Fourth Generation Inclusive

Historical Documents of Genealogical Interest to Researchers of North Carolina's Free People of Color

Category: Free Status

November 25, 2012

Soft-hearted? Soft-headed.

To the General Assembly of North Carolina

It is desirable that you should adopt a course of policy, and pass a system of laws to induce, if not compel, the free negroes in North Carolina to emigrate to the Abolition and Free Soil states.  It appears to me that Negrophobia, which is now raging and rousing up a large number of people in the non-Slaveholding states cannot be cured more effectually than by giving them some strong black medicine out of their own black Bottle: and therefore, the members of the Legislature ought in my Judgment to enact all the constitutional laws in their power to effect the object I have indicated.  I do not intend to offer reasons and arguments in favor of such Laws.  Every man who has a southern head on his shoulders and a southern heart in his bosom must see the propriety and the necessity of such legislation.

I propose that you pass a law making the ownership of land on which free negroes reside liable to pay all the taxes, contracts, damages, Penalties, fines and costs, and other legal liabilities which colored persons may contract or incur while living thereon. That it, I would make the actual possession of the free negro, a lein, on the land on which he lived, and let that lein continue until his public and private liabilities were paid and satisfied.

There is a numerous class of the worst sort of Abolitionists dwelling in our midst in the southern states who clandestinely trade with slaves and receive stolen good in payment for ardent spirits and other articles, thereby corrupting and destroying the value of servants.  Many of these malefactors are insolvent persons and some of them are agents of men of property, who select such deputies to do their dirty work, hoping that prudent laws cannot reach and punish them.  I propose that the offense just stated shall be punished, not only with fine and imprisonment, but, by one of more whippings on the bare back at the whipping post.  I am aware some persons have an aversion, through a sort of sickly sympathy, to inflict corporal punishment for the commission of any offences, hoping to gain for themselves the character of being very soft hearted, but I think all such might with much more propriety be considered very soft headed.  When offences proceed from the conception of the human heart, let no honest man sympathise with the offender.  But when the frailty of [illegible] nature is to be punished for deeds done without deliberation, then, kind and generous feelings may be justly excercised.  Society can only be carried on and preserved through the influence of example.  Those persons who live by corrupting and hiring negroes to steal for their benefit, deserve and ought to receive the most severe and exemplary punishments.

All our laws on the subject of Slavery, and the officious intermedling with it, which is the sin of the age, require revision, amendment and improvement.

I make another suggestion; I would make the land on which white Tenants live, liable to pay all fines, penalties and costs that they may be liable to pay while living on these landlords land; Then, the honest taxpayers and good citizens of the state & county would not so often be taxed, unjustly, to pay costs after the conviction of insolvent malefactors and old sinners.

Respectfully presented by James Graham.

Petition of James Graham, Lincoln County, dated 29 December 1850.  Petitions, North Carolina General Assembly, North Carolina State Archives.

Leave a comment
November 13, 2012

Fariby Simons and hir children was free.

State of North Carolina, Wayne County     July 23rd 1853

Mary Wiggs after Being Duly Sworn Deposeth & Says as follows in (viz) that she was acquainted and knew one certain Fareby Simons a free woman of Color that lived with one William Burnham of Duplin County and State aforsaid and that Said fariby Simon was living with Said Burnham as an apprintice and after the Expiration of hir appriaticeship she the said fareby Simon had some Several Children in the time She livd with Burnham the Deponant further Say she heard Burnham tel hir father Samuel Herring that said fariby Simons and hir children was free and that he the said Burnham was to assist and Rais hir Children and have the use of them untwell they arived to the age of Twenty one years and then he the said Burnham was to let them go as they came of age the Deponant further Says that She has known Fariby Simons sixty or Sixty five years and knew hir before Burnham Told hir father that she was free further the Deponant Sayeth Not.   /s/ Mary X Wiggs

Sworn to and Subscribed to Before Me the 23rd July AD 1853 Test George Flowers J.P.

This is one of three sworn statements by whites attesting to Fereby Simmons’ freedom.

Records of Slaves and Free People of Color, Wayne County Miscellaneous Records, North Carolina State Archives.

1 Comment
November 9, 2012

He sold Betsy, well knowing she was free.

State of North Carolina  }    Superior Court of Law

Wayne County             }    Spring Term 1837

The Jurors for the State upon their oath present, that Farnifold Jernigan, late of the County of Wayne, and State of North Carolina, on the first day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty six, at and in the County aforesaid, one free negro, by the name of Betsy Dinkins, unlawfully did sell to one Robert Daniel, said Jernigan knowing the said Betsy Dinkins to be free, contrary to the form of the Statute, in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State.

