Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005 Competition for Freedom: Black Labor during Reconstruction in Florida Christopher S. Day

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

The Florida State University

College of Arts and Sciences

Competition for Freedom: Black Labor during Reconstruction in Florida

By

Christopher S. Day

A Thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Degree Awarded Spring Semester 2005

Copyright © 2005 Christopher S. Day All Rights Reserved The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Christopher S. Day,

Defended November 17, 2004.

______Joe M. Richardson Professor Directing Thesis

______Maxine D. Jones Committee Member

______Peter Garretson Committee Member

Approved:

______Neil T. Jumonville, Chair, Department of History

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My work on this project would have never been completed without the help of a few special people. First, I would like to thank Dr. Joe M. Richardson for his time, patience, and knowledge in guiding me through this learning process. I would also like to thank Dr. Maxine D. Jones for her support and willingness to let me come into her office and ramble about nothing, Dr. Peter Garretson for reminding me that history does not stop at the borders of the United States, and Dr. Canter Brown, Jr. for his assistance with my work at the Florida State Archives, even though he did not know who I was outside of being a student of history. Last, but not least I wish to thank my wife Zainab, the light of my life, and my family for never allowing me to waver in my commitment to academia.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….. v

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………. 1

1. POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT…………………………………………...... 10

2. VIOLENCE DURING RECONSTRUCTION…………………………………. 27

3. LAND AND LABOR…………………………………………………………... 45

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………….. 63

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………….. 67

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH………………………………………………………. 75

iv ABSTRACT

In American History Reconstruction was a period of great change. The abolition of slavery forced the South to create a free labor system. How did this new focus affect African-Americans? Were they to become equal participants in a free labor society or once again a subordinate labor class? Historians have argued about the ambiguities of racial oppression. Many concluded that the main fear was social equality; whites refused to accept blacks as anything other than second class. This was not entirely incorrect, but what else was at stake? If blacks were denied opportunities to advance in society what was left for them? By being denied certain avenues African-Americans were forced into a position of subservient labor for white employers. During the years of Presidential Reconstruction, 1865 – 1867, black suffrage was vigorously opposed by a majority of Southern whites. Even with the passage of the fifteenth amendment whites used intimidation to curb black voting. Lack of capital and fear of retribution also made it difficult to buy land and become economically independent. These issues along with social segregation created a second class black community that had few alternatives, but to work for whites as they had done in the past. This indeed is not the complete answer to the race relations question, but it does show that denial of rights, whether by law or violence, and lack of economic independence can create an environment that will promote a subordinate labor class.

v INTRODUCTION

The institution of slavery has dominated the landscape of racial history in America since the early nineteenth century. Race relations were based on the rules created by the institution of slavery. Whites were the dominant class and Africans were the subordinate group. This definition has been adequate for most of the years of black- white coexistence, but it does not explain the complete nature of race relations. The dynamics of the relationship changed in the nineteenth century with the creation of the abolitionist movement that sprang from a religious awakening in the nation. In the north a few people began to see slavery as an immoral institution that should be eliminated. The abolitionists were not acting upon an egalitarian motive, but a morality issue. Most abolitionists did not view blacks as equal to whites. The proposed end of slavery created new questions for the abolitionists and one of them was where the freed slaves were supposed to live. The colonizationists believed it would be best for both groups if the former slaves were removed from the United States. They believed that blacks could never remove the stigma of slavery and therefore could never receive a fair chance to function in white society. Others felt that blacks could, in time, break away from the slave characterization. It was clear in this debate that neither group was sure how the former slaves would fit into society. Before the thirteenth amendment race relations were based on slavery and after its ratification they had to be rebuilt and for many the old code still applied.1 The acquisition of new territory as a result of the Mexican American war brought the question of slavery to the forefront of American political thought. Historian George Fredrickson argued that the abolitionist movement and the debate over slavery created the indivisible link between being black and being a slave.2 The link was not created during the abolitionist debate, it was reinforced. In reality the connection was made soon after the first African slaves were shipped to the New World. From that time on the majority

1 George M. Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817 – 1914 (New York: Harper & Row, Publishing, 1971), 16 – 41. 2 Ibid.

1 of slaves seen by the European inhabitants were African.3 By the 1850’s the line between being black and a being a slave had been blurred beyond the point of discernment. The firing on Fort Sumter in 1861 was the final result over the question of slavery. It had become clear during the 1850’s that the question would not be resolved in the halls of Congress. The Civil War did not begin as a war of liberation. Lincoln characterized the war as warranted to maintain the Union. The idea of a war of liberation was discounted because of the role the Border States played. These states were still staunch supporters of slavery and could side with the secessionist states at any time. Lincoln understood that if the Border States believed that the war was for emancipation rather than the maintenance of the Union they would side with the other slave states. This would have proven to be fatal to the Union, because if the Border States sided with the Confederacy it would allow Confederate troops to have access deep into Union territory.4 This was evident early in the war when slaves left the plantations near Union camps. If the Confederates States did not constitute a new country then the fugitive slave act was still enforceable and those slaves that had fled to Union camps had to be returned to their owner under the provisions of that act. If the slaves were freed then the war became one of liberation. In order to avoid this problem and keep the Border States on the side of the Union the runaway slaves were branded contraband. This allowed slaves to remain in Union camps because their owners had used them in such a way as to promote a cause against the sovereignty of the federal government.5 The Union commanders used the human contraband as labor in the camps. The status of the contrabands in Union occupied areas changed in 1863 with Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. The defeat of Confederate troops, in 1862, in Perryville, Kentucky and Antietam, Virginia, as part of a two front assault by the Confederacy cleared the way for the proclamation. The balance of the war shifted in the Union’s favor and the need to keep the Border States in the Union was not

3 Winthrop D. Jordan, White Over Black: American attitudes toward the Negro, 1550-1812 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968). 4 James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: Ballantine Books, 1988), 503. 5 George Bentley, A History of the Freedmen’s Bureau (Oxford: Oxford Press, 1955), 2 – 3.

2 as important. The proclamation did not liberate all the slaves until the end of the war and that freedom was codified with the ratification of the thirteenth amendment.6 The war ended slavery but where did the freedmen fit in? They were no longer contraband or slaves, but they were still African. The link between the slave and the new freedmen was not severed by the war or the thirteenth amendment. Most white Americans still believed blacks were inferior which created a varying state of race relations during Reconstruction. The former slaves and Southern whites were placed in a world that did not previously exist. Northern philanthropists and Freedmen’s Bureau agents tried to reconcile the antebellum views with the new free labor system, but it was not always successful. Whites wanted to create a free labor system within the old frame work of slave norms in order to retain control of cheap black labor. In a ledger labeled Political Record former member of the Florida Confederate Congress T.W. Brevard wrote about how the South had to cope with the world after the war. He believed that the South had renewed its allegiance with the federal government under President Andrew Johnson’s plan of Reconstruction and that the past should be forgotten for the future. Brevard wrote, “Mr. Johnson would have ‘justice and not sacrifice’ that he desired to build up and not tear down, that he wished to extend the helping hand rather than deal the blow.”7 The end of the war was the beginning of another fight for the status of the freedmen in society. The attitudes of the Southerners would be the determining factor in the relation between whites and the freedmen. White attitudes about blacks were evident in a picture kept in a scrapbook found in the Brevard and Call papers. This color drawing clipped out of an unknown publication depicted two white children and a black man in a yard in front of a large house. The two children, playing in a carriage pulled by two goats, were dressed in expensive clothing and appeared to be happy and innocent. Standing next to the children was a tall black man dressed in a long black button up coat with white gloves and a whip in his hand. The artist situated the man in relation to the children as a threatening figure with a top hat on. The facial features of the man are dark and stereotypical. The hat was

6 James M. McPherson, Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam, The Battle that Changed the Course of the Civil War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 137 – 139. 7 Call and Brevard Papers – M92-1, Box 4, File Folder 18, Florida State Archives, R.A. Gray Building, Tallahassee, FL.

3 pulled down close to his eyes creating a sinister image. He was standing there stern and emotionless in contrast to the vibrant white children. The significance of the picture was the view of the black man in contrast to the white children. This dark figure has been placed in such a way as to create a sense of danger. He was looming over these children as if he would attack except that his position as a slave, or subordinate, had kept him from doing so. This representation was a clear indication of the idea that the nature of the African was one of violence unless controlled by the dominant class. The artist drew the depiction based on personal experience which formed a negative picture of the black servant held in check by his status. This attitude plagued the antebellum south and continued to do so after the war.8 Scrapbooks are not the only source revealing racial attitudes. In a speech entitled, “Increase of Knowledge Increase of Happiness”, T.W. Brevard noted, “that knowledge is power and that it would appear at first glance, that power, derived from such a source should bring with it happiness,” but happiness could be achieved through work.9 If so, the “slave that tilled his garden, provided his range of ideas did not carry him above his station, was at that moment just as happy as was ever the philosopher with all his wealth of intellect and resources.” Brevard clearly stated that if the slaves never left their station they could achieve happiness.10 His writings concluded that blacks must remain in that station created for them by whites because it was the Southern white who knew what was best for the African. In another speech entitled, “That Which Was Is, That Which Is Will Be” Brevard noted that any sudden revolution in the social system of the South would bring misery to the people. He stated, “They [Northerners] would have us paradoxical as the thing may appear to change our social institutions in a day.”11 Slavery was more than just a form of labor it was a societal structure that supported compulsory labor through ownership and caste status. Brevard believed the past should be used to create the present and the future. Slavery was dead in name only, but the world it had created was to live on for years to come. Blacks did not look to the past for the future, but Brevard noted, “If they would

8 Call and Brevard Papers - Scrapbook: M92-1, Box 4, File Folder #4. 9 Call and Brevard Papers - T.W. Brevard, Speeches 1855-1869: Florida State Archives M92-1, Book of Speeches, Handwritten, “T.W. Brevard” on Cover, 1855-1869, Box 4 FF1. p.1 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., p. 11.

4 carry the country onward they must do so through its existing institutions.”12 The freedmen could not rely on their former masters to find the best possible future for them. Brevard’s speeches promoting slavery and the progress of the country through existing institutions were a good example of returning to the past in the midst of an ever changing present. Ellen Call Long, daughter of Florida politician Richard Keith Call, conveyed similar sentiments in her diary. She and her husband owned a plantation near Tallahassee. Long wrote about the end of the war and the arrival of General Edward M. McCook to accept the Confederate surrender of Tallahassee to the Union troops. Her contempt for the Union troops was matched only by her lack of respect for the former slaves. She said that the former slaves would take freedom as a chance to sleep under a tree during the day and catch a opossum at night. Her need for labor as a plantation owner was evident in her passages. She wrote, “. . . they [blacks] are cruelly deluded and are under the impression that they are to be supported by the Yankees and when they find out their mistake an action will take place and we will be able to get as much labor as we want.” She believed that the wage labor system would be more beneficial to plantation owners than slavery had been, because they would not have to care for the unproductive.13 Long believed that the blacks would work only under compulsion, an idea born of slavery. She thought that the slaves had been happy and were better off under bondage. She wrote, “The negroes thus used as slaves look happy and satisfied -- now carry discontent in the eye . . . -- they look disappointed and chagrined, and they used to be polite as Frenchmen, always removing their hats to ladies and gentlemen -- and women make a curtsey -- but now they rush boldly past you -- and if they look at you at all -- it is with defiance and contempt.”14 Long’s anger over change was quite evident in her writing. She wrote, “I am sick and tired of the ‘everlasting negro’.”15 She was not upset because they were free to work as they wished, but they refused to act like subordinates. They were no longer bound by the restraints of the system and this perceived break from

12 Ibid,. Untitled Entry, p. 290. 13 Call and Brevard Papers – M92-1, Box 5, Folder 20, Diary fragments, 21 March 1865, Ellen Call Long Diary, 1864-1865, Florida State Archives. 14 Ibid., June 27, 1865. 15 Ibid., May 27, 1865.

5 social norms created animosity among the dominant class. The relations between the races were unstable because white perceptions of the former slaves were shaped by antebellum experiences and whites did not understand the freedmen. This was inescapable and created tension between the races that was not caused by northern interference but antebellum Southern perceptions that did not fit Reconstruction life at the time. These attitudes were the determining factor in the return of the former slave to their status as a cheap source of labor for the dominant class.16 Race relations are based upon the interaction between two groups of people with visually different characteristics. It was established upon stereotypical assumptions associated with people of color and not the individual. In his book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, C. Vann Woodward concluded that race relations were in a state of flux starting after the Civil War until the 1890’s and the implementation of segregation law. Howard Rabinowitz slightly disagreed and stated that race relations were set after the war and became more concrete as time progressed. The key to these theories was segregation. Race relations should not be based on segregation alone, but the inter- workings of the two groups. Woodward was correct when he concluded that an inconsistency existed. During Reconstruction racial status fluctuated due to the Civil War amendments that ended slavery, gave blacks citizenship, and the right to vote. This was a leap forward, but as Rabinowitz had determined relations were formed shortly after the war and solidified thereafter. Even with Reconstruction advancements in status prewar attitudes dictated the effectiveness of these newly given rights.17 Racism must be defined in the context of the dynamics of history. Sociologist Michael Banton determined that racism was, “The doctrine that a man’s behavior is determined by stable inherited characters deriving from separate racial stocks and usually considered to stand to one another in relations of superiority and inferiority.”18 Racism

16 See also, William Watson Davis, The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1964); Joe M. Richardson, The Negro in the Reconstruction in Florida (Tallahassee: Florida State University Press, 1965); Jerrell Shofner, Nor is it over yet: Florida in the Era of Reconstruction, 1863-1877 (Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 1974); Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (New York: Harper & Row, 1988). 17 Howard N. Rabinowitz, Race Relations in the Urban South: 1865-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978); C. Vann Woodward, Strange Career of Jim Crow (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966). 18George M. Fredrickson, The Arrogance of Race: Historical Perspectives on Slavery, Racism, and Social Inequality (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1988), 189.

6 was born of perceived differences as ascertained by the human eye. During Reconstruction was it a class relationship that determined race relations or was it something else? George Fredrickson stated that, “Race relations are increasingly viewed as a function of class relationship rather than as an autonomous form of human interaction.”19 Fredrickson determined that neo-Marxist historians reduced racism to an epiphenomenal status, making it simply part of the superstructure that legitimized the power of a ruling class. But, he failed to recognize that the ruling class was only a small part of the dominant class. In the South the dominant class was whites as a whole regardless of economic standing. The ruling class was the white plantation owners. Whether or not one class out numbered another was not always the key to being the dominant class. The dominant class was the group that had control over the means of production and who justified that control through social constraints. Race relations are based upon the idea of competition between the inferior and the superior for resources needed for economic benefit. This was not a conscious competition perhaps, but one nonetheless. Whites were determined to regain control of the world they once knew and fought with anyone and everyone to do so. For a moment place a white person and a black person in a state of nature without civilized restraints. If the two individuals were to come across a pond from which to drink how would they react? Would they share the water or fight for control over the water. Assume for a moment that they compete for the resource. Is the competition for control based on racial characteristics or a perceived need for survival? It would be based on the need for survival, because water is the essential resource needed to live. This is an innate reaction to survive not a learned experience of superiority. Racial prejudice is a learned experience not an innate characteristic like breathing, but a qualitative response created through experience. The learned process can be a supplement to the competition. The individual can use the process to justify measures needed to win the competition. Not only is the quest for water an innate need to survive it is a creation of a competition. In a capitalist economy competition is the key to survival. Racial prejudice was not created first and then used in the competition; it was created to support the victor of the competition. If the white person wins the competition for the water then the black

19 Ibid., p. 156.

7 individual is labeled inferior due to his defeat. This label is used to create a subordinate group and the dominant group justifies its victory through racial prejudice. In the South the ultimate victory was white supremacy and the maintenance of that victory was based on a perceived justification through racial prejudice. Capitalism is the perfect system for this set of events to take place. It is an economic system based upon competitive ideals. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, believed that the ambition of the individual drove the market.20 In that competition there must be a winner and a loser. In the South the white plantation owners had the means to win the competition and the social norms to maintain that dominance. Reconstruction was the first time that the American economy could be viewed as egalitarian because of the entrance of the former slaves into the marketplace. If this happened on a wide scale then the dominant class would lose control of the resources it felt it needed to survive. Therein lay the competition. For the freedmen this was a form of proto-capitalism because it was the first opportunity for them to express themselves in the market with their labor property. Capitalism as an egalitarian system is an inherently flawed concept because competition is anything but equal. The victors do not wish to share in the spoils and will attempt to maintain their position at all costs. The maintenance of status was the key to race relations in Florida during Reconstruction. The dominant class did not wish to give up their control over resources. One of the resources lost was slave labor. Plantation owners were no longer completely in control of black labor as they were during the antebellum period. The dominant class sought to reestablish their control through the “holy trinity” of racial control, which was political control, labor property control, and violence. Whites used these three aspects of society in order to control black labor. For example, if the white populace had political control then the freedmen could not exercise their rights effectively and therefore could not better their situation economically or socially. If political control failed then violence was used. With these two constraints it was easy to gain control over the labor property of the freedmen for the use of the plantation owners in their bid to control the resources of the region. Within this construct social control was used throughout in order to

20 Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1796).

