Punishment for killing a free black person in the Antebellum South

Code Blue · Aug 9, 2018

betgo said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_William_Hodge

Case in Virgin Islands.

from the judge: "The law makes no distinction between master and servant."

Thanks for this case.

grey fox · Aug 9, 2018

betgo said:
Exactly, that is what it took. If a slave owner or overseer beat to death a slave who had run away, he wouldn't be prosecuted and convicted.

That sounds plausible to me.

It is likely that it was more likely to be treated seriously the further north you went.

I agree. I still hope to find a case equivalent to the Arthur William Hodge case in the Deep South.

grey fox · Aug 9, 2018

Ajax_Minoan said:
It sounds like both these guys had some serial killer qualities. That's what it took back then I think.

Yes, that's the way it sounds to me also. If the slaveholder killed a slave because the slaveholder was angry with the slave, the slaveholder would not be charged with a crime. For a white person to be charged with killing a free black person, the white person would have to be a recreational killing. The white person would have to be killing the free black person for fun for the white person to be charged with a crime.

betgo · Aug 9, 2018

grey fox said:
Yes, that's the way it sounds to me also. If the slaveholder killed a slave because the slaveholder was angry with the slave, the slaveholder would not be charged with a crime. For a white person to be charged with killing a free black person, the white person would have to be a recreational killing. The white person would have to be killing the free black person for fun for the white person to be charged with a crime.

We have found no cases of a white person killing a free black, so I don't see how you extrapolate from a master killing a slave not being prosecuted to a white person killing a free black not being prosecuted. When a master or overseer killed a slave it was likely from whipping to death or in some altercation. The slave had usually been disobedient or run away. It doesn't follow that killing a free black would be totally ignored.

There are records mostly of whites executed for killing someone else's slave, but we don't know how many were convicted of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

There were free blacks who owned plantations. So if a poor white person killed a black plantation owner, it wouldn't be prosecuted?

grey fox · Aug 9, 2018

betgo said:
We have found no cases of a white person killing a free black, so I don't see how you extrapolate from a master killing a slave not being prosecuted to a white person killing a free black not being prosecuted. When a master or overseer killed a slave it was likely from whipping to death or in some altercation. The slave had usually been disobedient or run away. It doesn't follow that killing a free black would be totally ignored.

It does not follow from that that killing a free black would definitely be totally ignored by Law Enforcement. However, it's a strong indication that killing a free black would be ignored by Law Enforcement.

There were free blacks who owned plantations. So if a poor white person killed a black plantation owner, it wouldn't be prosecuted?

By my definition of plantation, I don't think that there were any black plantation owners in the Antebellum Deep South.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there were black plantation owners in the Antebellum Deep South. Here's my impression: In the antebellum Deep South, if a poor white person murdered a black plantation owner because they got into some sort of squabble, no, I don't think that the poor white person would be prosecuted. In the antebellum Deep South, if a poor white person killed a black plantation owner in a way in which it was obvious that the white person was killing as a "recreational killer", then the poor white person might be prosecuted.

betgo · Aug 9, 2018

William Ellison owned 63 slaves in 1860. I think that is considered a plantation.

Part of the issue with masters killing slaves were they owned them and were allowed to whip them and so on, not the race.

It isn't hard and fast exactly what charge someone would be convicted of. It depends on what the prosecutor and jury decided to do. I would not assume that killing a free black would always result in no charges without evidence.

There were no executions in the US for killing blacks before the Civil War, except for of someone else's slave. White plantation owners also had a habit of killing white people who insulted them or their daughter or something, and it usually went as manslaughter.

grey fox · Aug 9, 2018

betgo said:
William Ellison owned 63 slaves in 1860. I think that is considered a plantation.

I stand corrected.

Part of the issue with masters killing slaves were they owned them and were allowed to whip them and so on, not the race.

It isn't hard and fast exactly what charge someone would be convicted of. It depends on what the prosecutor and jury decided to do. I would not assume that killing a free black would always result in no charges without evidence.

There were no executions in the US for killing blacks before the Civil War, except for of someone else's slave. White plantation owners also had a habit of killing white people who insulted them or their daughter or something, and it usually went as manslaughter.

In Antebellum times, if a poor white person murdered William Ellison in 1860, I think that the poor white person would likely not be charged with a crime unless the circumstances were such that the killing of Ellison was "a recreational killing." If the circumstances were any type of feud, I think the poor white person would not be prosecuted.

betgo · Aug 9, 2018

grey fox said:
In Antebellum times, if a poor white person murdered William Ellison in 1860, I think that the poor white person would likely not be charged with a crime unless the circumstances were such that the killing of Ellison was "a recreational killing." If the circumstances were any type of feud, I think the poor white person would not be prosecuted.

