Rearing Wolves to Our Own Destruction: Slavery in Richmond Virginia, 1782–1865 (20 page)

Read Rearing Wolves to Our Own Destruction: Slavery in Richmond Virginia, 1782–1865 Online

Authors: Midori Takagi

Tags: #Social Science, #Ethnic Studies, #African American Studies, #test

BOOK: Rearing Wolves to Our Own Destruction: Slavery in Richmond Virginia, 1782–1865
6.28Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
Page 39
streets of Richmond came "alive," as Nehemiah Adams once described, "with the negroes, in their best attire, seeking employment for the year to come, changing places, and having full liberty to suit themselves as to their employers."
4
Some slaves arrived holding notes of introduction from their owners to facilitate hiring negotiations. Bob carried this crudely written message from his owner, Thomas Woodson, while searching for work: "If any person may be inclinable to hire [Bob] to drive a wagon I can recommend him to be as good a wagoner as any in Richmond, he is honest & cherfull felow. . . . the price I have not made menchend of but gentle men that wishes to hire the sade felow I make no dubt but will give him worth his laber." Other notes were simply passes giving slaves permission to travel, such as this one that slave worker Will held: "Will has lief [leave] to pass to Richmond without any interruption as long as he care to stay. . . . James Gary."
5
Although it appears that male slaves made up the vast majority of those allowed to "hire their own time," a handful of women also enjoyed this privilege. Sarah Clayton from Charles City County, for example, allowed her slave Nancy Read to find work in Richmond by herself.
6
Where slaves worked and whether they were self-hired or directly owned dictated where they lived. Housing options available to workers such as George, Richard, and the other tobacco hands were greatly determined by their occupation and position, the wealth and generosity of their owner, the budget constraints on their employer, and the physical layout of the city. As a result, slave living conditions varied widely and were subject to constant change.
Even living in the "Big House" which meant a place in the master's residence for rural slaves had a slightly different connotation for urban domestic slaves. For some, such as Edmund Randolph's eight adult slaves, it meant any corner in Randolph's modest two-story brick and wooden house, which measured 50 by 20 feet.
7
For Carter Braxton's slaves, however, it meant sleeping in a separate one-story building about ten paces from the main house. And for Cyrus, Smith, Ford and Jerry, four of John Wickham's eight slaves, living in the "Big House" meant sleeping in the wooden barns across the yard.
8
Homes in Richmond generally were much less spacious than plantation mansions because city lots were small and the cost of building an urban home was high. As a result, it was common for domestic slaves to sleep wherever space was available. Some were lucky: Claiborne and his wife Nancy, for example, were fortunate enough to share a private room below their employer's chambers.
9
And no doubt Henry, who lived with his owner Nancy Ellert, was pleased that he did not have to share his
 
Page 40
bedroom with any other servants.
10
More commonly, however, domestic slaves did not have private rooms and had to sleep in parts of the house that served other functions during the day. Martha Hill's servant Lucy spent her nights in front of the fireplace in the kitchen and would roll up her bed linens in the morning. Another Lucy, a domestic hired to John Chevallie, had to sleep in the cellar among the many preserved foods and stored clothing and furniture.
11
In rare instances domestic slaves were given the opportunity to live apart. Charlotte was one of those lucky individuals able to live with her husband and children even though she was a servant in a private household and her husband ran errands for a nearby druggist.
12
If domestic slaves found their choice of living quarters limited, then slaves working on construction projects, such as the canal workers, probably found their arrangements unbearable. These laborers had to live under the most uncomfortable conditions, often sleeping in "crude, poorly constructed dirt-floored cabins, without shutters or doors." Meals were "usually cooked . . . in an open pit at the center of the shack; smoke rose through a hole in the roof, since few dwellings had chimneys or fireplaces." Not all slaves working on construction projects lived in such rough quarters, but those working on ''temporary" projects often endured brutal conditions. As a rule, the shorter the job, the poorer the facilities. Canal building, though it took years, was considered a temporary job because once the canal was completed, slave labor was no longer needed. As a result, housing for canal laborers tended to be hastily built shacks made from leftover lumber. Many of these dwellings were no more than propped-up rooftops that kept the rain off workers while they slept.
13
In contrast to either domestic or construction slave workers, most factory (or nondomestic) slave hands had enormous choice of and control over their living quarters. Slaves who were hired out to businesses generally were allowed to secure lodgings apart from both owner and employer. This meant bondmen living apart resided in a variety of dwellings such as boardinghouses owned by white or free black proprietors, or they rented small shacklike houses behind wealthier white residents' homes. Sometimes they stayed with family members who worked as domestic servants. Through this system Pleasant, who was hired to Mr. Smity, was able to live with his mother, who lived in her owner's house.
14
And Ned, who belonged to Robert Greenhow, stayed with his wife Lucy, a slave nurse owned by Robert Scott. Each night after work, Ned returned to Lucy's room in Scott's home.
15
Later as the system of living apart became more standard, slave workers found they could use their board money to move even farther away from owners and employers by
 
Page 41
renting houses and tenements, by themselves or with family members. The ability to live apart and stay with relatives was of great importance to many city slaves because it allowed them to be with their loved ones and helped them keep their families together.
Other aspects of life, such as diet, also were determined by a slave's working situation and place of residence. Domestic servants often ate the leftovers from their owner's meal or were fed a separate meal specially prepared for them by the cook. As one slave maid explained, "I worked in de house for old Miss, and we had plenty to do and plenty to eat. When de white folks was through eatin', I got a pan and got de grub, and set on de floor and eat it."
16
Because they shared meals with their owners, household slaves probably ate a fairly good mixture of meat, grains, and vegetables. Account books and shopping lists for a typical middling white household during the nineteenth century frequently included coffee, sugar, meat and poultry, vegetables, fresh fruit in season, and bread.
17
Although no slave was guaranteed such a diverse and steady diet, a domestic servant was fairly likely to receive some of these foods, while a factory bondmen probably would receive much more limited rations from his employer or overseer.
Slaves working in construction were among those who frequently ate a much less varied diet. Companies generally served their slaves simple meals consisting of pork or fresh beef, when available, and cornmeal. In comparison to a "typical" nineteenth-century slave diet, as described by historian Sam Hilliard, company meals lacked the usual supplements of sweet potatoes and other vegetables.
18
Fresh vegetables, fruits, and coffee were rarely available to these industrial slaves. In fact, company records indicate that some slaves received a diet that offered little more than subsistence. The Richmond Mining Company fed its workers only dried beef and cornmeal. Slaves working for the canal company ate a similar diet, although its sick workers received fresh bread in addition.
19
Records from the late antebellum era show that rations for slave workers at least those working for the city government eventually became standardized, though hardly diverse. The rations city slave workers received were laid out clearly in the contracts between the city council and the firm of Burwell and Sampson. These workers were to receive "3 lbs of bacon, one & half pecks of corn meal, one quart of molasses . . . quarter of a pound soap, and one gill of salt" at unspecified intervals.
20
Slaves who lived apart were expected to fend for themselves when it came to food. Though some factories provided their workers with one meal a day, hired slaves generally had to purchase and prepare their own meals with their board money.
21
While this ostensibly gave slaves greater choice, the small sums given by employers typically limited purchases to
 
Page 42
foods that were cheap and filling, such as bread, cabbage, and potatoes. Some slaves with extra cash earned from overtime bonuses were able to supplement their diets with meals from local cookshops. These establishments, run by free black and white proprietors, offered anyone, including slaves, a ready-cooked meal for a few pennies. Mary Wright, a free black woman, sold a variety of prepared "snacks" to workers from her house on Eighth Street. And for those in search of something headier than food, Wright also kept a full bar, "with all the fixtures," in the back of her house.
22
The nutritional value of the meals and the amount of food given to slave workers varied depending on their working situations and how much opportunity they had to supplement their diets.
23
Adult slave workers who had extra funds to buy meals or had access to their owners' pantries probably ate better than slave hands without such advantages, such as those working on the canal. Young children and elderly workers probably had a more difficult time securing enough food. In fact, company books and court records of the early antebellum era indicate that young slave children often did not receive adequate food or care, which is clearly demonstrated in the court case of Daniel and Sam, two young slave boys who worked at William Patterson's tobacco manufactory.
24
Daniel and Sam, who were thirteen and eleven, respectively, worked as tobacco stemmers at Patterson's factory in 1822. During that year both boys complained to their owner, Richard Carter, that they were being mistreated at the factory. In response, Carter removed the boys from the factory and hired them to another business. Patterson, in retaliation, sued Carter for breach of contract. During the trial it became evident that Daniel and Sam not only were treated badly but also were underfed. Although the company served the workers a meal a day, the boys were forced to fight for their food against larger children. Furthermore, it seems that Patterson rarely provided enough food. Joshua Goode, who worked at the tobacco factory and even hired out his own slaves to the same establishment, acknowledged that young slave workers frequently complained they were not fed enough. Goode admitted this while being cross-examined by the defendant.
Question: What was the reason that you took your boys away was it not because they complained that they had not enough to eat?
Goode: I took them away because I was about to leave Mr. Patterson & they did not like to stay behind. As to their not having enough to eat tis sure that they did complain that they did not have enough.

Other books

Stay With Me by Sharla Lovelace
Alberta Clipper by Lambert, Sheena
Having Fun with Mr. Wrong by Celia T. Franklin
The Gift of Volkeye by Marque Strickland, Wrinklegus PoisonTongue
Kill You Last by Todd Strasser
Dead Force Rising by JL Oiler
Stronger With Her by JA Hensley
Selby Santa by Duncan Ball
Covert Craving by Jennifer James