And the Jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid do further present, that Farnifold Jernigan, late of the County of Wayne, and State aforesaid, on the first day of March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and thirty six, at and in the county aforesaid, unlawfully, did sell one Betsy Dinkins, a person of mixed blood, to one Robert Daniel, the said Betsy Dinkins, then and there being free, and the said Farnifold Jernigan, well knowing that the said Betsy Dinkins was free, contrary to the form of the Statute, in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.

And the Jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid do further present, that Farnifold Jernigan, late of the County of Wayne, and State aforesaid, on the first day of March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and thirty six, at and in the county aforesaid, unlawfully, did sell one Betsy Dinkins, a person of mixed blood, (daughter of one Sally Dinkins a white woman) to one Robert Daniel of said county, the said Farnifold Jernigan, knowing the said Betsy Dinkins to be free, contrary to the form of the Statute, in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.

And the Jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid do further present, that Farnifold Jernigan, late of Wayne County and State aforesaid, on the first day of March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and thirty six, at and in the county and state aforesaid, unlawfully, did sell one Betsy Dinkins, then and there a person of mixed blood, to one Robert Daniel, for the price of fifty dollars, the said Betsy Dinkins, then and there being free, and the said Farnifold Jernigan, knowing that the said Betsy to be free, contrary to the form of the Statute, in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State.     /s/ Edw. Banly Solicitor

In 1834, Furnifold Jernigan and David Cole were charged in Wayne County Superior Court with taking Kilby O’Quinn from Wayne to Bladen County for “their own use.” In 1837, Jernigan was indicted for selling Betsy Dinkins. In that three-year period, Jernigan and at least four co-defendants appeared on the Wayne County docket ten times on charges of selling free negroes, but never vent to trial. Despite Jernigan’s notoriety (he had fourteen other unrelated court appearances in the same period,) the state’s solicitor in the Dinkins case was compelled to complain to the judge that “the defendant by the influence of several men of standing … has …  so many of the Court yard, in his favor, that it would be amere mockery to enter upon this trial in Wayne.” The case was ordered removed to Greene County, but never appeared on the docket there. In 1850, Jernigan, still living in Wayne, owned $5000 in farmland and 43 slaves. Minutes of the Superior Court of Wayne County, Spring Term, 1834, and Minutes of the Superior Court of Wayne County, Spring Term, 1837, Records of Wayne County, NCSA; State Docket, Superior Court of Wayne County, vol. 1, 1834-1843, Records of Wayne County, NCSA;Petition from Edward Banly to Superior Court, April 6, 1837,Box 4, Records Concerning Slaves and Free Persons of Color, Records of Wayne County, NCSA.

4 Comments
November 5, 2012

40 years’ acquiescence gives effect.

Augustine Cully v. Lovick Jones et al., 31 NC 168 (1848).

This was an action for false imprisonment.  Plaintiff Augustine Cully‘s mother Phebe was the slave of Jane Thompson.  Thompson’s will directed her executor Reuben Jones “to obtain the freedom of Phebe, if practicable, on account of her meritorious services.” In November 1806, Jones filed a petition in Carteret County court for Phebe’s freedom.  Phebe and her children were thereafter permitted to act as free people.  However, Jones neglected to give the required bond for the action until 1816, when he was ordered to do so, and did.  Phebe’s daughter Augustine was born in 1808 and lived as a free person until just before this action commenced, when Lovick Jones seized her and claimed her as a slave.

The NC Supreme Court held that, though Augustine Cully was born before the bond was effectuated, neither Reuben Jones, who neglected his duty, nor anyone claiming for or by him could take advantage of that omission, much less a mere wrong-doer.  “More than forty years have allowed to pass from the act of emancipation and [Augustine’s birth], before any claim was made to hold her as a slave; during all which time, she passed as a free person and was so treated and considered by the community, in which she lived.  After so long an acquiescence, almost any thing will be presumed, in order to give effect to the act of emancipation.”

The 1850 census of New Bern, Craven County, shows a household that included Phillis Martin, 85; Augustin Cully, 35; Adam Cully, 40 and blind; Joseph Martin, 29, and Alex. Martin, 27, both sailors; Abner Cully, 14; Eliza Cully, 11; Elizabeth Cully, 9; and Adam Cully, 5.  All were described as black.

2 Comments
November 4, 2012

Just so you know, they might be free.

Free Jack v. Woodruff, 10 NC 106 (1824).

