_The Police Control of the Slave in South Carolina._ By H. M. Henry, M.A.,
Professor of History and Economics, Emory and Henry College, Emory,
Virginia, 1914. 216 pages.
This work is a doctoral dissertation of Vanderbilt University. The author
entered upon this study to show to what extent the southern people "sought
to perpetuate, not slavery, but the same method of controlling the
emancipated Negro which was in force under the slavery regime, the
difficulties which were met with from without and the measure of success
attained." He was not long in discovering that the laws on the statute
books did not adequately answer the question. It was necessary, therefore,
to determine to what extent these laws were in force and what extra-legal
method may have been resorted to in a system so flexible as slavery.
One of the first influences discovered was the Barbadian slave code and
then the evolution of slave control from that of the white indentured
servant. Soon then the status of the slave as interpreted by the court was
that of no legal standing in these tribunals. The overseer is then
presented as a Negro driver, referred to in contemporary sources. The
author devotes much space to the patrol system, the various kinds of
punishment, the court for the trial of slaves, the relations between the
Negroes and the whites, the question of trading with slaves, slaves hiring
their time, the slave trade, the stealing, harboring and kidnapping of free
Negroes, the runaway slaves, the Seamen Acts, the gatherings of Negroes,
slave insurrections, the abolition of incendiary literature, the
prohibition of the education of the blacks, manumission, and the legal
status of the free Negro.
The author shows by his researches that although amended somewhat, the
slave code agreed upon in 1740 continued as a part of the organic law. At
times some effort was made to ameliorate the condition of the blacks. The
kidnapping of free Negroes, at first permitted, was later declared a crime,
the murder of a Negro by a white man, which until 1821 was punishable only
by a fine, was then made a capital offence, the court for the trial of
Negroes became more inclined to be just, the privileges of trading and
hiring their time, although prohibited by law, became common, and some
efforts were made to give the blacks religious instruction. At the same
time the Negro suffered from reactionary measures restricting their
emancipation, prohibiting free Negroes from entering the State, and
proscribing their education. The author can see why the rich planters for
financial reasons supported this system, but wonders why non-slaveholders
who formed the majority of the white population, "should have assisted in
upholding and maintaining the slavery status of the Negro with its
attendant inconveniences, such a patrol service, when they must have been
aware in some measure, at least, that as an economic regime it was a
hindrance to their progress."
In this study the author found nothing "to indicate that there was any
movement or any serious discussion of the advisability of abolishing
slavery or devising any plan that would eventually lead to it." In that
State there never were many anti-slavery inhabitants. The Quakers who came
into the State soon left and the Germans, who at first abstained from
slavery, finally yielded. There probably was an academic deprecation of the
evils of the institution but hardly any tendency toward agitation; and if
there had been such, the promoters would not have secured support among the
leading people. A few men like Judge O'Neall favored the emancipation of
worthy slaves, but the agitation from without gave this sentiment no chance
to grow. Yet the author is anxious not to leave the impression that, had it
not been for outside interference, slavery in South Carolina would have
been modified. This would not have happened, he contended, because unlike
the States of North Carolina and Virginia, South Carolina did not find
slaves less valuable. The condition of the slave in the upper country was
better than that in the low lands, but no section of the State showed signs
of abolition.
This work is a well-documented dissertation. It has an appendix containing
valuable documents, and a critical bibliography of the works consulted. It
could have been improved by digesting documents which appear almost in full
throughout the work. Another defect is that it has no index.