8 reinforce each aspect of the trinity. The taboo nature of social equality allowed the trinity to flourish. The “Holy Trinity” will be the focus of race relations in Florida. Political control, labor property control, and violence are the three key aspects used by the dominant class to retain status in the new society of the South, which in reality was not new. It was a variation on an old theme of white supremacy. When Florida was finally given over to General McCook the first goal of the dominant class was to return to crop production. The freedmen on the other hand were given the gift of freedom and were no longer bound to the land as slaves, but they were always bound to it whether slave or free. The freedmen were placed in an impossible position. Reconstruction laws technically gave them their freedom through citizenship and suffrage, but prejudicial attitudes restricted their effectiveness. By the end of Reconstruction the once mighty experiment fell victim to the age old problem of racism. Race relations in Florida were based on old assumptions that would not disappear with a stroke of a pen and the “Holy Trinity” was the strongest form of control exercised by the dominant class upon the former slaves. The trinity was not a conspiracy, rather it created a favorable environment for whites to control the freedmen’s labor. With this control, blacks once again became the labor needed to advance white capitalism.

9 POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT

Political power is one of the most important things that a free citizen can obtain, because it allows them the ability to protect their interests and to help insure that they receive equal treatment in the governmental process. The dominant class in the South realized the importance of political power and the retention of its control in their hands was of the utmost significance. When Reconstruction began Southern whites were determined to maintain their political hegemony in order to legislate society as they saw fit. Before the war Southern society was buttressed by the institution of slavery, which created the boundaries and status between the races and these norms were rarely broken without swift reprisal. The end of that institution terminated these boundaries and controls. During Presidential Reconstruction the governmental apparatus decided that legislation was the key to creating the organic society they once knew within their new post-bellum society.1 During the antebellum period slaves had a place in society as forced labor for whites. Southern whites believed if their society was to survive everyone had to maintain their place within it, much like the organs of a body. If the organs of that body were not in the right place functioning as they always had then the body would die. This was the idea behind an organic society and in the south its survival was predicated on blacks maintaining their “place.”2 Sociologist Bertram Doyle concluded that social etiquette was the basis of race relations and that if the etiquette was not broken relations were maintained in good working order. He wrote, “Men do not enact laws when custom and etiquette prevail – but, when, under new conditions, customs fail, legislation intervenes.”3 The laws were meant to take the place of the boundaries created under slavery. The codification of these boundaries created a legal status of difference between the former slave population and the white population. Doyle added, “The new era [Reconstruction] represented an

1 For general study of Reconstruction in Florida see, John Wallace, Carpetbag Rule in Florida: The inside workings of the reconstruction of civil government in Florida after the close of the Civil War (Kennesaw, Georgia: Continental Bk. Co., 1959); Davis, The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida; Richardson, The Negro in the Reconstruction in Florida; Shofner, Nor is it over yet: Florida in the Era of Reconstruction, 1863-1877. 2 Joel Williamson, The Crucible of Race: Black-White Relations in the American South Since Emancipation, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), 25. 3 Bertram Wilbur Doyle, The Etiquette of Race Relations in the South: A Study in Social Control (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1937), 91.

10 attempt to institute by legal procedure a system of relations different from that which had grown up in habit and in custom.”4 The legalization of habits and customs was meant to give a legal basis for the subordinate position of blacks in the newly formed society of the South. If elite Southern whites could not control the lives of the freedmen by owning them they intended to do so by keeping them on a legal leash. Historian Howard Rabinowitz stated that social control through the use of law “was required to keep blacks in an economic, social, and political position most beneficial to the white majority.”5 Political hegemony was the main objective of the government during the years of Presidential Reconstruction, 1865 – 1867. Johnson’s plan required that the states ratify the thirteenth amendment and take a loyalty oath. The President did not require the ex- Confederate states to provide black suffrage. Southern whites resisted any attempt to give the freedmen the right to vote. They feared the perceived threat of “Negro Rule” and did everything within their power to make sure that did not happen. Southern white lawmakers sought to maintain their political power through parliamentary procedure. Political power was the source of dominance and it was the key to all things in society. Without it any economic or social advances could not be protected and therefore useless to the individual who obtained them. The Constitutional Convention of 1865 created a government designed to keep the freedmen in their “place”. This was done by denying black suffrage and disallowing blacks to participate in state juries. The denial of these two basic rights to the freedmen allowed the state legislature to enact any laws it felt were appropriate to control African American lives. The constitution formed what historian George Fredrickson called a Herrenvolk democracy, which was a democracy that was democratic for the master race, but tyrannical for the subordinate group.6 The group in power benefited from democracy because they could vote, which gave them a voice they could use to protect their interests. Those who do not have the right to vote or any say in government were tyrannized by the whims of the dominant group. During the 1865 constitutional convention the first sign of the Herrenvolk democracy could be ascertained from

4 Ibid., p. 109. 5 Rabinowitz, Race Relations in the Urban South, 31. 6 George M. Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817 – 1914 (New York: Harper & Row, Publishing, 1971), 61.

11 provisional governor William Marvin’s message. His speech set the tone for the convention by outlining what needed to be done in order to be allowed back into the Union and how that affected the status of the freedmen.7 Governor Marvin accepted emancipation. He said, “But I would not leave the fact of the revival of freedom to argument or inference, but would plainly declare that all the inhabitants of this State, without distinction of color, are free.”8 But his idea of freedom varied depending on race. He believed that the former slaves could be free without suffrage. Marvin told the convention that the constitution must make a clear distinction between the freedmen’s civil rights and their political rights. Freedom, according to Marvin, did not have to be obtained through political expression. “Freedom does not necessarily include the idea of a participation in the affairs of government,” he said. The privileges of voting at elections, the capacity to hold office, or to sit on juries, are not essential rights of freedom.”9 How could anyone be free without the ability to vote, hold office, or participate in a judicial action? The governor supported his idea by saying that women, foreigners, and children were unable to vote and were still free. Unfortunately the rights of these groups were not always protected by white males in power. The Herrenvolk democracy was not even a democracy at that point. A Herrenvolk republic would be a better description of the government formed by the 1865 convention. It was a republic because the people were represented in the governmental process by elected officials. Since the freedmen did not have the right to vote they were at the mercy of the representatives elected by whites. This representation typically favored the white citizens while oppressing the blacks. The terms of Presidential Reconstruction have already been outlined in this chapter and did not benefit the freedmen in any specific way, outside of emancipation. Marvin indicated that “I cannot think, however, that, if the Convention shall abolish slavery and provide proper guarantees for the protection and security of the persons and property of the freedmen, the Congress will refuse to admit seats, because the freedmen

7 Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1865 at Tallahassee, Florida. Microfilm, Florida State University, 9 – 12. 8 Ibid., p. 9. 9 Ibid.

12 are not allowed to vote at the State and other elections.”10 Marvin believed that if basic rights were guaranteed southern representatives would be admitted to Congress and that black suffrage would not be forced upon the states. Many hoped that voting rights would be left up to the individual states and not mandated by the national government. In regard to the right to vote Marvin stated that, “Neither the white people nor the colored people are prepared for so radical a change in their social relations.”11 He indicated that the civil rights of the freedmen should be outlined in detail in the Constitution and protected in order to prevent federal intervention. Many believed that if freedmen rights were protected equally under the law they would have no need to vote or express any political power. This was difficult to reconcile since blacks were not allowed to testify in court without their credibility being determined by white jurors. Blacks could testify only against other blacks and did not really have any recourse against whites in court. Whites tried to justify their position against black political rights by concluding that they were not prepared to be participatory citizens, but the real reason was that they simply did not wish to give up any control of society to the freedmen because whites believed that they were inferior.12 The delegates to the convention were made up of ex-Confederates and others who were in power before the war, and they were determined to insure that political power remained in white hands. For example, A.J. Peeler of Leon County was a plantation and slave owner.13 His main interest was returning the freedmen to his plantation and working at the production levels, or higher, than before the war. Silas Niblack, of the judicial committee, reported that, “The people of the State of Florida in General Convention assembled, do ordain and declare, that while we recognize the freedom of the colored race, and are desirous of extending to them full protection in the rights of persons and property, and in our legislation to secure their elevation and improvement in all that is calculated to promote human happiness, we declare it the unalterable sentiment of this convention that the laws of the State shall be made and executed by the white race.”14 This sentiment reflected Governor Marvin’s view that the governing power was in the

10 Ibid., p. 10. 11 Ibid., p. 11. 12 Ibid., 9 – 12. 13 Peeler was a member of the judicial committee during the 1865 Constitutional Convention. 14 Ibid., p. 80-81.

13 hands of the white race. The delegates clearly stated that Florida’s government would remain a white man’s government and the freedmen would have no political power. Their status in the Herrenvolk republic had been codified. The General Assembly created under the 1865 Constitution enacted laws restricting the freedom of the former slaves. The governing body was made up of the same individuals who attended in the constitutional convention. They believed in white supremacy and their paternalistic instincts led them to conclude that they knew what was best for their former slaves. Plantation owners, such as A.J. Peeler, held the reins of power and they needed the freedmen working the fields. Governor David S. Walker in a speech to the General Assembly remarked about the freedmen that, “If left alone, my opinion is that they would, in a few years settle down into quiet and orderly laboring population.”15 Walker’s words were not as harsh as other members of the government. Members of the judicial committee concluded, “The Constitutional provision declaring the abolition of negro slavery suddenly removed from under the restraining and directing influence of the master, nearly a full moiety of our population, and creates the necessity of bringing them more fully under the operation of municipal law.”16 The fear of any change in the status of the former slave created a hysteria of law making. Doyle said that when etiquette failed legislation replaced custom, but in this case etiquette never had a chance to fail. Whites never gave freedmen a chance to break the social and economic constraints placed upon them when they were slaves. Whites knew blacks only as slaves and not as freedmen. They understood that their land was profitable with black labor and that was the system they wished to keep in order to remain profitable. According to Peeler and DuPont, “The first lesson to be taught them is that their new-found liberty is not license, and that labor is ordained of God, and a necessity of their condition.”17 The laws passed by the General Assembly solidified white supremacy by creating strict restraints on the lives of the freedmen. The oppressive Black Codes were a symbol of white aspiration for social control. The freedmen could not carry arms, testify in court against whites, or even choose not to be employed or look for another job without fear of

15 Journal of the Proceedings of the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Florida at the 2nd Session of the 14th General Assembly. (Office of the Floridian: Printed by Dyke and Sparhawk, 1866), 14. 16 Florida, House Journal 1866, p. 58. 17 Ibid., p. 68.

14 arrest. Historian Joe M. Richardson wrote that, “These laws were products of the ‘baneful heritage’ of slavery which rooted in the southern mind false ideas of the Negro, including biological inferiority and innate criminality.”18 White Floridians were determined to return to the dominant social status they had enjoyed before the war. The character of the former slave was always at issue. The predetermined ideas formed during the antebellum period strongly influenced the actions of lawmakers and the white citizenry. Fredrickson argued that the idea that bestial savagery constituted the basic Negro character and the loyal “Sambo” was the product of slavery, therefore the slave was lovable and the freedmen was a monster.19 In Florida the conception of how laws should be made was rooted in the idea that there was a difference between the effects of punishment on a white man and a black man. In a report to the General Assembly Charles Dupont and A.J. Peeler stated, “To degrade a white man by punishment, is to make a bad member of society and a dangerous political agent. To fine and imprison a colored man in his present pecuniary condition, is to punish the State instead of the individual.”20 If a freedman was sentenced to jail that individual would not be able to labor on the plantations. In order to keep the labor on the farms the statutes on punishment had to be different for blacks and whites. These differences were outlined in the acts and resolutions adopted by the Senate in 1865. The code expressed two distinctly different forms of punishment for crimes against the state. If an individual was found guilty of a crime that person could either be fined or imprisoned by the court or alternately that person could be punished by standing in the pillory for one hour, or whipping, not exceeding thirty-nine stripes on the bare back.21 This alternative form of punishment was created to maintain the orderly expedition of work on the plantations. During the antebellum years the slave was whipped for any

18 Joe M. Richardson, “Florida Black Codes”. The Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 47, Issue 4 (April, 1969): 366. 19 Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind, 54-55. 20 Journal of the Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of Florida at the 2nd Session of the 14th General Assembly, 63. 21Chapter 1,466 – [No. 3]: An Act prescribing penalties for the commission of offences against the State, and for other purposes. Acts and Resolutions adopted by the 14th General Assembly of Florida, at its 2d Session, Dec. 18, 1865, (Tallahassee: Dyke and Sparhawk; 1866), 23.

15 indiscretions by whoever had the authority and after their punishment was executed they were immediately returned to the fields. The notion that blacks were by nature criminal and must be controlled affected the severity of punishments for offenses. Certain transgressions such as, burglary, arson, rape, and trespassing were commonly seen as black crimes and were harshly punished. The ultimate punishment of death was decreed for burglary and rape. The statute read that if any person shall assault a white female with the intention of rape they shall be guilty of said offense. The rape of a black woman was not recognized in law. The protection of white womanhood was paramount in this piece of legislation. The sexual interactions between a white woman and a black man were condemned as rape because any contact with a white woman was viewed as a challenge to white supremacy. Whites believed that blacks would use white women as a vehicle for social equality and this was not acceptable in an organic society.22 Arson was criminalized because during the antebellum period some blacks burned crops in protest of their treatment. The statute also created a protection of plantation owners’ interests, because it covered agricultural products as well as buildings and houses. The burning of crops, especially cotton, could affect the livelihood of the planters and therefore had to be protected. Trespassing was also viewed as a black infraction and the punishment was jail time and the prisoner could be sold out for his labor in order to pay the fine.23 The most obvious example of laws enacted to control the labor of the freedmen was the act to punish vagrants and vagabonds. The statute read, “That every able-bodied person who has no visible means of living and shall not be employed at some labor to support himself or herself, or shall be leading an idle, immoral or profligate course of life, shall be deemed a vagrant.”24 The said offender could be sentenced to one year of imprisonment, whipping, or one hour on the pillory. If the person was unable to show visible means of support they could be arrested and their labor sold out to the highest bidder. It was shrouded in color blind language, but the reason for this law was to control freedmen’s labor. This law could be used effectively by employers who terminated

22 Oliver Cromwell Cox, Race: A Study in Social Dynamics (New York: Monthly Review Press, First ed. 1948, Reprint, 2000), 75. 23 Ibid., p. 24 24 Chapter 1,467 – [No. 4]: An Act to punish Vagrants and Vagabonds, Acts and Resolutions, 28.