An action for freedom.  Free Jack was the son of a woman of color named Jane Scott, who, in 1774 was “in the possession of” one Allen, who asserted that Jane was free.  In 1784, Jack was indented by Surry County court to one Meredith, who frequently said he was free, but then sold him to Moses Woodruff. Woodruff sold Jack with the warning that he was reported to be free and caveat emptor.  Allen, meanwhile, sold Jane Scott to Abraham Cresong, who sold her and twelve of her children to William Terrill Lewis on 22 October 1788.  Lewis, fearing he would lose them otherwise, sent the children out of state.  Woodruff, to prove that Jane was a slave, introduced a Rowan County record that showed that Jane and her children had been “set at liberty” on a writ of habeas corpus by a Surry County court, but that judgment had been reversed for want of jurisdiction.  The judgment in the lower court was for Free Jack, and Woodruff appealed.  Upon consideration of certain evidentiary questions involving parol evidence and hearsay, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial.

The Scott family’s struggles to maintain their freedom were generational.  Jane’s grandson Samuel’s travails similarly lead to the state’s highest court.  See Samuel Scott v. Joseph Williams, 12 NC 376 (1828).

Leave a comment
November 4, 2012

The Robbers carried off two of their Children.

FREE NEGRO STEALERS.

On the 29th Instant, about Mid’Night, four Men came to the House of VALENTINE LOCUST, an aged Free Negro, who resides on Leek Creek, in Wake County, and calling at the Door to gain Admittance, as soon as the Door was opened, Two of them entered with Clubs, and instantaneously knocked down the old Man and his Wife, and beat them to such a Degree as scarcely to leave Life; and whilst they were in that Situation, the Robbers carried off two of their Children, a Boy named Absalom, aged about twelve Years, of a yellowish Complexion, who is just able to read and write; a Girl, named Polly, aged about five Years, of a Complexion more yellow than her Brother.

The Father of the Children is a respectable and industrious old Man, who has hitherto made ample Provisions for himself and Family; and it is hoped, from the peculiar Circumstances of his Case, arising from hisIncapacity to bear Witness, except against his own Colour, added to the distressed Situation he must be place in after the Loss of his two Children, will awaken the Feelings of the Humane, and that they will contribute every Thing in their Power that may tend to the detecting and punishing of such vile Offenders.

It is supposed the Perpetrators of this Offence, will endeavor to convey their Prey to the State of Georgia, in the Character of Slaves, for the Purpose of Traffic.  Wake County, N. Carolina.  Sep. 30, 1801

The Printers in the U. States who are desirous of detecting the Offenders, will give this a Place in their Papers.

Raleigh Register, 6 October 1801

Leave a comment
October 31, 2012

It is her wish and desire that her children should leave the state.

State of North Carolina, Onslow County }

Court of Pleas & Quarter Sessions, March Term 1860

To the Worshipful, the Justices of Said Court: The petition of Omar White, humbly complaining, showeth unto your Worships that she is a free woman of color: that her Mother, Elizabeth White was born a free person of color in the County of Pitt of the State of aforesaid and removed to this the county and state aforesaid when your petitioner was born, raised and has always resided.  Your petitioner further showeth to your Worships that she is now about sixty years, is at present residing where she has resided with her family, which is numerous, for the last twelve years on the premises of of Basil M. Barry, Esquire, and with his permission: that she is the mother of thirteen children and has [blank] grandchildren, all of whom, under the age of twenty-one years, respectively. Your petitioner further showeth that, after her said children shall have attained the age of twenty one aforesaid and shall have fulfilled all the requirements of the law in such cases made and provided for Apprentices, it is her wish and desire that they shall remove from the state aforesaid and settle in a free state.  Your petitioner further showeth unto your worships that the facts set forth in this her petition are in the knowledge of many persons now living and such knowledge is the only evidence of her freedom: that she is growing old and her witnesses are also much advanced in years: that by the time he said children shall have reached the age of twenty one aforesaid, when they shall be free to emigrate from the state aforesaid, it may not be in their power to show the facts herein set forth.

To the end therefore that such testimony may be perpetuated and become a part of the record of this Worshipful Court, your petitioner humbly prays your Worships for permission for a rule to take such depositions as may be necessary to sustain the allegations set forth in this her petition.  And your petitioner humbly begs your Worships for further and such other relief as your Worships may deem necessary and proper.

And your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray etc.    L.W. Humphrey, Attorney for Pet.