I am not sure why you think that the standard for a master to be convicted of killing his slave was the same as for killing a free black.

I am not sure that free blacks' status was that much lower than whites in ante bellum times. There wasn't so much of a Jim Crow system then. There wasn't as much of an issue about race then, when it was clear who was in control. There weren't many lynching then. There also wasn't as much of an issue about involvement of black men with white women as later on.

Most blacks became free by their fathers freeing them or by buying there own freedom or having their freedom bought by a free relative. So likely many were wealthier than the average white person.

You also say the deep south. As I indicated, most of the free blacks in the south were in MD or VA and most of the rest were in NC, DE, or LA. So by far the most cases of that happening would be in one of those relatively moderate states.

grey fox · Aug 9, 2018

betgo said:
I am not sure why you think that the standard for a master to be convicted of killing his slave was the same as for killing a free black.

Situation 1# A white person murdering another person's slave= a situation in which the crime is against the white slaveowner

Situation 2# a white slavemaster murdering his own slave= a situation in which the crime is against a black person without any crime against any white person

Situation 3# A white person murdering a free black= a situation in which the crime is against a black person without any crime against any white person

Do you notice any similarities in who the crime is against in situations #2 and #3? Do you notice any differences in who the crime is directed against in situation #1 that is not the case in situation #2 and situation #3?

I am not sure that free blacks' status was that much lower than whites in ante bellum times. There wasn't so much of a Jim Crow system then. There wasn't as much of an issue about race then, when it was clear who was in control. There weren't many lynching then. There also wasn't as much of an issue about involvement of black men with white women as later on.

You must not have done much research into life in the Antebellum Deep South then.

You also say the deep south. As I indicated, most of the free blacks in the south were in MD or VA and most of the rest were in NC, DE, or LA. So by far the most cases of that happening would be in one of those relatively moderate states.

We already both agreed on that upthread. Why are you bringing that up again?

betgo · Aug 10, 2018

There is a difference between a master or overseer killing the master's slave and someone killing a free black. There is an obvious penalty for killing your own slave in that it is a big financial loss. It is like smashing up your new Mercedes with a sledge hammer. It doesn't make sense to kill a slave when it would be easy to sell him instead. Also, masters and overseers were allowed to severely whip slaves.

It doesn't follow from that that the murder of a free black person would be ignored. That is a different issue.

grey fox · Aug 10, 2018

betgo said:
There is a difference between a master or overseer killing the master's slave and someone killing a free black.

Let's leave overseers out of this, as that is the situation of a white person killing someone else's slave. A red herring.

There is an obvious penalty for killing your own slave in that it is a big financial loss. It is like smashing up your new Mercedes with a sledge hammer.

If a master murders his own slave, the crime was against the slave, not the master. THat the master would suffer financially for killing his own slave is irrelevant to determining how much protection a black person could receive from law enforcement since it's the black person getting killed, not the master.

It doesn't make sense to kill a slave when it would be easy to sell him instead.

This is a total red herring to the question of whether or not killing a black person would be prosecuted in the antebellum Deep South.

Also, masters and overseers were allowed to severely whip slaves.

This is another red herring to the question of whether or not killing a black person would be prosecuted in the Antebellum Deep South.

It doesn't follow from that that the murder of a free black person would be ignored. That is a different issue.

Both the issue of killing one's own slave and the issue of killing a free black person are issues of whether the killing of black people in the antebellum Deep South would be prosecuted for the purposes of justice for the black victim. That is the similarity.

betgo · Aug 10, 2018

Not red herrings. Was the reason masters were rarely convicted of killing their slaves because the victim was their slave or because the slave was black?

grey fox · Aug 10, 2018

betgo said:
Not red herrings. Was the reason masters were rarely convicted of killing their slaves because the victim was their slave or because the slave was black?

Because the slave was black.

The whole institution of slavery was predicated on white supremacy. Most of the reason that the South wanted to keep the institution of slavery was to maintain white supremacy, not for economic reasons. Economic reasons were part of it, but economic reasons were secondary. Read newspaper articles written & published in the Deep SOuth in the late 1850s and in 1860,and you'll see how concerned white southerners were about maintaining white supremacy.

betgo · Aug 10, 2018

grey fox said:
Because the slave was black.

The whole institution of slavery was predicated on white supremacy. Most of the reason that the South wanted to keep the institution of slavery was to maintain white supremacy, not for economic reasons. Economic reasons were part of it, but economic reasons were secondary. Read newspaper articles written & published in the Deep SOuth in the late 1850s and in 1860,and you'll see how concerned white southerners were about maintaining white supremacy.