16 contracts with freedmen and then have them arrested for vagrancy. The employer could then buy back that labor by paying the fine and for less than the contract was paying the worker. The Black Codes ensured that blacks were subordinate to whites. Lawmakers denied, “that the emancipated slave technically denominated a ‘Freedman’ occupied any higher position in the scale of rights and privileges than did the ‘free negro’.”25 This narrow view of emancipation allowed lawmakers to pass laws that curtailed the movements of the freedmen. Emancipation was not viewed as an act to elevate the status of the slaves to that of citizens, but to the status of the free blacks as second class citizens. In regards to the protection of rights by the laws of the state it was impossible for this to occur if the freedmen were not allowed to seek legal recourse in the court system. They were at the mercy of the dominant class at all times and they were unable to escape that control under the oppressive Black Codes. During these years the strict control of labor was the essence of legislative action. The Black Codes created strong social control over the freedmen. If the freedmen were not employed or working to the satisfaction of the employer they could be imprisoned. The freedom of the “freedman” was almost nonexistent outside the laboring world they knew as slaves. The freedom found outside of labor was from their family and church. This was one of the few places that whites did not completely control. Schools did offer some freedom, but when that education became a threat to white supremacy whites reacted negatively. Social control was not created, or needed, in order to protect the white citizenry from the dangerous black population. It was formed to create a more favorable environment for whites to exploit black labor property. Social control was not only used for control of labor it was also used to influence almost every aspect of the freedmen’s life. They were supposed to accept the values of white society without being a part of it. This idea of assimilation of white ideals was seen in the laws passed requiring the former slaves to be married. Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation whites have been concerned with black marriage. The Freedmen’s Inquiry Commission was formed in order to determine what was needed to bring the slaves into free society. The commission report detailed the need for an agency

25 Florida, House Journal of 1866, p. 62.

17 to assist the freedmen in their transition to freedom, but they also decided that marriage was of great importance. The report heavily emphasized marriage and the need for blacks to marry as part of their continued assimilation.26 This idea was continued by the Reconstruction governments. Freedmen were forced to choose their spouses and legally marry. The legislature also prohibited interracial marriage or relationships. Once again the idea of a white woman being used as a vehicle for social equality motivated the passing of discriminatory laws.27 The nature of the lawmakers’ paternalistic outlook was evident in their belief that they needed to help the freedmen adjust to their new condition. They said that, “We are not responsible for this pitiable condition of the race, but we will nevertheless exert ourselves to save them from the ruin which inevitably waits them if left to the ‘tender mercy’ of that canting hypocrisy and mawkish sentimentality which has precipitated them to the realization of their present condition.”28 They refused to take responsibility for slavery and its resulting problems and blamed the federal government for the freedmen’s problems because it emancipated them. They never considered that the plight of the freedmen was created by involuntary servitude. The institution was not viewed as flawed because of the monetary benefits that it brought as well as the belief that whites were civilizing blacks. The social hierarchy must be maintained because any, “organic changes which may result in the total destruction of the entire country, and which we know will benefit no person, black or white, in this State.”29 Society must remain the same whether through social means or legal means. The freedmen were subject to the oppressive Black Codes until 1868 and the creation of a new constitution. Did the new constitution change the ultimate desire for cheap black labor by the dominant class? The convention and the actions of the politicians after the change may offer some insight. The Black Codes and other oppressive actions against the freedmen spurred a response from United States politicians such as Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner. By 1867 Andrew Johnson and Congress were divided on what was needed for reconstructing the union. Some congressmen felt that the President’s plan was too lenient

26 United States Congress, Senate Executive Document #53, 38th Congress, 1st Session, Report of the Freedmen’s Inquiry Commission. 27 Chapter 1.469 – [No. 6], Acts and Resolutions, p. 31; Cox, Race: A Study in Social Dynamics, p. 75. 28 Florida, House Journal, 1866, p. 65. 29 Ibid., p. 78.

18 and that the southern states should do more in order to rejoin the union. The Black Codes and the denial of the right to vote for the freedmen proved that if the new governments continued unabated the former slaves would never be truly free. In 1867 Congressional Reconstruction dissolved the Johnson governments and mandated black suffrage. Many Southerners felt betrayed because they had done what Johnson had asked and were not admitted to the Union or Congress. Congressional Reconstruction required substantially more from the Southern States. Not only did they have to ratify the thirteenth amendment they also had to ratify the fourteenth amendment, which did not allow any person to participate in government that had previously sworn to uphold the United States Constitution and then subsequently aided the Confederacy. All states had to rewrite their constitutions to include universal male suffrage.30 Southern whites rigorously opposed black suffrage, because with the vote came political power and the end of white political hegemony.31 This reconstruction plan was the first true opportunity for the freedmen to receive the benefits of citizenship that had been denied them up to that point. The freedmen finally had a chance to participate in government, and perhaps be able to protect their freedom and elevate their economic status. In Florida the 1868 Constitutional Convention moved the formation of government away from the Herrenvolk republic, but good intentions only motivate a group so far before realistic expectations take control. On January 20, 1868, the convention met in Tallahassee. Unlike the 1865 convention, white Republicans and freedmen were in a majority. Daniel Richards, a former United States District Tax collector stationed in Fernandina, was elected president of the convention. He came to the convention with the hope of creating a constitution that had the, “privilege of elevating and benefiting humanity by forming for a whole state a fundamental law that shall tend to promote patriotism, permanent peace and enduring prosperity with all our people.”32 He added, “Let no recollections of the bondage that was so long a withering disgrace of American civilization be impressed upon the

30 Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, 114 – 122. 31 Ibid., p. 84.

32 Journal of the Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, 1868 (Tallahassee: Edward M. Cheney, Printer; 1868), 6.

19 Constitution we are about to form.”33 Daniels’ ideals were not the overwhelming tone of the Convention of 1868, but it was a sign of political change to come in Florida. Florida politics was divided between white Democrats, a few white Republicans, and black Republicans. The Democrats were the party of power in the South before the war and sought to maintain that power after the war. The Republican Party was unfortunately divided during the 1868 convention between the radicals and moderates. For years historians have debated the roles that each of these groups played during Reconstruction. Dunning school historians viewed Radical Republicans as political opportunists who hoped to gain power by the manipulation of the freedmen’s vote, and Democrats as the helpless victims of northern aggression. Revisionist historians interpreted the Radicals less as political opportunists and more as a group that tried to gain as many advantages as possible for freedmen. They also portrayed Democrats as less victims and more a group determined to maintain control of freedmen and political power.34 The convention of 1868 was full of dissention and late night maneuvers. The problems began with the debate over whether Daniel Richards, William Saunders, Liberty Billings, and Charles Pearce had been legally elected to the convention. Moderate Republicans charged that these delegates were not legal residents of the state and therefore could not be elected to the convention. This created a row and in February moderate Republican delegates left the convention in Tallahassee and moved to Monticello in order to keep the radicals from obtaining a quorum. The Monticello Convention decided to write a constitution formed in cooperation with prominent conservatives. After this was accomplished the moderates returned to Tallahassee under the cover of darkness and reorganized the Convention and created a quorum. The new convention elected former Union soldier Horatio Jenkins as its President and sought to approve its document. The Radicals unsuccessfully tried to stop the midnight convention. Due to these troubling state of events Colonel John T. Sprague, commander of Florida, was ordered by Military District Commander John Pope to take over the convention. After this was accomplished Sprague determined that a quorum was present

33 Ibid. 34 See also, Kenneth Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction (New York: Knopf, 1966); Shofner, Nor Is It Over Yet; Richardson, The Negro in the Reconstruction of Florida.

20 and the Monticello document was approved.35 Historian Jerrell Shofner stated that, “the Monticello document reflected the influence of Conservatives who had helped draft it.”36 In a report to the United States Congress on the Proceedings of the Florida Convention it was noted that, “The constitution has been framed by men who understand the situation, and who believed it was far better to extend the olive branch of friendship to those who have hitherto opposed the government, than place them in a position of perpetual outlawry.”37 They believed that in order for the government to function the conservative element must be taken into consideration. Their faith in the authors of the Black Codes was fairly remarkable. The differences between the Monticello document and the radical document are slight but significant. First, the Monticello constitution gave the governor more power to appoint offices rather than make them elective. Second the moderate version lessened the requirements placed on former participants in the rebellion for their involvement in the government. Lastly, the Monticello document created equal representation in favor of smaller white dominated counties as opposed to larger black dominated counties. This way the dominant class could maintain power even if it was not in a majority.38 The severity of the Herrenvolk Republic had been lessened but not eliminated. The freedmen had the right to vote, but that did not always protect them and their economic interests. Shofner theorized that the Constitution of 1868 was not a radical document forced upon conservative whites, but a document of compromise that was made between moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. This can be seen in the varying ideals expressed in the constitution. The Declaration of Rights in the 1868 constitution stated that, “All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing,

35 Davis, The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida, p. 507 – 516; Canter Brown, Jr., Ossian Bigley Hart: Florida’s Loyalist Reconstruction Governor (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1997), 206 – 214. 36 Jerrell H. Shofner, “The Constitution of 1868”. The Florida Historical Quarterly Vol. 41, Issue 4, (April, 1963): 368. 37 United States Congress, House of Representatives Misc. Doc. #114, 40th Congress, 2d Session, Proceedings of the Florida Convention. p. 11. 38 Jerrell H. Shofner, “The Constitution of 1868”, The Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 41, Issue 4, (April, 1963): 357-375; Davis, The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida, 510 – 516; Brown, Ossian B. Hart, 206 – 214.

21 and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”39 This was a clear statement that the freedmen were going to receive the equal treatment that they deserved under the law and have the political power to protect that equality. Then in the same declaration it was stated, “Neither slavery or involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crime, shall ever be tolerated in this State.” The portion dealing with servitude for punishment of a crime allowed for convict-leasing, which claimed labor from blacks until 1926.40 The 1868 Constitution did give the freedmen a better opportunity for freedom, but at the same time it was framed by men who understood their situation. The Black Codes may have been dissolved, but attitudes had not changed and through the subsequent years the freedmen’s rights and powers were in a state of flux. The 1868 constitution allowed blacks to vote and hold office. This permitted blacks such as Jonathan Gibbs, Robert Meacham, and Charles Pearce to play prominent roles in Florida’s government, but whites reacted violently to this advancement. The Acts and Resolutions passed in the first two years of Reconstruction had a strong racial tone to them. The years after the Constitution of 1868 saw less legislation oppressing the freedmen. It can be said that those years saw a bright point in the lives of the freedmen who could vote and were not the victim of unjust laws. This optimism was evident in Reed’s inaugural address when he said the Constitution was, “based upon the great theory of American government that all men are by nature free and endowed with equal rights.”41 But in the same ceremony Colonel Sprague gave a speech as part of his formally relinquishing power in the state and returning authority to the civil government. Sprague said to the blacks in the hall: You are called upon as freemen to sustain your own respectability. The white man is your friend; upon him you must rely, and with him you must take counsel. You have rights and privileges as freemen, but these rights and privileges are nothing without virtue and intelligence; and especially because God has placed a mark upon you, which requires that you should meet it by proving your capacity; and your fidelity to the laws of your country, in spite of it.42

39 United States Congress, House of Representatives Misc. Doc. #114, 40th Congress, 2d Session. Proceedings of the Florida Convention, p. 12. 40 Some whites were affected by convict-leasing. 41 A Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of the State of Florida at its 1st Session begun on Monday, June 8th, 1868 (Tallahassee: Tallahassee Sentinel, 1868), p. 4. 42 Ibid., p. 34.

22 These remarks serve as an example of the paternalistic nature of whites at the time. Even though Sprague was an army officer he shared some of the same prejudices as his elected counterparts. Even with this possible bright light a shadow still loomed over the freedmen. The laws passed after the ratification of the 1868 constitution were not as oppressive as the Black Codes, but did reflect the attitudes of the lawmakers. There were perhaps four acts passed that could affect the freedmen. Two out of the four would not benefit the lives of the freedmen or their families. The first established a state penitentiary under the direction of the Adjutant-General. Malachi Martin was later named the Adjutant-General in charge of the penitentiary. The prison was to be run in an economic manner and maintain discipline by all legal means necessary. The operation in an economic manner meant that the prison must not be a burden on the state’s budget. This need for revenue was subsidized by the leasing of prisoners’ labor. The state could sell out the offender’s labors for three years and the prisoner was supposed to only work eight hours a day. The person who purchased the labor was responsible for feeding, clothing, guarding, and medical care for the prisoners. This would alleviate much of the financial burden for the penitentiary.43 This law was not particularly anti-black, but as the years progress and more blacks are imprisoned in the Florida the law will become more relevant to them and their labor. The convict-leasing system started early in Reconstruction and became a vicious form of slavery. Noel G. Carper stated that the, “State and county government, private businessman, and not infrequently the ‘man on the street,’ have looked at their criminal population as a source for two things – cheap labor and profit.”44 Convict-leasing was another opportunity for the government to control the labor of the freedmen.45 As it was stated before the length of contract in 1868 was three years and by 1870 it was five.46 The bright light was beginning to dim. This program lasted in the state of Florida until 1926 and used the labor of many blacks and some whites over that time. Carper noted

43 The Acts and Resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Florida at its 1st Session (1868) under the Constitution of A.D. 1868 (Tallahassee: Tallahassee Sentinel; 1868), 34 – 40. 44 Noel Gordon Carper, The Convict-Lease System in Florida, 1866-1923 (Unpublished Dissertation; Florida State University, 1964), 2. 45 Blacks were not the only group used in convict-leasing. Whites were also used, but were not the majority. 46 Ibid., p. 35.

23 that in 1869 there were about 117 prisoners and by 1876, 518 men were incarcerated.47 That was a substantial increase in labor possibilities in a seven year period. Historian Joel Williamson gave the best description of convict-leasing when he said, “In most Southern states convict labor was leased out to private entrepreneurs who used it hard and ate up blacks live like some monstrous ogre.”48 In 1868 under the act that provided for the punishment of crime and proceedings in criminal cases it considered a homicide “excusable” if it occurred during the lawful correction of a child or servant.49 This code gave the employer of a servant the possible right to control them socially and economically through lethal means. The other two laws of note dealt with voter qualifications and the illegal removal of a person from their land by use of force.50 Both of these laws are shining points of a chance for freedom, but the violence used to curb both the vote and the law to protect them against being removed from their land continued unabated until the enforcement acts were passed by the Federal Government. The laws passed in subsequent sessions dealt less and less with the freedmen. The boundaries were set and the labor of the freedmen for the dominant class had been maintained whether through contracts, laws, or penalties. The government did not completely turn its back on the freedmen. The Assembly sought to provide education for the former slaves. Even during the early years of Reconstruction the government created schools in the state, but the freedmen were required to pay a one dollar tax per male head aged twenty-one to fifty-five.51 The pupils were also obligated to pay tuition for school, so the burden on the state for these schools was minimal at best. Even with the terrible tax burden placed upon them the freedmen still found a way to put their children through school. This was evidence of the high value placed by the freedmen on education and the possible benefits of it. The 1868 constitution ended the unequal taxation placed upon the freedmen for their schools, but white violence against the schools continued. Many whites said that the northern

47 Ibid., p. 41. 48 Williamson, The Crucible of Race: Black-White Relations in the American South Since Emancipation, 57-58. 49The Acts and Resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Florida at its 1st Session (1868) under the Constitution of A.D. 1868 (Tallahassee: Tallahassee Sentinel; 1868), 64. 50 Ibid., p. 24. 51 The Acts and Resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Florida at its 14th General Assembly of Florida, at its 2nd Session, Dec. 18, 1865 (Tallahassee: Dyke and Sparhawk, 1866) 38 – 39.