Elizabeth “Betsey” Whitehurst’s children were apprenticed extensively in Onslow County — Omy [Naomi, also called Oma, and the petitioner here] in 1806, 1811, 1818, 1819; Joshua in 1806, twice in 1811, 1816, 1818 ; Elijah in 1811; Esther in 1813 and 1830; Ann, Bill and Edward in 1817 and 1827; and Morris in 1827.  Their last name appeared as White, Whiters and Whitehurst.  See Apprentice Records, Wayne County, North Carolina State Archives.  She is probably the “Betsey Free” listed in the 1820 census of South Richlands district, Onslow County, with a household comprising four people of color.  In the 1830 census of Onslow County, she is Betsey Whitehurst with a household of seven.  In the 1850 census, she is listed in her son Edward White’s household in Cypress Creek, Jones County.

Omy White’s children also cycled through Onslow County Court as apprentices — Betsy Jane in 1827, 1835, 1839; Nancy in 1827; Sarah in 1834; Lindey in 1834; Elijah in 1835; Linda and Jack in 1844;  Edward “Ned,” Esther and Robert “Bob” in 1844 and 1849; Naomi in 1844; and Alfred in 1849.  In the 1850 census of Half Moon district, Onslow County, Omy “Ward” and four children are listed in one household (headed by B.M. Barry, a lawyer) and son Jack is in another. 

Leave a comment
October 29, 2012

A dark mulatto missing two teeth.

Taken Up & Committed to Jail.

In this place on the 6th day of November last, a Negro Man, between 30 and 35 years old, 5 feet 5 inches high, a dark mulatto, he has a small scar under his chin, he has lost two of his upper teeth; he had with him taken a great many clothes, three coats of homespun, 6 or 7 shirts, 6 or 7 pairs of pantalons, and 5 or 6 vests, a rifle gun, a Lapin Watch, and two gold breast pins.  He calls himself John Blair, and says he is a free man, and was raised in Charleston, S.C.    John M. Vanhoy, Jailor, Germanton, Stokes Co., NC, 1837

The Carolina Watchman, 18 March 1837.

Leave a comment
October 29, 2012

It is the misfortune of their children.

Frances Howard v. Sarah Howard, 51 NC 235 (1858).

In about 1818, Miles Howard, then a slave, “without other ceremony, took for his wife, by consent of his master” a slave named Matilda, who belonged to a Mr. Burt.  Miles was immediately thereafter emancipated, bought Matilda, and had a daughter named Frances.  Miles freed Matilda, and they had seven more children, Robert, Eliza, Miles, Charles, Lucy, Ann and Thomas, before Matilda died.  A few years later, Miles married a free woman of color “with due ceremony” and had four children, Sarah, John, Nancy and Andrew. In 1836, Frances was emancipated by an Act of the State Legislature.  After Miles’ death, his children by Matilda claimed their share of Miles’ estate, but his children by the free woman of color claimed to be Miles’ sole heirs.  Halifax County Superior Court found for the defendants, and plaintiffs appealed.  After an exegesis on slave marriage, the state Supreme Court held that, because thet did not marry legally once freed, neither Frances nor the rest of Matilda’s children were legitimate.  “It is the misfortune of their children that they neglected or refused [to marry lawfully], for no court can avert the consequences.” Judgment for Sarah and her full siblings.

The 1850 census of Halifax County shows Miles Howard (51), who was a barber, wife Caroline (25) and children Frances (25), Charles (17), Lucy (11), Thos. (8), Sarah (4), John (2) and Nancy (5 mos.)  Son Miles Jr. (23), also a barber, lived nearby.

1 Comment
October 26, 2012

A mere question.

Samuel Scott v. Joseph Williams, 12 NC 376 (1828).

Samuel Scott sued Joseph Williams for assault and battery and false imprisonment.  Jane Scott, an allegedly free woman, had been indented to Williams’ father, and Samuel was “given” to Williams by his father as a slave.  Samuel proved at trial that he was the son of Jemima, who was the daughter of Jane Scott, and the question was whether Jane was free.  The trial judge instructed the jury that Jane’s “colour might enter into their consideration” in making the determination.  “If she was of a black African complexion, they might presume from that fact, that she was a slave; if she was of a yellow complexion, no presumption of slavery arose from her color.”  The jury returned a verdict for Scott with substantial damages, and Williams appealed.  Williams argued that the jury instructions were incorrect and that damages ought to be minimal as “it was an action brought to decide a mere question of property between innocent persons.”  The Supreme Court demurred, refused to grant a new trial, and affirmed the judgment.

Leave a comment