleman ($60.00) , Anderson($92 .50) , and Cbarles ($1 02.00) for a to ta l of $30 0.00. This amo unt wasnearly half the total income brought in by al l the Briery s laves duringthat year. This made men l ike Will iam Watkins extremely important tothe financial well-being of the church. When hired by someone with alarge planta t ion, as were Jacob, Coleman, Anderson, and Charles , theyjoined a small vi l lage of s laves. They undoubtedly worked with the fieldhands for the year and l ived in the s lave quarters . They surely fel t thatl iving in a community of other s laves was an advantage, even when thewo rk w as hard. I t is certain, how ever, that W atkins could afford to pro p-erly feed, clothe, and provide medical care for the s laves he owned andhired, assuming he was inclined to do so.''''

The wealth of the master was not , of course, a measure of the treat-me nt of the s laves under h is control . Tem peram ent w as the mo re re l iablegauge of how a s lave would be treated, whether the hirer was as pooras Susanna Cox or as r ich as Hilery Richardson, who hired three of theadul t men previous ly m ent ioned , Co lem an, Jacob, and Cbarles , in 184 7.In 1850 Richardson was l is ted in the census as a merchant with prop-erty valued at $25,000, including fourteen s laves. He was the wealthi-es t m an in Pr ince Edwa rd Co unty when he died in 18 61 ; h is proper ty ,inc luding over for ty s laves , was worth $115,000. The c i rcumstances ofRichardson's death show that he was as cruel as he was rich. In July


32/35

898 T H E J O U R N A L O E S O U T H E R N H I ST O R Y1861 he was attacked by one of his own slaves whom he had just beatensavagely. Richardson's injuries led to his death, and the slave, William,was tried for his life. A case of a slave who killed his owner wouldappear to have had an inevitable outcome, but many whites and blackstesfified in William's favor during the trial. Hilery Richardson had along history of bm tish behavior. When William was taken into custodyafter the attack, his jailers noted that he was in as bad a condifion asRichardson was. Doctors who were called in recounted that William'sback had been virtually skinned off in many places, that both his eyeswere injured so badly that he could hardly see, and that he was mi ssingsome of his teeth. Richardso n's slaves came to the stand with horror sto-ries about the whippings they received and about Richardson's pitilesshabit of pulling healthy teeth from his slaves as a mode of punishment.The Prince Edward County community all seemed to recognize thatRichardson was the worst of masters and felt justified when Williamwas declared guilty of only second-degree murder and was transportedout of Virginia rather than executed.^'

Despite R ichardson's terrible reputation for abusing his slaves, whenhe came to the Briery slave auction with a pocketful of money, he waspermitted to carry three of the congregation's slaves home with him.The cruelty of Hilery Richardson sums up why the lives of slaves whowere hired out every year were so insecure. Moving from one house-hold to another year after year, they never knew if they would be inthe same household twice or if their master would be kind or abusive.Children who were hired out alone, in particular, often ended up in thehomes of poor whites, who may have been most likely to scrimp onproviding necessities to the children and to overburden them with workbetter suited to adults. However, the case of Hilery Richardson alsoshows that being hired to a well-heeled master might not mean bettertreatment. In short, the slaves could hardly guess what their situationwould be any given year.In conclusion, the picture of slavery in Virginia is complicated bythe phenomenon of slaveholding by Presbyterian churches in Prince

Edward County. These congregafions supported themselves throughendowments of slaves, but not without costs to the consciences of some


33/35

S L A V E - O W N I N G C H U R C H E S I N V I R G IN I A 899t e r m s , l i k e t h e R e v e r e n d J o h n D . P a x t o n , t h e r e w e r e s o m e m e m b e r s ,l i k e A s a D u p u y , w h o u p h e l d t h e r e c t i t u d e o f s l a v e r y i n g e n e r a l b u t f e l tt h a t i n s t i t u t io n a l s l a v e r y w a s a p e c u l i a r e v i l . D u p u y r e p r e s e n t s a ll t h o s et h o u g h t f u l s l a v e h o l d e r s w h o r e c o g n i z e d th a t t h e i r j u s t i f i c a t i o n s o f s l a v -e r y b a s e d o n th e i d e a l s o f p a t e r n a l i s m f e ll a p a r t i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f s l a v e so w n e d b y a n i n s t i t u t i o n . I f s l a v e s w e r e s u p p o s e d t o b e b e t t e r o f f t h a nt h e f r e e p o o r o f t h e N o r t h b e c a u s e t h e y h a d a m a s t e r w i t h a l o n g - t e r mf in an cia l a n d m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n t o l o o k a f t e r t h e i r w e l f a r e , w h e r e d i d t h a tl e a v e c h u r c h - o w n e d s l a v e s w h o w e r e h i r e d o u t e v e r y y e a r t o i n d i v i d u -a l s w i t h o n l y a s h o r t - t e r m d e s i r e t o s q u e e z e a s m u c h p r o f i t f r o m t h e ma s p o s s i b l e b e f o r e t h e y e a r w a s o u t ? F u r t h e r , i t i s h a r d t o i m a g i n e t h a tV i r g i n i a P r e s b y t e r i a n s w o u l d e v e r h a v e s u p p o r t e d

slave owning churches in virgina

Documents