24 teachers employed at the schools were teaching the students the wrong ideals and making enemies of the local people. Once again Southern whites believed that any animosity between the races was the creation of people from the north and not by their own actions.52 The political actions of the municipal government were designed to create a society that best suited the ideals of the state. These ideals were paternalistic and racist and the ultimate goal of the laws was to control the labor of the freedmen and maintain the status of the dominant class. The Black Codes were the first action used to manipulate the freedmen in complying with the conservative’s view of southern society. These laws effectively painted the freedmen into a corner that only allowed them to work for the planters and not much else. The 1868 constitution created more opportunities for the freedmen to gain their independence by giving them the right to vote and testify in court against whites, but die hard attitudes would not allow them the ability to take advantage of these opportunities. Historians, such as Jerrell Shofner and Ralph Peek, have theorized that the conservative Democrats were able to work their way back into political power in Florida after the 1868 Constitution.53 The shift in the government from being first dominated by Democrats and then by Republicans and back to a combination of moderate Republicans and Democrats can be seen in the laws passed by these governments. The assembly with more Republicans in its chambers created a convict-leasing system that only allowed for three year contracts for eight hours a day. As the years progressed it increased to five years for ten hours a day. The labor used had increased by two years and two hours, which is an increase of over eight thousand hours of labor. The change in government attitude towards the freedmen came to its peak in 1877 when George Drew was elected governor of Florida. The first Assembly after his election called for a new round of registration of voters and called for a revision of the Constitution.54 Even with the political powers of the freedmen in a state of flux following the 1868 convention the

52 For more on Freedmen schools in Florida see, Richardson, The Negro in the Reconstruction of Florida; Shofner, Nor Is It Over Yet. 53 Jerrell H. Shofner “Political Reconstruction in Florida”, The Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 45, Issue 2, (October, 1966): 146-171. Ralph Peek “Election of 1870 and The End of Reconstruction in Florida”, Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 45, Issue 4, (April, 1967): 353-369. 54 A Journal of the Proceedings of the Senate of the State of Florida at its 9th Session, Jan. 2, 1877 (Tallahassee: Charles E. Dyke, 1877).

25 inevitability was that the bright light dimmed on the freedmen’s chance for freedom and the Herrenvolk Republic won out over an egalitarian republican form of government.

26 VIOLENCE DURING RECONSTRUCTION

Violence committed in the post-bellum South was a clear sign that many white Southerners were not willing to give any power or status to the former slaves. The Union defeat of the Confederate army left the South in a state of confusion because it lost not only the war, but also its most prized institution of slavery, which permeated every aspect of Southern society. The wealthy planters thrived off of it and they controlled the livelihood of poor whites. Not only did slavery influence the interplay between classes of whites, it affected the status of free blacks as well. Their place in society was based on the assumptions made through contact with slaves. Whites justified their society of subordination by labeling blacks as inferior. This status was based on slavery assumptions and maintained through violent acts. The ratification of the thirteenth amendment ended the “forced” institution of labor, but did not signify the end of subordinate status. According to many Southern whites, the subjugation of blacks was necessary in an agrarian society in order to extract their labor. This concept can be understood after careful consideration. Historian Ralph Peek concluded that violence increased when the military districts were drawn, because of a perceived idea of Union control.1 Southern whites were antagonistic to outside influences, but that was not the only dynamic at work. Military occupation could stimulate violence, but social control had a larger impact and fear of losing it promoted aggression. Allen Grimshaw in his essay, “Lawlessness and Violence” wrote, “Patterns of race relations and social racial violence were determined more by reactions of the dominant white community to attacks on the accommodative patterns by Negroes than by any conscious determination of policy by the white group.”2 The dominant group reacted to the threat of destroying organic society and that was the pattern that was in danger. The accommodative pattern was the result of the interaction of two distinctive groups. Grimshaw theorized that society was built on a pattern of super-ordination and subordination. The plausibility of this idea was rooted in its creation of instability

1 Ralph L. Peek, “Military Reconstruction and the Growth of the Anti-Negro Sentiment in Florida, 1867” Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 47, Issue 4, (April, 1969): 381 – 401. 2 Allen D. Grimshaw, ed. Racial Violence in the United States (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969), 17.

27 between the groups. Grimshaw noted that, “Accommodation is always unstable, since one party is forced to settle for less than they want.”3 It might be assumed that it was the subordinate party that always settled for less, but this was not always true. Both groups, in fact, had to settle for less than they aspired to gain. The subordinate group received fewer advantages than the super-ordinate group, but at the same time the latter did not have complete control either. This created tension that sometime erupted into violence. Grimshaw explained this hostility and noted that, “Repressive activity against Negroes in the period was, again, an attempt to bring some coherence into a disrupted accommodative structure.”4 Southern white aggression against the freedmen was a response to the shifting of the balance of control from complete under slavery to a limited form under a free labor system. Emancipation ended slavery for the African Americans, but it did not stop them from being black. Most whites were unable to see past the stereotypes connected with blacks and that meant being inferior to whites for no other reason than the color of their skin. This reputed inferiority assigned by whites gave them an excuse to commit unlawful acts against the freedmen. These acts were typically committed when whites believed that blacks sought to elevate their social status through economic means or political expression. Joe M. Richardson wrote that, “Many Floridians did not place a high value on the life of a freedman.”5 It was difficult, if not impossible, for whites to see blacks as anything more than a labor force whose only purpose was to support the economic well-being of white employers and any variance from that resulted in swift retribution. The violence that had occurred in the shadows of bondage was about to be revealed for the world to see and the reason was because the status of the dominant class was at stake. Allen W. Trelease concluded that, “Without the protection that their property value as slaves had once conferred, they became easier and safer targets for the pent-up fear [and] hatred . . . of frustrated whites.”6 If blacks were not property they became an easy target for unspeakable acts of cruelty and murder. When blacks sought to control their labor property whites responded aggressively.

3 Ibid., p. 6. 4 Ibid., p. 21 5 Richardson, The Negro in the Reconstruction of Florida: 1865 – 1877, 162. 6 Allen W. Trelease, White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), xliii.

28 The freedmen were not supposed to use their labor property for their own economic benefit. Whites believed that black labor was for their profit and they were determined to keep blacks as subservient laborers. This meant that they were to work on the plantations and farms of whites and were not supposed to own land or work for themselves. Whites saw attempts to do so as a threat and almost always reacted violently against it. This threat coupled with the desire to increase their share of resources could create instability in the accommodative structure. With its already unstable nature, as Grimshaw has pointed out, the accommodative pattern could easily be disrupted and create conflict. Whether the menace was real or perceived, the reaction was the same. In 1871 the federal government created a congressional committee to determine the conditions of the former Confederate states. The Committee held hearings in Jacksonville and the testimony revealed the plight of freedmen. The testimony of Samuel Tutson was an example of white retaliation against freedmen who attempted to secure a portion of the resources needed for economic stability. Samuel Tutson was born in Virginia and later moved to Florida and resided in Clay County on the property he owned near the Number Eleven Pond. One night while he was asleep a group of nine men rushed into his house and attacked him, his wife, and family. Tutson said someone tried to pull him away by his arm, but they were unable to so they pulled his feet out from under him. They then “flung” him across a cellar-door and near broke his neck. Tutson said that five of the men were attending to him while the other four were attacking his wife. After taking him outside, he said, they, “dragged me over the fence and . . . took me away down the hill on the side of a hammock” where the beating began.7 The men tied Tutson to a pine tree, “and . . . stripped [him] just as naked as your hand; they took every rag off of [him] and took [his] shirt and tore it up, and took a piece and blindfolded [him] and then took another piece and twisted it up and put it into [his] mouth . . . so [he] could not holler.”8 Tutson was struck over the eye, stamped on, and kicked before being tied to a pine tree and whipped on his bare back. He testified that one of the men struck him with a pistol, choked him, and ran his head up against the tree

7 United States Congress, House Report #22, pt. 13, 42nd Congress, 2d Sess., Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States: Misc. and Florida. (Washington: Government Printing Office; 1872). 54. 8 Ibid., p. 55.

29 and told him that if it was not for sin, he would blow his “God-damned brains out”.9 Tutson was fortunate to escape with his life and the story of his wife was just as compelling. Hannah Tutson was born in Gadsden County, Florida, and at the time of the incident resided with her husband. When the men entered their home they forcefully pulled her from the bed, and jerked away the baby in her arms. Fortunately the baby was not killed by the fall. The men then forced her out of the house and over her fence like “a dumb beast.” Her arms were tied around a pine tree and the men whipped her with saddle-girths. She did not know how many times she was whipped, but recalled that, “they whipped me from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet. I was just raw. The blood oozed out through my frock all around my waist, clean through.” Unlike her husband Mrs. Tutson had to deal with another form of aggression. One of the men tried to force her to have sex. She said he, “would get his knees between my legs and say, God Damn you, open your legs.” He sat down there and said, “Old lady, if you don’t let me have to do with you, I will kill you.” She said, “No; do just what you are going to do.” Mrs. Tutson survived the night with only a beating, but the fear was there that she would not only be whipped, but brutalized sexually as well.10 Why did these horrific events occur? When Samuel Tutson asked the intruders why they were attacking him, one told him that he had taken down his fences and allowed other people’s stock on to his land and killed them. Tutson denied this. Some of the others said that he was on the land of another man and that he should leave immediately. Tutson knew that the land was his because he had produced two crops there and had a third in the ground at the time of the attack. He had been warned to leave the area, but remained and men he believed were in the Klan came to remove him from his property. Not only did they beat Tutson and his wife, they tore down his house as well. The men were arrested but were never convicted of any crime and to add insult to injury Mrs. Tutson was jailed for filing a false report. A friend of theirs had to pawn an ox and a cart to get her out of jail. The Tutsons left the land that was theirs to work. These men prompted by fear of competition with a black man and his family violently

9 Ibid., p. 54. 10 Ibid., p. 59-60.

30 ran them off of their land. At the time of his testimony Tutson was trying to sell the parcel.11 Charles H. Pearce a fifty-one year old minister of the African Methodist Church and state Senator from the Leon County district, gave other examples of violence against black landowners. Pearce, a leader in touch with the plight of the freedmen, told the congressional committee that many of the ministers from around the state had written him of the violence committed against blacks in their parishes. He said, “They have been whipped and driven off their places.” Some had been forced to leave comfortable homes, and others were shot and some were killed.12 Ministers had written Pearce requesting that he inform Governor Harrison Reed of the problems that blacks were dealing with, and ask for his assistance. Pearce noted that Reed said he lacked the power to help with the situation. Florida had no organized militia and Reed knew he could not organize blacks into a militia without fear of white reprisal. The Governor tried to bring arms into the state, but the guns that he purchased himself were destroyed by unknown persons en route to Tallahassee from Jacksonville.13 In 1871 Pearce discussed these issues at the African Methodist Episcopal Church (A.M.E.) convention in Florida and the convention body resolved to take action in favor of the freedmen. They resolved to move blacks out of Jackson County where violence had become a daily occurrence and find them homes elsewhere. This proved difficult because, as Pearce said, land was held by large land owners, especially in Leon County, and they were unwilling to sell. The possible violent reaction of whites to black land ownership made it difficult to find any sort of tangible property. Despite this difficulty, the resolution expressed the desire of some freedmen to unite and work together to survive the onslaught of violence. The A.M.E. convention also decided to launch an economic boycott and resolved not to support “steamers, Railroad Companies, merchants, and other companies who treat our people so disgracefully from sheer hatred, malice, and prejudice.” They also decided not to subscribe to newspapers that, “caricature us and allow us to be caricatured in their columns.”14 Pearce’s testimony was

11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., p. 166-167. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid., p. 170-171.

31 another example of how white fear of economic competition affected blacks. It was difficult for blacks to obtain land due to unwilling sellers, but some sought to fight back economically by boycotting white businesses. This may not have been an effective tool at the time, but it proved that blacks understood that economic competition could be something they could use. As already stated racial violence was a serious problem in Jackson County and economics played a role in the brutality committed there.15 At least two incidents showed that economic competition was a strong motivation for aggression. Richard Pousser, a forty year old black Constable of Jackson County, was born in South Carolina and moved to Florida in 1851. Pousser was questioned about the death of white Republican office holder County Clerk John Q. Dickinson. The rumor was that Dickinson was killed by a black man, Homer Bryant, because he was living with a black woman. Pousser said that this version of events was not accurate. He said that Dickinson was killed by a white man. Pousser was Dickinson’s bailiff and he asked Pousser to go out and ring a bell and announce the sale of a piece of property at eleven o’clock that morning. The land was up for sale because the taxes had not been collected on it and the county had a legal right to sell it for delinquency. A man approached Pousser in the street and told him to quit ringing the bell instantly. The man later went to Dickinson and stated, “If you sell my land I will whip you or kill you.” Mr. Dickinson said, “I will sell the land at the risk of my life; I have the right to sell it, and the authority to sell it; you may take it for granted what I tell you, for I am a man, too.”16 Dickinson was killed in his home a few days later by an unknown assailant. The rumor, that he was killed because he was living with a black woman, was spread in order to taint his character. The truth apparently was that the man who had lost his land was willing to take a life in order to maintain his property.17

15 The Jackson County War was started by an explosive combination of former Confederates and Unionist ignited by the enfranchisement of blacks. Violence at the polls led by men such as James Coker, a strong local white supremacist, spilled out into the streets in waves of violence that lasted two years. For more information see Jerrell H. Shofner, Jackson County, Florida – A History. 16 Ibid., p. 275. 17 Ibid.

32 Grimshaw wrote that, “In most instances it [home] is [the] single most valuable economic possession, and any perception of threat to its value is a threat to himself.”18 In an agricultural economy land was the means of production used by farmers to compete in the marketplace. It was the single most important source of income. The profits needed from cotton in order to reinvigorate the Southern economy placed a higher emphasis on its necessity as a cash crop. Steven Hahn in, The Roots of Southern Populism detailed a critical shift in the marketplace. He theorized that after the war the economy of the South changed dramatically, because the barter system used by some farmers was no longer functional after the war. The power of the plantation system had diminished; therefore the planters did not exert as much control over the economy as they once had. As a result cotton became even more important because it was the most profitable cash crop for farmers. Since they could no longer trade for needed materials with items they could make on the farm, cash became the main form of currency. The farmers had to grow more cotton in order sell it so that they could buy the needed supplies from the merchants. It was understandable why control over land became so important. Land was power and those who had control over it maintain dominance over society. The entrance of blacks into the competition offended most whites and loss of property caused even more dramatic responses. It must be understood that the dominant class was not just the large planters. Dominance was maintained by an entire group not just the wealthy portion of it. The aristocrats had the power, but the competition for dominance was fought by the entire group. Blacks were not supposed to directly participate in the economy, but rather be a cheap source of labor for the dominant group in order to compete against each other within the group. These testimonies showed that violence occurred when blacks owned land and attempted to compete in the marketplace against the dominant group. If land was taken by blacks then whites cannot use it, therefore they lose control of one of the vital means of economic production.19 This idea can be ascertained through other testimony during the Congressional hearings. B.F. Tidwell was a white, forty year old, judge from Madison County. He was asked, “What has been the effect of these acts of violence upon the colored people?” He

18 Grimshaw, p. 258. 19 Steve Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism : Yeomen Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.)