In the late 1850s and 1860 slavery was attacked on moral grounds and defended on white supremacist grounds.

White supremacy was not the basis of slavery. There was massive slavery in classical times. The word slave come from the word Slav. At the same time as the African slave trade, there was a large trade in European slaves to the mideast. The Czar free the serfs during the American Civil War.

White supremacy was mainly a reaction to Reconstruction, black political power, and the threat of racial equality.

grey fox · Aug 10, 2018

betgo said:
White supremacy was not the basis of slavery.

You are so wrong on this. White Supremacy was the basis of slavery in the Antebellum South of the United States of America. You don't know what you're talking about here. Evidence that slavery in the American South was based upon notions of white supremacy is overwhelming.

There was massive slavery in classical times. The word slave come from the word Slav. At the same time as the African slave trade, there was a large trade in European slaves to the mideast. The Czar free the serfs during the American Civil War.

White Supremacy was not the basis of slavery in classical times, but white supremacy was the basis of slavery in the American South.

White supremacy was mainly a reaction to Reconstruction, black political power, and the threat of racial equality.

The threat of emancipation was a threat of racial equality. There were plenty of call to maintain slavery in order to maintain white supremacy on the eve of the Civil War.

betgo · Aug 10, 2018

The basis of slavery was profit. That is the main thing slaves were bought for.

If the basis was white supremacy, why were blacks and native Americans allowed to own slaves?

grey fox · Aug 10, 2018

betgo said:
The basis of slavery was profit. That is the main thing slaves were bought for.

If the basis was white supremacy, why were blacks and native Americans allowed to own slaves?

Blacks and Native Americans were not allowed to own white people.

If a black person or a Native American was allowed to own a white person, that would be a knock against white supremacy.

If a black person or a Native American owned a black person, that is not a knock against white supremacy. A black slaveowner owning a black slave just puts the black slaveowner in a superior position over the black slave, not a superior position over white people.

grey fox · Aug 10, 2018

In William Barney's book The Secessionist Impulse: Alabama and Mississippi in 1860, Barney writes the following about secession in AL and MS: "The importance of the racial issue cannot be overemphasized. Secessionists employed it in the press and on the stump; nearly every resistance meeting cited the threat of racial equality as a leading justification for secession. Volunteer companies swore to defend white supremacy with their lives. The Calhoun Guards of Pickens County declared that the Black Republican doctrine could only lead to ..... equality and thus was 'a doctrine we claim no fellowship with, and will forever fight against even to the spilling of blood.' Racism was the secessionists' greatest weapon. They knew precisely what southerners dreaded the most and by constantly exacerbating this fear and identifying it with the Republicans succeeded in building up tensions and hatreds which looked to secession as an outlet" (229-230).

Why did Barney write that "the importance of the racial issue cannot be overemphasized" if the basis of slavery was not white supremacy?

Why did nearly every resistance meeting cite the threat of racial equality as a leading justification for secession if slavery did not have a basis in white supremacy?

Why did volunteer companies swear to defend white supremacy with their lives if slavery did not have a basis in white supremacy?

Why did Barney write that "Racism" was the secessionists greatest weapon if slavery did not have a basis in white supremacy?

Why wasn't appeals to economic necessity secessionists' greatest weapon if slavery did not have its basis in white supremacy?

betgo · Aug 10, 2018

I don't disagree with you about racial issues in the Civil War. However, those issues were used by planters who had an economic motivation to fire up ordinary people.

All of that also does not show that any white person could kill any free black with impunity.

Port · Aug 11, 2018

betgo said:
I don't know the answer. I believe there were a few executions for murder in slavery times for killing someone else's slave. There were prison sentences for manslaughter for killing ones slave, but usually masters and overseers were not convicted of that. There was an execution in Jamaica of a plantation owner who had killed most of his slaves.

I believe I read about an execution in the 1880s or so in the south for a white killing a black, but that was usually at most manslaughter. Killings of blacks by blacks in the 20th century south were also often not prosecuted or went as 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

I don't know if it is possible to find the answer to your exact question though.

Jamaca had a number of slave revolts. This execution of a plantation owner who had killed most of his slaves.
may have been a way to lessen the potential of future violence.

Search

Search

Punishment for killing a free black person in the Antebellum South

Code Blue

grey fox

grey fox

betgo

grey fox

betgo

grey fox

betgo

grey fox

betgo

grey fox

betgo

grey fox

betgo

grey fox

betgo

grey fox

grey fox

betgo

Port

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions