Rearing Wolves to Our Own Destruction: Slavery in Richmond Virginia, 1782–1865 (41 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
3.76Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
Page 108
No doubt slave member Peter Kelly found the process of having his marriage sanctioned by the church a painful experience. The deacons had excluded Kelly because he married a woman whose first husband was still alive. Even after learning that Kelly's new wife had left her first husband six years earlier because of "the husband's mal-treatment of [her] and because he had gone off and married another wife," the deacons still questioned the validity of Kelly's marriage and only reluctantly sanctioned the vows. Slave congregant Archer Brown suffered an even more humiliating experience when he was excluded for "marrying a woman while his wife was living and for denying the fact."
58
Although these punishments were harsh, it appears that slave and free black congregants did not view the church or the deacons as unreasonable or unfair. In fact, black residents came to view the church as a place where they could resolve disputes in a fashion deemed equitable and generally satisfactory to all parties involved. In such matters the church acted as a form of a community court for members to air both personal and financial disputes. When Gilbert Hunt and Thomas Griffin began fighting over an unpaid debt, both asked the church to step in. And when Richard Quarles felt he had been treated in a "discourteous" manner by a fellow congregant, Quarles sought redress through the church.
Records suggest that many free black congregants preferred to have their difficulties settled by the church because it was less costly, less time-consuming, and more sympathetic than the white-controlled Hustings Court system. Slaves preferred the church "court" because it was the only place they could seek justice without the assistance of their owner or employer. Although the mayor frequently heard cases involving slaves, generally it was the owner and employer of the slaves involved who brought the cases to court in hopes of receiving payment for damages done to their chattel. None of these cases, however, addressed the anger and humiliation that slave and free black defendants felt and the justice they sought. This certainly was one of the factors that motivated Betsy Holmes, a slave woman, to plead her case in church. Holmes reported that she chose the church "court" because she could speak for herself and fear no retribution in arguing that she had been unjustly accused of provoking a fight with a fellow slave.
59
The community court, like the mutual aid organizations and the preaching opportunities, presented a radical challenge to white domination and control by allowing slave and free blacks to among other things govern themselves and to "take care of their own." In such capacities the church went far in politicizing black congregants by encouraging them to seek justice and equality. Not only did the church inspire, it also served as a forum for black residents to address issues of
 
Page 109
power, such as equal voting power and favoritism in elections, and to sharpen their political teeth. Little did Ryland and the deacons know that the church would become the focus of the earliest political battles among black parishioners.
In 1848, after six years of what seemed to be fairly routine business, Deacons Kinney, Morris, Henderson, and the others received a surprising letter from the congregation. It was a petition signed by thirty slave and free males demanding that they "change the Constitution of the church so as to allow all male members to vote."
60
While the deacons may not have seen this issue coming, these thirty (and possibly more) laymen believed it was long overdue. They noted that in spite of the overwhelming number of slave church members and these members' large financial contributions to the purchase of the church and the pastor's salary, slave (and many free black) congregants lacked equal rights within the church. Few, if any, deacons or committee members were slaves. Furthermore, church records indicate these key positions were awarded to free black males through elections in which only a portion of the free black male congregation could vote. In other words, all slave men, a portion of free black male members, and all black women were disenfranchised. Apparently the petition caught the deacons and pastor off guard. Lacking a proper response, they simply chose to ignore the demands of these men.
Two years later, however, the issue resurfaced. In May 1850 James Allison, Charles Feggins, and Stephen Brown, presumably slave men, sent a letter of complaint to the deacons decrying the "partiality to
free
persons in the administration of church affairs."
61
This time the letter was not ignored, and the deacons responded swiftly by excluding all three men. The deacons' response stunned church members. Even the Reverend Mr. Ryland, who generally supported the deacons' decisions, suggested that their actions were too harsh and recommended that all three be restored as soon as possible. The deacons thought it over and consented to restore Allison, Feggins, and Brown but only if the men would agree that "the church had acted from a sense of duty in excluding them." In other words, the excluded members could return only if they agreed that the church's action had been correct. Brown agreed and was immediately restored. Allison and Feggins, however, steadfastly refused.
62
The battle between the deacons and Allison and Feggins could not help but affect the congregation as tempers flared and members quickly took sides. Seeing how the issue had factionalized the church, the deacons and Ryland quickly sought to regain "harmony and fellowship" among the members by rewording their offer of restoration. Ryland ex-
 
Page 110
plained "that he did not mean to require them [Allison and Feggins] to
justify
the act of exclusion, but only to acquit the church of
improper motives
in their late proceedings."
63
Allison and Feggins remained unmoved and still refused to return to the church.
The controversy festered for seven more months until November 1850, when the superintending committee from the all-white First Baptist Church, Ryland, the deacons from the First African Baptist Church, and "a large number of private members" met to resolve the issue. The proceedings were surprisingly calm and generally unemotional given how bitter the earlier battle had been. Once again Allison and Feggins were asked if they could "
fellowship
the deacons," while the deacons were asked if they could restore the two men. Both groups answered yes, and the two men returned to the fold.
While Brown, Allison, Feggins, and the thirty men who preceded them failed to alter the constitution or change voting policies, their actions did sow the seeds for future political battles by reminding constituents that the Baptist church was based on a liturgy of egalitarianism, that it was an institution of the congregation, and that its ruling hierarchy was created by the parishioners and not by an outside body. Because the deacons and committee members were elected, they were not above reproach from the congregation. It was this last point on which the next major political challenge pivoted.
Almost two years after Allison and Feggins returned, a new conflict arose that captured the attention of nearly all congregants. This conflict, however, concerned the deacons' power to regulate and discipline members and serve as mediators in the church "court." Suspecting that the power vested in the deacons gave them too much latitude, parishioners demanded and won the right to reprimand and remove any deacon for improper behavior. While no specific case seems to have prompted this change in policy, the battles that emerged thereafter suggest that the congregation had grown tired of the deacons' behavior and was in no mood to tolerate it. One of the earliest cases began in the spring of 1852 when Deacon Wilson Morris was brought up on charges of impropriety toward other church members.
Deacon Morris was accused of yelling, cursing, and directing "indecorous and abusive language towards two of his brother deacons" during a chance meeting on the street. The incident deeply bothered many of the church members, some of whom approached Morris and "presented to him a respectful request to resign."
64
Morris took no note of the letter and refused to leave office. The members who approached him, however, felt the matter needed to be addressed.
One month later, 336 church members signed a petition invoking
 
Page 111
their right to remove a deacon and demanded that Morris leave immediately. Morris still refused to resign, claiming that his actions were merely the "faithful discharge of official duties."
65
His position was backed by an opposition faction, which submitted a counterpetition signed by 255 of Morris's supporters. At this point the issue was referred to the deacons for a decision. A vote was taken, and fourteen deacons were opposed to Morris resigning, while ten were in favor and two abstained. Believing the issue to have been resolved, Ryland announced the vote and recommended that Morris remain and the matter be dropped. But Morris's opponents refused to drop the issue and went to the superintending committee of the First Baptist Church.
The following month the committee held a private meeting to discuss the case. No one was to learn of their decision until July 16, 1852. After church services that day, the committee announced that Wilson Morris had already resigned from his position, "at the suggestion of the committee." Although the committee members had written a report of their discussion, they refused to read it in public so as not to offend "the feelings of Wilson Morris." Their only comment was that "no officer ought ever to retain his place to the dissatisfaction of a respectable minority."
66
The congregation took the decision quite well; Morris's supporters did not demand his return or to know more about the committee's decision. The deacons, however, took the challenge as an affront to their power, and the next month Deacons Oliver, Kinney, Allen, Spriggs, and Price resigned in protest. If the deacons had hoped their resignations would scare parishioners into restoring Morris, their plan backfired. At the next church elections, they were simply replaced.
For white parishioners and churches, such political battles may have seemed mundane squabbles. But for black Baptists every controversy and decision-making process held tremendous significance. While many of the debates became powerful and emotional battles that occasionally threatened to divide the congregation forever, ultimately they served to help members work together and hone their negotiating skills. The incidents also provided opportunities for slave and free black members to participate in shaping and improving their institution. This process of shaping the church was critical in helping it meet the religious and secular needs of the black community, which had been ignored by the larger dominant society. Some of these needs included a theological interpretation that would "fit [the] peculiar experience of enslavement in America";
67
an institution that allowed members to look to God for spiritual guidance and to themselves for support to uphold those beliefs; and a physical and psychological space within which congregants could release emotions, express opinions, seek justice, advocate equality, be
 
Page 112
judged by peers, and better themselves by themselves. The First African Baptist Church accomplished all these things and more.
''Rearing Wolves to Our Own Destruction"
Although many Richmond residents felt confident about the future of industrial slavery, by the late antebellum era there was a growing sense among slave owners, employers, and other elites that the slave system was unstable and needed strengthening. Not only did they believe that acts of slave resistance against persons and property were increasing, but that slave workers had become more defiant. One slave owner claimed urban slaves had become more rebellious than their rural counterparts and recommended that they "be broken in like dogs and horses, in order to establish a power over them, and keep them in subjection."
68
A group of tobacconists seconded this belief, stating that there existed "a growing spirit of insubordination amongst the negroes of the city."
69
As proof, white residents pointed to incidents of violence committed by slave men and women against slave owners and employers most notably the cases involving Jordan Hatcher and Jane and John Williams.
The first of these incidents began on a cold February morning at the tobacco factory of Walker and Harris, when seventeen-year-old slave stemmer Jordan Hatcher got into a scuffle with his white manager, nineteen-year-old William P. Jackson. The fight began when Jackson, who was displeased with Hatcher's work, began to beat him. After the first few blows, Hatcher caught hold of the whip to stop Jackson from hitting him. Jackson then ordered Hatcher to walk over to an open space on the floor near the stove. Hatcher complied, and when he came to the stove, Jackson resumed the beating. In response Hatcher picked up an iron poker that was lying nearby and struck the manager on the head, knocking him unconscious. Frightened, Hatcher immediately fled the manufactory.
70
When Jackson came to, it seemed that he had suffered only minor injuries from the blow, but the next day he unexpectedly collapsed and died. An autopsy was performed, and the results confirmed that Jackson's death was caused by the blow he had received the day before. The mayor immediately dispatched city watchmen to locate and arrest Hatcher. Eventually Hatcher was found and brought to trial. A month later, in March 1852, the court found Hatcher guilty of murder and sentenced him to be hanged.
71
Not more than four months had passed after Hatcher's trial when new shock waves coursed through the white community following a second, equally dramatic incident: the murders of slave owner Virginia Winston and her child, allegedly at the hands of their slave servants, John and Jane Williams. According to court records, early Monday

Other books

Frequent Hearses by Edmund Crispin
Plantation Shudders by Ellen Byron
Wings of a Dream by Anne Mateer
Thunder in the Blood by Hurley, Graham