33 answered, “I think it has kept them from taking homes of their own, and settling down upon their own farms; they think they will be interfered with and troubled.”20 Tidwell’s response showed that when blacks tried to, in any way, affect the delicate balance of the accommodative pattern it was met with white reaction. Another example was the attack on Doc Rountree, a thirty-seven year old black man, in Live Oak, Florida. He was living on a seven acre homestead on United States Government land. Rountree was beaten by a group of men who asked if he, “didn’t know they didn’t allow damned niggers to live on land of their own? They gave me orders to go the next morning to my master, John Sellers, and go to work.”21 The assailants told Rountree that they wanted his children to work for them for “victuals” and clothing. He disagreed with this idea and was told that if he did not leave his land that he would be killed. Freedmen must work and not become independent agents of their labor. They were not allowed to own their labor as white farmers who owned their own land did. Economics was a strong motivation for violence and it was used to control the resources of the economy, but that was not the only reason violence was used to stabilize the accommodative pattern. The accommodative pattern was adversely affected when the freedmen sought to become part of the political process. Not only were they trying to become economically independent, blacks also attempted to maintain that independence through political action. After Congressional Reconstruction politics became one of the key issues that polarized the two sides. Conservative politicians claimed that blacks were incapable of voting, that they were inferior which meant that they were not able to make decisions without white assistance. According to the testimony given to the Congressional Committee in Jacksonville after 1868 most white violence against blacks was politically inspired. Whites did not want blacks to have political power. The Constitution of 1865 did not afford the right of suffrage to black males. White fear of black suffrage was apparent since the end of the war. Some thought that if they protected the property and liberty rights of the freedmen that the Federal government would not force them to accept black suffrage.22 How could the former slaves be free without the ability to protect that freedom by voting? The only chance blacks had of maintaining their freedom was to be

20 House Report #22, pt. 13, p. 115. 21 Ibid., p. 279. 22 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention – 1865, p. 10

34 active in politics and that opportunity came three years after the war ended. The election of 1868 was the first opportunity for blacks to become involved in the political process. Freedmen joined the Republican Party because it was the party of emancipation. Democrats claimed that Republicans were out to fleece the South and destroy Southern society. Black political power was a threat to white supremacy, and the battle cry became no “Negro Rule.” White fear of black political power and economic independence created tension in the South during Reconstruction. The threat of a “Negro Revolution” was reminiscent of the insurrection fears that plagued Southerners during the antebellum period and the Civil War. Now that the wolf’s ears had been released the former beneficiaries of slavery feared a race war, but this was not the problem entirely.23 Many believed that a race war could erupt if blacks were not controlled, but an actual physical war was only a part of the notion of insurrection. The entrance of the freedmen into the political realm was viewed as another form of insurrection. The end result of it would be the loss of control over society; the fear that the super-ordinate group would become the subordinate. The control of government was the most important, because that controlled society. Those who made the laws made the society. During Reconstruction Republican and black were synonymous to many Southerners. Even before the war, Republicans were often called the “Black Republicans” because of their stance on slavery. Black and white Republicans alike became the targets of conservative white violence. Richard W. Cone, a white Republican, had lived and worked in Jacksonville as a carpenter since 1858. Cone testified in 1871 that he had been dragged out of his house and placed over a log and whipped with a leather strap. The mob told Cone that he was being beaten because he supported black’s right to vote. His wife, Florida, said that, “his back was all raw; the skin was cut in . . . one or two places, but it was bruised from one end to the other.”24 Marcellus Stearns, from Quincy, testified that in the 1870 election Democrats showed up at the polls armed and violence almost erupted. He stated that the former President of the Florida State Senate, A.K. Allison, urged people in the crowd to shoot Stearns. Whether or not Allison tried to incite Stearns’ murder, the sentiment that Republicans must be

23 Thomas Jefferson characterized slavery as holding a wolf’s ears. He said we have the wolf by its ears and we can neither hold him or safely let him go. 24 House Report #22, pt. 13, p. 73.

35 eliminated especially if they were seen as Radical was common. Stearns believed that no Democrats were kept from voting at the election. He also mentioned that the polls were generally segregated.25 “In Jackson County, Negroes were shot down, beaten, or threatened for expressing political opinions.”26 Lawlessness forced Emanuel Fortune to leave Jackson County and his crime was that he was a black man involved in politics. He participated in the Constitutional Convention and had been a member of the legislature in 1868. Fortune testified that he got into arguments over blacks’ right to vote and stated that whites said, “The damned republican party has put niggers to rule us and we will not suffer it; Intelligence shall rule the country instead of the majority; and all such as that. They always said that this was a ‘white man’s government’, and that the colored men had no right that white men were bound to respect.”27 When asked about the purpose of the “organization” Fortune stated that, “the object of it is to kill out the leading men of the Republican Party. They have never attacked anyone but those who have been somewhat prominent in the party, men who have taken prominent stands.”28 The Klan threatened Fortune personally. He said, “in fact I got, indirectly, information very often that I would be missing some day and no one would know where I was.”29 Fortune moved to Jacksonville where he worked as a carpenter. Jonathan C. Gibbs was the Secretary of State, 1868 – 1873, under the Reed administration, which was the highest position of any black man in the state government. Gibbs came to Florida in 1867 in order to establish Presbyterian churches.30 He gave the Committee a letter dated February 23, 1871, written to him by J.Q. Dickinson, before he was killed. The letter read, “Practically the civil rights of the colored man are subordinate to those of the white man. The press has been and is disgustingly uncandid, abusive of everything republican, and at times openly seditious. Human life is counted cheap when passion or politics call for its sacrifice,” Dickinson continued, “and the

25 Ibid., p. 65-83. 26 Ralph Peek “Lawlessness in Florida,” Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 40, Issue 2, (October, 1961): 171. 27 House Report #22, pt. 13, p. 94. 28 Ibid., p. 95. 29 Ibid., p. 94. 30 For more on Jonathan C. Gibbs see Williams, Learotha, Jr. "A Wider Field of Usefulness: The Life and Times of Jonathan Clarkson Gibbs, 1828-1874” (Unpublished Dissertation, Florida State University, 2003).

36 frequency and cold blood which have characterized our murders had not been to me so fearful a fact as the carelessness with which the public learn a new outrage.” The letter ended with Dickinson writing, “To say that the colored man here have through my agency, uniformly obtained even-handed justice, would be a lie!” Gibbs believed that although political strife was a problem in counties such as Jackson, “colored people” in Florida were generally better off than in other Southern states. Gibbs also stated that he, “believed there is more liberty, more personal freedom for them here [Florida]; that they are doing better, notwithstanding there has been that slaughter.”31 Why did Gibbs, and to a lesser extent Fortune, shy away from being publicly negative about the state of race relations in Florida? Both testified that blacks were being killed simply for trying to elevate their status within society, but they did not emphasize it. In reading the testimony of the two men it was clear that they tried to solidify their association with the Republican Party. Gibbs and Fortune did not stress that violent acts were being perpetrated due to racial tensions. The tone of the testimony was centered on party politics. Blacks knew that their best chance to be free was with the Republican Party. Democrats said they knew what was best for the former slaves, but Democrats had only their interests in mind. By using the political nature of the violence committed against them Fortune and Gibbs were able to solidify the connection between blacks and Republicans. So this was quite a bit of political maneuvering by Fortune and Gibbs to understate the color line for the party line. Violence created fear and at the same time craftiness on the part of some black politicians. Some blacks either refrained from politics altogether or pretended to. For example, Larry White, who lived in Jackson County, gave a step-in fetch answer when asked about his stance on voting. He told the Committee what he said to the white man was, “I would not do it anywhere; and after I said that, they seemed to excuse me, and said: ‘Old Larry is a good nigger, they should all do like him; that the damned carpet- baggers should not come in that country any more; that old Larry took the right track, and that is what cleared him.”32 White told whites what they wanted to hear in the way they wanted to hear it in order for them to feel secure in the status. He used their paternalistic

31 Ibid., p. 222-223. 32 Ibid., p. 309.

37 ideas about blacks against the whites to outmaneuver them. White played on the stereotype of the “Sambo” so the whites he spoke to about voting did not feel threatened and let him go. White violence against black Republicans occurred regularly. “Six or seven colored Republicans had been murdered in Columbia County during the eighteen months following the fall of 1868, and the conditions under which these killings occurred struck fear into the hearts of Negroes.”33 Blacks were not the only political participants that feared attack. White Republicans were also targets. W.J. Purman was a former Freedmen’s Bureau agent and labeled Radical in the Republican Party. He lived in Jackson County and became an object of aggression. Like Fortune Purman ended up leaving the area due to an attack, but his story was more violent than Fortune’s. He noted that at the time of his testimony that he was not living in Marianna. Purman said, “I am unwillingly away from there because I am not permitted to live there, in consequence of the murderous political opposition to me; my life would not be safe there for one hour; that is a sentiment publicly expressed by the leading men there.”34 In February 1869 Purman was shot after he and Dr. John L. Finalyson left a concert at night. Purman was hit in the neck, but Finalyson was killed by the bullet. This was one of several attacks that occurred in Jackson County. The events that took place there were so numerous that it was called the Jackson County War. Democrats blamed Radical Republican political leaders like Purman for the violence in the area. White circuit court judge Thomas T. Long stated. “The governor (Reed) said that if it had not been for . . . Mr. Purman the condition of society there (Jackson County) would not be as it is now. We all know that colored men are prejudiced and ignorant, but generally willing to do right. They are led astray by bad and wicked men.”35 Men such as Long believed that some Republicans were not pitting blacks against all whites, but Southern whites. Long was a Republican, but was considered a moderate as opposed to Purman who was seen as a Radical. He believed that Radicals’ political aspirations was the reason for poor race relations. The charge of Radicals inciting blacks against Southern whites was used by Democrats as well as some

33 Peek, “Lawlessness in Florida” p. 166 34 House Report #22, pt. 13, p. 144. 35 Ibid., p. 205. Circuit court judge for Baker, Bradford, Clay, St. Johns, Nassau, and Duval counties.

38 Republicans, but the Democrats went one step further and used violence to correct this “wrong”. Some Democrats created clubs like the Young Men’s Democratic Club and the Ku Klux Klan. Historian Allen W. Trelease concluded that these clubs began as political institutions, but became violent when a few members began night-riding. This was misleading because these organizations were formed before black suffrage and were later used to curb Republican participation in elections.36 Joseph John Williams, a thirty-nine year old planter from North Carolina, was the head of the Young Men’s Democratic Club of Leon County. According to him the Democratic Party needed to organize because black voters outnumbered whites seven to one. He said, “These odds required the formation of a club.”37 Williams’ assumption was inaccurate.38 He also believed that frauds were being committed at the polls and it was their job to make sure that this did not happen. Another job of this “political” club was to keep people from inciting riots among the black voters. The Young Men’s Democratic Club came to the polls armed reputedly in order to maintain peace, but in reality to intimidate black voters. Frank Myers, also a member of the club in Alachua County, testified that there was a “secret service club” within the general club. When asked what the secret service club did Myers replied, “The object of the secret service club, as explained to me at that time by the party who spoke to me about it, was, in case it became necessary, as they feared it would, to use force or violence to prevent certain parties from exerting too great an influence with the colored population in that county, to be prepared to do it effectually and secretly.”39 It was their job to exert control over the black voter. The Young Men’s Democratic Club was an excellent example of the dominant class banding together in order control the subordinate group. White violence perpetuated upon blacks was doubly despicable, because it was rarely punished. Convicting a white for crimes against a freedman was almost nonexistent during Reconstruction. George Bentley concluded that, “Racial discrimination in the courts was accompanied in some localities by unwillingness or

36 Trelease, White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction, 49. 37 Ibid., p. 227 38 According to the 1870 Census the black population in Leon County only outnumbered whites approximately 4.5 to 1. The evidence is not substantial enough to warrant the creation of the Young Men’s Democratic Club for political reasons only. 39 Ibid., p. 256.

39 inability of the police authorities to protect colored people from violence.”40 An example of this was the case of Mary Jane Baker in Jackson County. She swore out a warrant against William Parker, a white man who allegedly beat her. The Justice of the Peace refused to act until she paid a six dollar fee, which was an amount equal to a month’s wages. Baker paid the fee and Parker was arrested. He was tried and fined five dollars.41 Baker gave over what she had earned in a month and the man she sought justice against was fined less money than she paid. It was difficult to protect blacks against the nightriders. Since many whites throughout Florida sympathized with them it was a challenge to find anyone to testify against them. R.W. Cone said that, “This Ku-Klux business, or regulating business, whatever they call it, has been going on here ever since the war, and even before the war, yet I have never seen anybody get justice in the State Courts against them; they always bring up evidence to clear themselves.”42 David Montgomery the Sheriff from Madison County declared, “that if a white man kills a colored man in any of the counties of this state you cannot convict him.” L.G. Dennis of Gainesville believed that prejudice prevented the laws from being fairly administered. Terror against blacks and Republicans had become the weapon of choice and law enforcement either could not or would not work effectively to curb it.43 Some cases will always remain a mystery due to lack of evidence. On December 28, 1868, a Jefferson County black man, Love Keys was found dead on Willie Plantation, about six miles below Waukeeuah. Dr. James Russell, Jefferson County coroner, determined that Keys had been killed by gun shot wounds. Russell cataloged four wounds, two in the legs, one on the back and one in the head passing through the upper half of the left ear into the brain causing death immediately. A black man, Tom Redau, found Keys near the home of Richard Story. The report clearly stated that Keys was not drunk or creating any conflict. A white woman, Frances Story, indicated that she last saw Keys on December 26, 1868. After he left her door she later heard four gun shots, but dismissed them as people shooting off “Christmas Guns”. At the time Mrs. Story stated

40 George Bentley, A History of the Freemen’s Bureau (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1955), p. 158. 41 Jerrell H. Shofner, Jackson County, Florida – A History, 262. 42 House Report #22, pt. 13, p. 66-67. 43 Ibid., p. 125.

40 that she had two men staying at her house; Joseph Lewis and her husband Richard Story. The two men had left her house and she later saw Keys pass by the house. At the time she heard the gun shots nobody was in her house.44 L.W. Flynn testified that he had heard shots fired on the night of December 26, 1868. He also remarked that he had seen Keys earlier in the day and that he was in good character and he also never heard anything said against him. Lynn ended his testimony by stating that he saw two sets of tracks of similar size near Keys’ body. Love Keys’ wife Alice testified that Richard Story and Lee Shedoyn came to her house in the late afternoon. The men were asking for Love, but she told them that he was not there. The two men proceeded to ask her if they could trade a good yard dog for her dog. Mrs. Keys refused and the two left. The report filed on May 29, 1869, stated that the jury in the case determined that Love Keys was killed by unknown person or persons after being shot in the head. It seems evident that Richard Story was involved with this murder. It is unclear why the jury made this decision. It was comprised of nine blacks and two whites. The judge that presided over the case was former Freedmen’s Bureau agent Alonzo B. Grumwell.45 Whites believed dominance must be created and maintained. They accomplished this by controlling every aspect of society. It has been determined in this chapter that black exercise of political power and landownership were a threat to white dominance. There were other areas that if threatened, such as white womanhood, insolence, and breaking social norms, could result in reactionary measures. Social control created an atmosphere of superiority that ran through every facet of life including economic and political aspects. George Fredrickson summarized it best when he wrote, “The key to understanding the larger history of white supremacist imagery in the United States, both during slavery and afterwards, is this sharp and recurring contrast between ‘the good Negro’ in his place and the vicious black out of it.”46 How did the end of slavery affect everyday interactions between blacks and white?

44 Jefferson County Records: (Coroner’s Inquests), Florida State Archives. L346, Box 9, Folder 55. 45 Ibid. 46 George M. Fredrickson, The Arrogance of Race: Historical Perspectives on Slavery, Racism, and Social Inequality (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1988), 215.

41 Constraints were placed on the former slaves to limit social interaction between the races. In the antebellum period a slave’s status was never in question. They could speak with whites in public without fear that they were trying to be equal in status. But when slaves became freedmen this changed dramatically. Blacks could no longer interact with whites in public as they once did. The boundary that maintained status was gone and whites believed that boundary must be erected again in a different form. The wall took the shape of social constraints which, was manifested in protecting white womanhood, insolence, and any sign of interacting with someone outside their race as an equal. Just like any threat to political or economical supremacy the threat to social constraints also met with violence. Sociologist Oliver Cromwell Cox wrote, “Protecting the ‘honor and sanctity of white womanhood’ constitutes a most convincing war cry and an excellent covering for the basic purpose that colored people must never be given an opportunity to become the cultural peers of whites.”47 In 1867, an ex-slave was taken to a swamp in Washington County and whipped to death after a white woman reported he had entered her room.48 The simple accusation of a black man in an inappropriate situation with a white woman caused swift reprisal. The protection of white womanhood was important because Southern whites felt that if blacks became romantic with a white woman then whites might have to interact with them socially. The ability to mate with a white woman was understood as a step up in status; the idea that blacks were trying to be like whites. If a black man tried to cohabitate with a white woman he was trying to elevate his status through the white woman. This idea was only used between black males and white women not vice versa. Black women were not placed on such a pedestal. Sexual activity between a black woman and a white male was never determined to be anything other than consensual. In the words of historian Tera Hunter, “Rape and black women were words that were never uttered in the same breath by White Southerners.”49 Rape could only happen to a white woman. Social constraints were placed on blacks so that it was difficult to change their subordinate status. These restraints did not always focus on

47 Cox, Race: A Study in Social Dynamics, 76. 48 Richardson, p. 164. 49 Tera W. Hunter, To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women’s Lives and Labor after the Civil War (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 34.

42 blacks elevating themselves. If a white person tried to interact with a black person equally then they met with a violent result. In 1874 in Brooksville approximately a dozen disguised men dragged a white man from his cabin and hanged him on the nearest tree. His offense was living with a black female.50 Societal control was not limited to interaction between black men and white women. It also included “insolent” behavior, which many whites viewed as proof that blacks were attempting to elevate their status in society. Blacks had to act and speak in a certain way in order for whites not to feel threatened by them. For example, if blacks did not obey an order or give up the right of way on a sidewalk to a white person they might be attacked. Blacks could not speak out against whites publicly or bring a white person’s character into question. For example, in Madison County a white man John T. Glass killed a black man, Oscar Tension, with an ax, after Tension accused him of lying.51 The ability to disagree was destroyed as swiftly as Tension was with the ax, because social norms were part of the discriminatory structure used to maintain the subservience of the black laboring class. Another example was a Methodist clergyman who threatened to kill two black soldiers whom he accused of making an insolent remark to his wife after she had refused to permit them to draw water from her well.52 They were perhaps turned away simply because they were black Union soldiers. If she had let them draw from her well then she would have been giving her blessing to their new status by dealing with them as equals, but since she turned them away they remained subordinate to her and her control over resources. For years whites had controlled every facet of life in the South and now there was a threat to the structure. The accommodative pattern could be destroyed by economic independence, political activity, and social equality. All of these spheres must be maintained within a certain structure in order for the dominant class to hold on to the reins of power in society. If the freedmen sought to express themselves in the marketplace by buying property and working the land they could potentially be beaten or killed. If they sought to exercise their political power in order to protect or even better their economic standing again they might be beaten or killed. A freedman breaking

50 Richardson, The Negro in the Reconstruction of Florida: 1865 – 1877, 173. 51 House Report #22, pt. 13, p. 125-129. 52 Richardson, p. 162.

43 social norms also encountered violence. Organic society must not be changed because, according to whites, if the placement of people in society was rearranged then that society would die. Southern whites were determined to maintain their supremacy. The barbarity of the assaults proved that those who most feared change went to the extreme to eradicate any form of advancement by the freedmen. Grimshaw claimed that societies that are based on a subordinate and super- ordinate groups interplaying with each other was inherently unstable. Emancipation brought a new competitor into the arena and Southern whites did not exactly know how to deal with it. For the accommodative pattern to function both whites and blacks had to give up control of some aspect of their lives in order for the pattern to function. This created an uneasy balance because both groups wished to regain what they had given up. Southerners wished to reclaim complete control over society and the means of production, but this could not happen if the freedmen became part of society and taking control of what resources they could. The freedmen were not seeking to take back what they gave up, but rather what had been taken from them. Political aspirations and economic independence had been denied them and they knew they must have both in order to protect themselves from hostile whites. Violence proved to be an effective deterrent against black land ownership and voting. It also forced blacks to continue to labor for whites. The ruling class flexed its muscles and pushed the freedmen back into a subordinate cheap labor class where they wanted and thought blacks belonged.

44 LAND AND LABOR

The most daunting task of Reconstruction was the creation of a free labor economy, because slavery was the socioeconomic system that was the heart of the agricultural wealth in the South. Planters believed that cotton was not profitable without slave labor. When the slaves were freed not only did they gain their freedom from bondage, but their freedom to profit from the fruits of their labor. For years slavery had robbed them of the ability to make economic gains from their sweat. The planters placed a property value on them and like the land that was tilled they were productive property. Land and labor were the two essential ingredients to a productive economic life. The end of slavery meant a separation of property and labor. The freedmen were no longer both property and labor to one person. Their labor became their property to do with as they saw fit, if they were able to do so. This was the only property given to the freedmen of Florida that they were able to keep. Land was the tangible property required for the freedmen to begin to compete in the Southern economic sphere. Many blacks after the war wanted to obtain land because they believed it was the key to wealth and power. They saw how the planters enriched themselves with land and slave labor. Emancipation gave the freedmen control over their labor so in order to complete the equation they needed land. Some were able to purchase a piece of property and start a farm, but it was difficult to do in the hostile environment of the South. Attacks upon black land owners, as already noted, were not uncommon and they were often driven from their homes. The dominant group’s control over land and labor insured their economic hegemony. If they managed both they could dictate wages, hours, and contracts in order to increase profits. In a capitalist economy the ambition of the individual to maximize their profits was the cornerstone of the market and this was what made it profitable.1 The dominant class’ command over the terms of the contract denied the laborer the potential profitability of their property. If that group had complete charge over the

1 Leon Litwack, Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); Davis, The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida; Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution; Richardson, The Negro in the Reconstruction in Florida; Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction.

45 amount of the wages and how they were paid then labor ceases to be property of the laborer and merely an expense to the employer. In the late nineteenth century the idea of freedom of contract became a central issue in the fight for workers’ rights. It was centered on the idea that if hours were limited that the right of property was taken away from the employee. The laborer was unable to work for the maximum potential earning their property could provide. It must be noted that this idea was created within the context of an industrialized society and not an agrarian form, but the idea still has some bearing on the unskilled agrarian laborer.2 For example, freedmen were unable to purchase actual property because they lacked money. The only property available to them was their own labor, but they could not maximize it because they were unable to compete for the best price for their labor. Individual ambition drives the market, but when the dominant class takes control of the market the individual ceases to exist and must yield to the power of another. The idea of freedom of contract did not exist in the South due to a lack of competition for wages. It could not exist in the agrarian South, because whites controlled the means of production. In regard to blacks owning or working their own land, William Cocke, a white lawyer from Jefferson county, wrote that “it will ruin the negro and injure the industrial and financial prospects of the South, to rent lands to the negro.”3 Land was not usually sold to black buyers and those who did buy land did not always remain on it long enough to be successful. If the dominant class had power over land and labor through its ruling class then competition ends. This idea was compatible with monopolies that bought up all the rival businesses and virtually ended the market creating a stagnant price for products. Producers could sell goods at any price and the buyer would have to pay any price. Historian Kenneth Stampp noted that white farmers rose up in vigorous opposition to freedmen landownership because they knew that they were potential economic competitors.4 Control over blacks was critical for whites to maintain their cheap labor pool. If the market allowed competition for labor property it would drive the

2 Nancy Woloch, ed., Muller v. Oregon: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1996). 3 Jerrell H. Shofner, History of Jefferson County, Florida (Tallahassee: Sentry Press, 1976), 275. 4 Kenneth Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction: 1865 – 1877 (New York: Alfred a. Knopf, 1966), 195- 196.

46 price up which would make cotton unprofitable. Sociologist Bertram Doyle believed that when blacks became open competitors whites conceived their interests endangered and reacted negatively to that threat. During the antebellum years whites dominated the economy and the labor of African Americans. The competition, after the war, between whites and blacks was for the freedmen’s labor property. The outwardly viewed conflict was the struggle between the two groups for control. The dominant group wanted to remove the laborer from their labor property in order to take it over. Doyle explained competition and conflict by quoting Robert Park: Competition, unqualified and uncontrolled, as with plants, and in the great impersonal life-struggle of man with his kind and with all animate nature, is unconscious. Conflict is always conscious, indeed, it evokes the deepest emotions and strongest passions and enlists the greatest concentration of attention and effort. Both are forms of struggle. Competition, however, is continuous and impersonal; conflict is intermittent and personal.5

The competition for control may or may not be unconscious, but the conflict and control over the use of black labor was not. The evidence of the contracts, to be shown later, and the terms upon which they were built will demonstrate that freedom of contract did not exist for black men or women. If it was not for a few well intentioned bureau agents the dominant class would have gained so much direction over black labor property it would have again become their property. One of the ways that employers sought permanently to take control of the labor property was through debt peonage, which was created when laborers bought more supplies on credit than their annual wages could pay. Some contracts stipulated that by the end of the contract period any and all debts must be paid. If the employee owed money then that individual would typically remain on the plantation for another season to pay back the debt. The freedmen’s lack of understanding how contracts worked or the results of not complying with the contract made them easy targets for dishonest plantation owners who wished to keep their labor permanently. A Jefferson County contract between Thomas Footman and freedmen Wade Young illustrated the problems of taking merchandise on credit. The contract called for Young to relinquish all claims he had on Mr. E. Anderson’s crop from the previous year. In return for Young’s services

5 Doyle, The Etiquette of Race Relations in the South, 574.

47 Footman said that he would settle any claim that Young had at Anderson’s store provided that the order for the account could be produced. It was possible that Young was charged for merchandise that was not even paid to his account. This was a predicament that occurred out of lack of understanding. A store owner could put in his account books whatever he desired as long as in the end it could be balanced. A case of debt peonage made by a less than truthful individual occurred in Alachua County.6 John Haile owned Sanfelasco Plantation in Alachua County. Historian Edward Eckert studied the ledger of Haile’s business transactions with the freedmen, and he discovered that Haile created debt peonage by fixing his books. Eckert concluded that Haile kept his workers for another year by balancing his ledger in such a way that the amount owed to him through merchandise equaled the amount paid in wages. The laborer could either receive no pay or be in debt to him and have that debt be paid against the following year’s wages. The freedmen’s inability to read and write allowed Haile to create a revolving door of debt. By doing so he was able to take the labor property of the freedmen until the debt was paid.7 Blacks were unable to leave the plantation in order to seek higher wages for their efforts until their debt was paid. Essentially these privateers took away the freedmen’s labor property through debt peonage without due process of law. The government of the United States could not take the property of any citizen without the due process of law, yet with the stoke of a pen in an account journal the freedmen lost their right to property. In the subsequent years after Reconstruction some lawyers used the due process clause in the fourteenth amendment in segregation cases and unfair laws against business. While this was not the intent of the amendment judicial wizardry allowed it to happen. Perhaps if that form of hocus pocus was conjured up during Reconstruction then the labor property of the freedmen could have been the basis of the economic independence, but it was not and therefore became the exploited means of profit for the planters. Dishonest

6 Jefferson County Records, (Freedmen’s Contracts). Florida State Archives, L346, Box 8, Folder 85, Contract #226. To be further cited as Freedmen’s Contracts. 7 Edward K. Eckert, “Contract Labor in Florida During Reconstruction” Florida Historical Quarterly, (July, 1968): 35-51.

48 employers, such as Haile, were able to take the freedmen’s labor property and they had no legal recourse.8 The Freedmen’s Bureau was the former slaves’ best chance of obtaining any form of independence. The Bureau was formed in 1865 as an agency to assist the freedmen in their transition from bondage to a life of freedom. With some exceptions the altruism of the Bureau was not always in favor of the freedmen. When the rumor of free land circulated through the communication lines of the freedmen the Bureau made sure to send the message that it was not true. The events of Port Royal in South Carolina helped to create the idea that land would be given to blacks to live on. In 1865 Sherman’s field order number fifteen prescribed this to happen, but that was quickly terminated after the end of the war.9 The rumors of former slave owners’ land being given to the freedmen did not sit well with Southerners. They felt that this rumor was being maliciously spread by the bureau and created resentment. In December 1865 the General Assembly passed a resolution stating, “Whereas, the affairs of the Freedmen’s Bureau have not been conducted with good judgment or economy, and the belief widely spread among the freedmen of the Southern States that the lands of their former owners will, at least in part, be divided among them, has come from the agents of the Bureau, and this belief is seriously interfering with willingness of the freedmen to make contract.10 Neither the Bureau nor the Federal Government gave land to the freedmen.11 The Bureau believed that if the freedmen thought land would be given to them that they would not return to the plantations. Shortly after the war the intent of the federal government was to restore the economy of the South and to return the former slaves to the plantation to harvest the crops. Shofner noted that Bureau policy in Florida was based on the Southerners view of the freedmen as an agricultural labor force. In 1866 A.E. Kinne toured East Florida and reported the conditions to the Bureau assistant

8 Brook Thomas, ed., Plessy v. Ferguson (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997). 9 Willie Lee Rose, Rehearsal for Reconstruction: The Port Royal Experiment (Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill, 1964). 10 Resolutions – [No. 2]: Preamble and Resolutions relative to the Freedmen’s Bureau, Acts and Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of Florida, at its 14th Session, Dec. 18, 1865. (Tallahassee: Dyke and Sparhawk, 1866), 102. 11 When President Andrew Johnson made a blanket pardon of ex-Confederates the land that the Federal Government had control over went back to them. This was the main source of land the Freedmen’s Bureau had.

49 commissioner Thomas Osborn. He commented on the condition of freedmen, contracts, schools, lumbering, and morale of the people. The overwhelming theme of the report was the need to restart the economy and for blacks to return to the plantation to work. Kinne wrote, “The wants of the District through which my tour led me, clearly indicated that not an able bodied man or woman need be idle for want of labor.”12 The report stated that there was enough work in Florida that able bodied individuals had no excuse for not being employed. This need to prove that vagrancy should not take place was an example of the Bureau’s desire to restore the economy of the South. This does not take away from their good works, but shows that above all else that the preservation of the economy was of the utmost importance. The agents went around the state and told the freedmen that the best thing for them to do was not to wander around, but to make contracts with the plantation owners and to begin working again.13 Even though the Bureau wanted blacks to return to the plantation they also tried to help them acquire land through the Homestead Act of 1866, as well as making contracts equitable for the freedmen. Implementation proved difficult because of the obstinate white population. Harrison Drew wrote Jonathan Gibbs that, “they [Democrats] told them [blacks] that the lands in this part of Florida [Dade County] belonged to them [Democrats] and was not subject to homestead entry.” Drew later checked with the land office in Tallahassee and found that the land was indeed available for homesteading.14 In 1866 homesteads were the central idea of a report by Thomas Osborn. He wanted to buy land in southern Florida and make it available to the freedmen as homesteads. Osborn felt that this was an opportunity for the Bureau to help the freedmen obtain economic independence.15 All parties involved knew that land was important. The Freedmen’s Bureau in Florida helped secure 2,012 homesteads in Florida by 1867.16 In 1866 Bureau agent Charles Hamilton said that in his experience the best system of labor to adopt was that of a contract between employer and employee for a portion of

12 Joe M. Richardson, ed. “A Northerner Reports on Florida: 1866” Florida Historical Quarterly, Volume 40, Issue 4, (April, 1962): 382 – 391. 13 Jerrell H. Shofner, Nor is it Over Yet: Florida in Era of Reconstruction, 64 14 Correspondence of Secretary of State – Jonathan C. Gibbs – 1868-1873: Florida State Archives, Box 4, Folder 4. Letter Dated June 26, 1870 - from Harrison W. Drew from Miami (Dade). 15 F. Bruce Rosen, “A Plan to Homestead Freedmen in Florida in 1866” Florida Historical Quarterly, Volume 43, Issue 4, (April, 1965): 380 – 385. 16 Richardson, The Negro in Reconstruction of Florida, 73.

50 the crop to be paid at the end of the year, because it was a motivational means of getting the freedmen to work harder on the farm if they were to receive a portion of the crop. The control factor was on the other side of this motivational apparatus. Since the freedmen had a labor property investment in the crop they would not see any profit until it was harvested and Hamilton believed that this would keep them on the plantation and that they would not run off.17 Indeed this was a concern, but the war had also created a shortage in currency in the area and monthly wages were difficult to pay.18 But it was advantageous for planters to give a portion of the crop as opposed to paying wages. Most contracts did follow this pattern of paying a portion of the crop to the laborer at the end of the year. The portion given was not always the same from employer to employer. The range given was between one-third and one-half depending on the terms of the contract. Typically if the employer gave more of the tools or equipment necessary for the cultivation of the crops then the laborers share was less. Some contracts split up the crop over cotton, potatoes, corn, and fodder. The laborer would grow each crop and at the end of the year received a predetermined portion of the crop. It was not always the same between each type of crop. Cotton was the overall crop of importance and the need for its production was vital to the economy of the south.19 Contracts were more than a system of payment for wages, it was a means of control for the planters. Slavery gave the ultimate charge over labor and with the destruction of that institution planters needed another way of compulsion. This was the unfortunate result of observing slavery for a number of years and never truly finding out if blacks could work on their own. The institution gave a perverted view of labor habits and the native whites never observed on a grand scale the work habits of blacks who had command over their labor property. Contracts were a restrictive legal notice that gave the planters control over all the aspects of life and labor of the freedmen. In many of the contracts it was stipulated that the planter had complete rein over the operation of the farm and the property therein. Contracts often obligated an employee to protect the property of the employer at all times. Production rates were also part of the agreement

17 House Report #22, pt. 13. “Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Condition of the Insurrectionary State”, 285. 18 Some blacks did prefer the sharecrop system because it allowed them more flexibility in their work schedule as long as the contract did not stipulate hours worked. 19 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Florida State Archives,

51 between the two parties. Planters placed a quota on the number of pounds picked per day and some set up number of pounds cultivated by the end of the year. Not only did quotas control the freedmen’s labor output it also assisted in the return to prewar production levels. Quotas were put into the contract in order to create profitable output, but the terms that dealt with hours worked helped guarantee that the quotas would be met. In the antebellum south the slaves worked from before sunrise till after sunset at the behest of their owners. This pattern of a daily work was what many planters believed should be followed in the contract system. The agreements stated that a worker must start shortly after sunrise and work “not quite until sunset”. Some employers wrote in allotted times for meals, usually a half an hour for breakfast and the same time for lunch.20 For a year the laborer worked six days a week, exceptions for Sabbath, from sunrise to sunset. The employer, effectively, had planned the daily lives of the freedmen for one complete year and if a debt was not paid then another year. Another restriction placed on the freedmen was the ability to leave the plantation. Contracts often stipulated that a worker could not leave the plantation without the owner’s permission. Some of the contracts forbade freedmen to work for another employer while under contract. These provisions gave the planters complete domination over the labor property of the freedmen.21 The problems with the contract system were not confined to those expressed above. These written legal documents were flawed in their design from the beginning. First, most freedmen were unable to read the contracts and without that ability understanding them was almost impossible. Freedmen were at the mercy of the employer who could keep them on their farm legally for an extended period of time. Immediately after the war contracts were filed legally with the county through the Justice of the Peace. The protocol for filing the contract was that the Justice of the Peace and two witnesses of character were to swear that the contract was entered into voluntarily and of the freedmen’s own free will.22 This clause was usually written in at the end of the contract.

20 In the contract lunch is referred to as dinner. 21 Freedmen’s Contracts – Jefferson County, Florida State Archives, L346. 22 Chapter 1,470 – [No. 7]: An Act in relation to Contracts of Persons of Color, Acts and Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of Florida, at its 14th Session, Dec. 18, 1865. (Tallahassee: Dyke and Sparhawk, 1866), 32- 33.

52 This process was quite difficult to understand unless the individual was in a position of control. Later the Freedmen’s Bureau played a crucial role in the drafting of these documents. The agents tried to look out for the best interest of the freedmen within the framework of southern society. For example, the early versions of the contracts read that if a laborer was dismissed they forfeited all wages. Bureau agents terminated these clauses. In most contracts that clause was crossed out and the agent wrote that the case would be determined by a board of arbitration. This was at least a fairer situation than losing all wages due to dismissal. Under the old contracts laborers could be dismissed when the bulk of the work was finished and the employer would have received free labor. It would have been another form of slavery, but worse because they would be left with nothing in a society that saw them as less than human.23 White Southerners did not see these problems as resulting from bad contracts. They claimed that blacks went into debt because they were incapable of being thrifty. Joseph Williams a thirty-nine year old Leon County planter believed that blacks spent all of their money and then said they were deprived wages because of bad contracts. He shifted blame away from dishonest white plantation owners to the freedmen. Some even declared that the freedmen were like children that needed to be taken care of by southern whites. By stating that they could not control their own finances the white employers justified their control of freedmen. Williams stated that lavishness and improvidence were black characteristics.24 An entirely new system of labor could not be created and introduced into society without the influence of the government. In the first two years of Reconstruction white Floridians passed laws designed to control the freedmen. Whites viewed vagrancy as a problem and enacted laws in 1865 to punish “vagrants and vagabonds”. All freedmen not employed were considered to be idle and lazy. A vagrant upon conviction was to be placed in a trade or occupation. The law did not specify race, but vagrancy was typically

23 Litwack, Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery; Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution; Richardson, The Negro in the Reconstruction in Florida; Shofner, Nor Is It Over Yet. 24 House Report #22, pt. 13, p. 238.

53 seen as a black crime.25 George Bates of Marion County unsuccessfully proposed a bill that required persons of color to register with the government. The bill was clearly an attempt to regulate freedmen labor and to make sure that they were in constant service to the agrarian economic machine.26 But not all laws were enacted against the freedmen. During Congressional Reconstruction white and black Republican lawmakers attempted to assist the freedmen in the labor market. In 1870 the legislature enacted a law for the protection of agricultural laborers, which stated that if an employer seized a crop before wages were paid then said laborer or laborers could file a lien against the crop.27 This law was enacted to give the freedmen some control over their labor property, and keep dishonest plantation owners from cheating them. In 1874 the General Assembly declared that ten hours was considered a legal work day unless otherwise stated in a contract. The idea of regulating hours was not common in agricultural work, but it was an indication that the legislature was at least thinking about the common laborer.28 Of course laws are only words unless they are enforced. The contracts themselves give the historian the best glimpse into the world of regulated labor in the south.29 T.W. Brevard kept a copy of a contract which appeared to be a template used for contracting the services of freedmen. The contract, dated January 1868, was for workers at his place on Lake Jackson in Leon County. According to the contract he gave the laborers free housing if the conditions of the contract were met. He provided the land, team, and forage necessary for cultivation. The laborers on the other hand provided food and maintained themselves. Any advance given was to be taken out of their share of the crops. The contract stipulated that any lost time would be taken out of the crops at an undetermined rate per day. The contract also stated that a laborer could

25 Chapter 1,467 – [No. 4]: An Act to punish Vagrants and Vagabonds, Acts and Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of Florida, at its 14th Session, Dec. 18, 1865. (Tallahassee: Dyke and Sparhawk, 1866), 29. 26 Journal of the Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of Florida at the 2nd Session of the 14th General Assembly. (Office of the Floridian: Printed by Dyke and Sparhawk, 1866), 45. 27 An Act for the Protection of Agricultural Laborers, 3d Session, 1870 – The Acts and Resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Florida at its 3d Session (Tallahassee: Charles H. Walton, State Printer, 1870). p. 29-30. 28 An Act for the Protection of Laboring Men of the State of Florida – Chap. 1988 – No. 13, 7th Session, 1874 – The Acts and Resolutions Adopted by the Legislature of Florida at its 7th Session (Tallahassee: Charles H. Walton, 1874), 57-58. 29 Some of the best preserved copies of the freedmen’s contracts are available from Jefferson County, but there are a few from Leon County. The difference in county was not reflected in the contracts themselves.

54 be released without compensation for disobeying an order, but that termination could be appealed to the proper authority. The rate of pay for the year was one-half of the crops after deductions.30 The contract showed how the labor of the plantation was beneficial to the owner. The Brevard Papers provided additional evidence of his control over the employees. He meticulously catalogued the amount of work done by each of the twenty-six laborers.31 Brevard also kept records of the money advanced for lost time, cash, charity, meat, and shoes. He advanced $54.63 to Fred Douglass, $53.41 to York Nelson and $44.03 to Frank Jenkins.32 Records did not indicate the value of their share of the crop or whether they ended the year in debt. The detail of the Brevard records illustrated his authority over the affairs of his plantation. He knew how much was produced and how much money was given out over the year, but how aware were the laborers of these figures? The illiterate laborer was probably unaware of these figures and could be easily manipulated by the plantation owner. In 1867 there were 267 contracts approved in Jefferson County.33 One contract authorized by bureau agent Alonzo B. Grumwell was between employer C.R. Denmark and Gilbert Thompson. Denmark provided the stock, food, and tools necessary for cultivation. Thompson received half the crop. Any lost time was deducted at fifty cents a day. The contract did not indicate whether any lost time was permissible. Another contract was with George Leggs who was hired as a general laborer. Leggs received $120 per year with a rate of sixty cents a day for lost time. He was supposed to keep order on Denmark’s premises. Leggs’ contract was signed with an “X” that seemed to be shaky, which may be an indication that he was elderly. A contract made between Denmark and Peter and Henry Dosier, also called for half of the crop minus any deductions for lost tools or animals harmed. In this contract Colonel John Sprague wrote, “All differences arising on account of this contract are to be submitted to a board of arbitration composed of 2 reliable citizens and the agent of the B.R. and F. of FL. whose

30 Call and Brevard Papers. Florida State Archives. Record Group #900000, Series/Coll. # M92-1, Box 4, File Folder 1. T.W. Brevard, Speeches 1855-1869, p. 362. 31 Call and Brevard Papers, M92-1, Box 4, File Folder 19. 32 Call and Brevard Papers – M92-1, Box 4, File Folder 26 and 28. 33 Shofner, Jerrell H. History of Jefferson County, Florida, 290.

55 decision shall be final.” This showed bureau influence on freedmen’s contracts.34 Contracts did not differ when white women made them. Mrs. J.J. Alexander contracted with Isaac Taylor Watty and Elizabeth Madison. Alexander supplied the needed tools for the cultivation of fifty or sixty acres of land on her plantation called Viola, and gave them a portion of the crop along with provisions.35 The Denmark contracts were typical of the language used in this system. The laborers received a portion of the crop for their labor, but deduction for lost time and merchandise advanced cut into labor profits. All contracts specified time of work, what was to be provided to the workers, and their responsibilities. Bureau agents approved each contract and made any necessary changes as evident in the note written by Sprague. The only difference between the three contracts was the extra ten cents that George Leggs had to pay for lost time. It was unclear why his time lost was more costly than that of the Dosiers and Thompson. It may be that since his wages were set and not conditioned on the return of the crop, Denmark saw this as a reason to increase the amount due for lost time. William Banks leased 120 acres on Hopeful Plantation owned by J.W. Hill. Hill provided farming tools, cotton gin, mules, and other means of production to Banks.36 Banks needed labor to make this venture profitable and contracted three Jefferson County men. He hired Jerry Johnson as a general servant to hostler and drive him when required. According to the contract Johnson could be dismissed if he disobeyed an order or neglected his duty and could not leave Banks’ service at any time without his consent. Johnson was to be paid $12 a month or $144 per year. Banks had the option of paying Johnson monthly or annually as long as it equaled the total due.37 Again Banks provided the means of production and the freedmen provided the labor. Banks also contracted Joseph Chisholm as a carpenter at $25 a month. Chisholm was to remain respectful and obedient and he could not leave his work without Banks’ permission. Banks provided rations and a house.38 Jessie Jackson was employed as a blacksmith on the plantation.

34 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Folders 78-80. 35 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 7, Folder 1, Contract #198. 36 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 7, Folder 73. 37 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Folder 72. 38 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 7, Folder 6, Contract # 173.

56 Banks furnished provisions, a house, an acreage, and $500.39 These last two contracts were more profitable than previous one because of the specialized nature of the work that was being asked of them. A skilled freedman who was paid cash wages was more likely to avoid the trap of debt peonage. Their labor property was actually profitable. Jackson not only received wages but land as well, which he could work and possibly profit from its use. Obviously unskilled laborers were the most vulnerable group. Since their wages were low, with women even lower, and their livelihood depended on crop production they were readily subject to debt peonage and other forms of labor property control indicated above. Terms of contracts were not restricted to receiving a portion of the crop. Some contracts called for one party to pay another a set amount of the crop for rental of land. For example, in 1867 Nobel Jones, a Jefferson County white man, rented to Ephraim Yeomans, a black man, a tract of land not exceeding three hundred forty acres. The term of the contract was for five years and Yeomans agreed to pay Jones ten bales of cotton averaging five hundred pounds per hundred acres cultivated.40 In November 1866 A.J. Faulk, acting as agent for the E. Allmon estate, rented an unsettled amount of land to Ben Lawrens for three dollars for every acre of cleared land.41 Caroline Barington rented a tract of land to Miles Frasier for a portion of the crop he raised.42 Individual contracts varied from wages to portions of the crop, but the employers were able to secure labor in a manner profitable to them. Employers usually provided the equipment necessary for the job, but the responsibility of tending to every aspect of the crop ultimately was left to the laborer with more to lose from any mistake than the planter. The contract system gave the planters the control they felt they needed over the freedmen. Although the freedmen were given some security through the system, ultimately the control rested with the planters. In some cases the employers hired several freedmen with the same contract which created conditions for what the former slaves hated the most; gang labor. In 1866 William Grantham hired several freedmen to labor on his plantation, which may indicate

39 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 7, Folder 7, Contract # 175. 40 Freedmen’s Contract, L346, Box 8, Folder 92, Contract #152. 41 Freedmen’s Contract, L346, Box 8, Folder 84, Contract #230. The amount of acreage was not specified. 42 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 7, Folder 9, Contract #224.

57 that they could be used as a form of gang labor. Grantham contracted with Phil Moore and Company for seven people, including Moore. At least four of the group had Grantham’s last name, and were probably his former slaves. The group was to work from daylight to twilight with a half an hour for breakfast and lunch. All workers had to obey Grantham orders. Any lost time cost 75 cents a day for men and 50 cents for women. Grantham provided shelter, one peck of corn meal, four pounds of pork, and one pint of salt for six months. In return the group was to be paid one-third of all the corn, fodder, and cotton raised during the year.43 J.S. Rupell of the Call Plantation contracted laborers for half of the crop. The terms of the contract stated that the plantation labor was not only to work the fields, but to make and mend fences. Even the job of the youngest child, water carrier, was outlined.44 This group of laborers worked as a team. The contracts for the multiple laborers varied little from the individual contracts. The majority of the contracts in the Jefferson County records showed that the portion of crops given to the gangs was one- third. In none of the cases were cash wages given to those who signed contracts for a number of laborers. One contract even stated the employer could deduct money from the group for idleness.45 This was a key point because idleness was different than time lost because the individual was not present. Idleness meant that a worker was there but not working in a productive manner. This allowed the planters to control the production levels of the freedmen. All of these constraints affected the profitability of labor contracts, but what else effected the amount of wages a freedman could earn? Men received low wages and were prone to fall victim to debt peonage. The ability of unskilled men to achieve a livable wage was difficult but, it was even more difficult for women, since they typically earned less than men. C.R. Denmark, mentioned earlier, contracted the labor of Adaline Edwards’ daughter Rainy. It was likely that Adaline was economically forced to put her daughter Rainy to work. The contract gave Rainy ten dollars at the end of the year, provisions, and enough cloth to make two dresses.46 The employment of the family’s children was a sign that the planters had a

43 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Folder 86, Contract #129. 44 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Folder 96, Contract #117. 45 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 12, Folder 70, Contract #207. 46 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Folder 81, Contract #147.

58 strong control over the labor property of the former slaves. Many freedmen wanted their children to be educated and paid what little money they had to do so. They wanted their children to have a better life and the fact that children were being contracted for ten dollars a year indicated that a family was unable to live off the meager profits of their labor. Not all agreements were made between the actual laborer and the employer. Peter Stokes contracted his son Joe, a minor, to Joel G. Moore for $130 a year.47 The contract of a son was generally more profitable than that of a daughter. Eliza Dernie contracted her son, Jassie Dernie, to C.R. Denmark for one-third of everything he made and gathered.48 The contract did not indicate exactly how much that would have been, but it was surely more than Rainy’s ten dollars. In another instance Cornelia Hallman contracted her daughter Letha’s labor to Richard Shackleford for $35.49 Adaline Edwards’ contract with Denmark was for $110 per year, three dresses, one pair of shoes, and a handkerchief for her daughter Eliza who also had to work. Eliza’s domestic chores and payment were outlined in her mother’s contract. Adaline was a domestic servant who as part of her duties cooked and washed clothes.50 Her wages were less than the elderly man George Leggs, not simply because he was a horse driver, but because his status as a man made his labor property worth more than Adaline’s. Even the portion of the crop that Jasse Dernie was to receive was possibly more than her actual wages. Pink Dunbar contracted her labor to J.B. Hine for a year at the rate of $48, which amounts to a monthly wage of $4.51 Maria Shackleford gave up her entire time to labor for William Bell for $75 dollars.52 Of this group of contracts Shackleford was the second highest wage earner to Adaline Edwards. Even the peak wage earners made at least ten dollars less than the lowest male contract. Women were typically contracted for domestic service. A few men could obtain jobs such as carpentry or blacksmith in order to raise their earnings, but women were relegated to house work and if they did work in the fields they earned less than males. Ann Williams, known as Big Ann, earned $25 and “food

47 Freedmen’s Contract, L346, Box 8, Folder 94, Contract #176. 48 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Folder 82, Contract #144. 49 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Folder 87, Contract #127. 50 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Folder 81, Contract #148. 51 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Folder 90, Contract #141. 52 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Folder 13, Contract #166.

59 and clothes sparingly”, a staggering $2.08 per month cash.53 The profitability of the freedwomen’s labor property was minimal at best. Their property was less than any man’s and the pay proved it. Orphans could be bound out and parents could apprentice their children. In 1865 the General Assembly made it lawful for parents to bind out their children as apprentices as long as the child was under the age of sixteen. They could then be bound to a person other than their parents until the age of twenty-one if they were a male and eighteen if they were female.54 The apprenticeship law provided legal legitimacy to taking in a child. If they were not apprenticed and found idle on the street they could be arrested for vagrancy and the end result was the same. In 1867 Richard Hall indentured his eight year old daughter Caroline to A. Cochran. The first part of the contract read, “Richard Hall . . . hath consented voluntarily of his own free will and accord put and bound his daughter until age eighteen.” While in the service of Cochran she was to be trained as a seamstress, cook, and washer. Her years of learning trained her well for domestic service. She was also taught how to read and write. The following passages from the contract were quite telling of the nature of the situation. She was to serve her master faithfully, honestly, and industriously. The most interesting passage read that she would not, “sell in traffic with her woman goods.”55 The negative view of the freedmen as licentious people had even been placed on the children. This clause was only found in this particular contract. Male children were also apprenticed. James Cole and Michael Plant were apprenticed to John Butler. The mothers of the two children made the contract with Butler and both of them signed with their mark. As with many contracts it read that it was entered into voluntarily and of their own free will. Butler was to teach carpentry to the two boys aged fourteen and fifteen respectively. One of the highest paid contracts found in the Jefferson County records was for a carpenter, so this could have been a chance for a promising future. The chance to learn a skill ended for Cole, however. At the bottom of the contract bureau agent Alonzo Grumwell wrote that in Cole’s case the

53 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Folder 4, Contract #201. 54 Acts and Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of Florida, at its 14th Session, Dec. 18, 1865. (Tallahassee: Dyke and Sparhawk; 1866). Chapter 1,471 – [No. 8]. An Act in Relation to Apprentices. p. 34-35. 55 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 12, Folder 32, Contract #2__.

60 contract had been annulled on account of brutal treatment. There was no mention of Michael Plant’s contract being annulled any time later. It was possible that he remained despite the treatment or because he was not treated as badly.56 Guardianship was another form of a contract afforded children who were either abandoned or orphaned. Their contracts detailed what they should receive and when they were no longer the responsibility of the guardian. In 1866 H.S. Linton was named the guardian of Amanda Faulkner, a twelve year old girl whose parents were deceased. He was to feed, care, and provide an education for her until 1872 or until she married, which ever came first. At the end of the contract she was to receive two new pairs of shoes, two suits of ordinary clothes, and a new blanket.57 William Dilworth, a plantation owner, was appointed the guardian of Lewis and Martha Binyard by Agent Grumwell who acted on the part of the children because their father, Oliver, abandoned them. Lewis was bound until he was twenty-one. Both children were supposed to receive a hundred dollars at the end of their time with Dilworth, but Lewis would also get a house.58 Indentured service was a way for the plantation owners and others to control the labor property of the children. While they were young they were essentially slaves. The advent of contracts promoted a legal way for blacks to return to the plantation and work as they had before. Whites said that contracts were needed because the freedmen could not be trusted to stay on the plantation and finish the job they started.59 This was a skewed view presented by the planters, because most of them believed that the freedmen would not work unless under compulsion. The freedmen were never given a fair chance to work on their own without the influence of whites. When slaves were suddenly free some wandered around as anyone would who had just been released after years of hard work at the hands of their masters. Whites, both North and South, believed that the freedmen must return to the plantations. The professed need for compulsion was an excuse for the dominant class to regain their status and to enforce the status of subordination on the freedmen. There were two reasons that contracts were needed after the war. First, that in a free labor economy the freedmen needed some sort of legal

56 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 8, Folder 77. 57 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 12, Folder 59, Contract #213. 58 Freedmen’s Contracts, L346, Box 12, Folder 35, Contract #169. 59 Blacks wanted contracts because they did not trust that white employers would pay them.

61 protection for the labor property. Lastly, whites believed they needed some form of legal restraint to keep blacks on the plantations. The latter reason was a more compelling argument, because the legal protection for blacks was only as good as the individual that enforced that protection. The contract system generally allowed the dominant class to legally control the labor property of the freedmen and maintain the low cost of that commodity. The end result of the contracts and difficulty of owning land was that property whether tangible or labor was to be controlled by the dominant class. In the view of whites, freedmen were not people they were cogs in the agricultural machine.

62 CONCLUSION

Reconstruction in Florida posed some serious questions for the dominant class and their position in society. The freedmen represented a new participant in the marketplace that in previous years did not exist. During the antebellum period the dominant class benefited from the labor of the African slave, but during Reconstruction that benefit was no longer guaranteed. The size of the marketplace had not changed, but the number of participants had increased with the ratification of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution. The agrarian economy of Florida had become more competitive with this change than in previous years. The increased competition created tension between the races. This was the reason for racial strife not Northern interference as many Southerners, like Ellen Call Long, believed. It is important to note that competition in the marketplace can be fierce and individualistic, but at the same time a common group will come together to maintain their status at whatever the cost. Going back to the analogy used in the introduction; during Reconstruction the white individual and the black individual came to the pond to drink. The two people competed over the control of the pond because its source of water was seen as the means of survival. In the case of Florida during Reconstruction the water was already under the control of the white dominant class and was being used to benefit them at the expense of the black laborer. This was the position that whites wished to retain so they could promote their perceived need for survival. Competition is a healthy response to an increasing number of participants because it creates a new bar of excellence for the group to achieve. This is an egalitarian view of the ideal, but when one group does not wish to change the height of the bar because of its benefits to them it is very difficult for them to allow any change that is seen as any sort of threat to their hegemony. This was the state of tension that effected race relations during the years following the Civil War. The shifting foundations affected the old structures it was based upon. The dominant class sought to create the same beneficial society that it had enjoyed before emancipation. The “Holy Trinity” mentioned in the introduction was the means by which the return of blacks to servitude was achieved. During Presidential Reconstruction the Black Codes were created to maintain white dominance in society. This established dominance benefited the white plantation owners because the freedmen

63 did not have any other opportunities to elevate their status because of the controls dictated by codified laws. Vagrancy laws, which were part of the Black Codes, made it illegal for blacks to be unemployed. This allowed the state to assume control of black labor not being used in the private sector. The end result was the control of the only resource blacks had and that was their labor property. Congressional Reconstruction gave the freedmen some hope with the right to vote and hold office, but white attitudes allowed only a minimal change in the overall societal control exercised by the dominant group. Whites had another weapon at their disposal that affected the overall change of society. During Congressional Reconstruction freedmen found themselves being attacked by hooded night riders if they tried to elevate themselves. Many blacks who decided to exercise their political rights were either beaten or killed. In the trinity violence was the enforcer of the hegemony of the dominant class. When the controls failed on the legal level the extralegal ventures took over and intimidation became the option of choice. These options were not necessarily used as part of a master plan, but appeared to be the natural reaction played out by those who feared that the freedmen were seeking to threaten their dominance. The institution of slavery created a society that placed the Africans in a subjugated role. This was the closest form of a caste system found in the New World. Slaves were forced to work because their masters believed they could use their property in any way they saw fit. With emancipation the freedmen reputedly were allowed to use their property as they wished, but the dominant class exerted their power and forced the freedmen to work for them again. Since whites no longer owned blacks, political and violent control were used to return the freedmen to some form of servitude. The result of the first two parts of the trinity was the control of the labor property of the former slave. Plantation owners believed that cotton was not profitable without slave labor, but in the end cheap labor was the key. This is the competition portion of the nature of capitalistic gains. In order to prosper in the marketplace the plantation owners had to control the labor needed to keep profits up. The contract system was the new form of codified control placed on the freedmen which insured this. The political control allowed the dominant class to create a contract system that was beneficial to them. The

64 system was frequently manipulated to place the freedmen in a position of debt peonage. The employer was able to keep the laborer for consecutive years by allowing them to incur more credit then they were able to earn in wages at the end of the year and if the crop was bad then that discrepancy was even greater. The labor property was the ultimate goal of the dominant group and thus completes the “Holy Trinity”; the three aspects that work together for the benefit of the group that controls the capital of the state. Woodward believed that race relations were in a state of flux during Reconstruction and solidified during the 1890’s. Rabinowitz believed that race relations were set after the end of the war and solidified thereafter. In a way both historians were correct in their theories about race relations. Rabinowitz was correct in stating that they were set after the war. The attitudes of the Floridians after the war shows that their ideas about organic society were still evident even after emancipation. At the same time Woodward was correct when he stated that race relations were in a state of flux after the war. During Congressional Reconstruction the federal government tried to provide for suffrage and fair treatment of blacks before the law. This is the flux in race relations, but Southern whites subverted those changes. The competition for that control led to the tensions between the races. In the framework of Rabinowitz and Woodward race relations in Florida were set after the war and, through federal government intervention tried to change the dynamic, but overall prejudicial attitudes prevailed and the blacks did not improve in status to the point of maintaining that position. When the control of black labor property was solidified through the contract system and violent intimidation race relations became set. The white power structure had reinstated their position in society and the freedmen were regulated to their previous position of subjugation. The tragedy of race relations in Florida was that freedmen were given the rights their masters had enjoyed for generations. They were able to experience that freedom first hand, but when that freedom tipped the balance of competition away from the dominant class they took those rights away with a vengeance. Subsequent generations of blacks had to live with the fact that they could have been free, but instead were second class citizens all for the cause of labor. Competition is a fierce and lethal aspect of capitalism, but not as deadly as the maintenance of that victory. The freedmen spent the

65 next century dealing with the failures of Reconstruction and not until the Civil Rights movement were they able to stand up and claim the rights taken away from them so many years ago. Not until that time were the two individuals able to walk to the pond and attempt to work together for survival from the resource of the water.

66 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources

Manuscripts: Call and Brevard Papers, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

Correspondence of Secretary of State – George Alden – 1868, Aug. - Sept. 9, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

Correspondence of the Secretary of State – George Alden – 1868, Sept. 10 – Dec. 22, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

Correspondence of Secretary of State – Jonathan C. Gibbs – 1868-1873, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

Correspondence of Secretary of State – Jonathan Gibbs – 1868-1873, Commission of Deeds, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

Correspondence of Secretary of State – Jonathan Gibbs – 1868-1872, Publications and Reports, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

Correspondence of Secretary of State – Samuel McLin – 1873-1876, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

“Florida Union” Leaflet – 1867, Special Collections, Florida State University, (MSS) Box 146m.

Jefferson County Records, Coroner’s Inquests, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

Jefferson County Records, Court Cases, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

Jefferson County Records, Case Files of the Circuit Court, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

Jefferson County Records, Freedmen Contracts, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

Jefferson County Records, Grand Jury Records, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

Jefferson County Records, Witness Reports, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

“Memoirs of Helen M. Edwards”, Special Collections Florida State University, (Mss) FL.

67 Pam 443.

Susan Bradford Eppes – Manuscripts, Special Collections Florida State University, Box 682 MSS 8617 (A4).

Government Documents: Florida. Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1865 at Tallahassee, Florida. Microfilm, Florida State University Library.

Florida. Journal of the Proceedings of the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Florida at the 2nd Session of the 14th General Assembly. Office of the Floridian: Printed by Dyke and Sparhawk, 1866.

Florida. Journal of the Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of Florida at the 2nd Session of the 14th General Assembly. Office of the Floridian: Printed by Dyke and Sparhawk, 1866.

Florida. Acts and Resolutions adopted by the 14th General Assembly of Florida, at its 2d Session, Dec. 18, 1865. Tallahassee: Dyke and Sparhawk, 1866.

Florida. Acts and Resolutions adopted by the 14th General Assembly of Florida, at its 2d Session, Nov. 14, 1866. Tallahassee: Dyke and Sparhawk, 1867.

Florida. Journal of the Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, 1868 of the State of Florida Begun and Held at the Capitol, at Tallahassee, on Monday, January 20, 1868. Tallahassee: Edward M. Cheney, Printer, 1868.

Florida. A Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of the State of Florida at its 1st Session begun on Monday, June 8th, 1868. Tallahassee: Tallahassee Sentinel, 1868.

Florida. The Acts and Resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Florida at its 1st Session (1868) under the Constitution of A.D. 1868. Tallahassee: Tallahassee Sentinel, 1868.

Florida. A Journal of the Proceedings of the Joint Convention of the Florida Legislature Held in the Capitol, Nov. 3d, 1868, and of the Senate and Assembly of the State of Florida at an extraordinary session of the Legislature Convened Nov. 3, 1868. Tallahassee: Office of the Tallahassee Sentinel, Hiram Potter, Jr. State Printer, 1868.

Florida. A Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of the State of Florida at its Extra Session held on June 8th, 1869. Tallahassee: Edward M. Cheney, State Printer, 1869.

68

Florida. The Acts and Resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Florida at its 3d Session. Tallahassee: Charles H. Walton, State Printer, 1870.

Florida. The Acts and Resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Florida at its 4th Session. Tallahassee: Charles H. Walton, State Printer, 1871.

Florida. The Acts and Resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Florida at its 5th Session. Tallahassee: Tallahassee Sentinel; 1872.

Florida. The Acts and Resolutions Adopted by the Legislature of Florida at its 7th Session. Tallahassee: Charles H. Walton, 1874.

Florida. The Acts and Resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Florida at its 9th Session. Tallahassee: Charles Dyke; 1877.

United States Congress. House. Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Condition of the Insurrectionary State. 42nd Congress, 2d Sess., House Report #22, pt. 13.

______. House. Proceedings of the Florida Convention. 40th Congress, 2d Sess., Misc. Doc. #114.

Secondary Sources:

Articles: Amundson, Richard J. “Henry S. Sanford and Labor Problems in the Florida Orange Industry.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 43 (January, 1965): 230 – 244.

Bentley, George R. “The Political Activity of the Freedmen’s Bureau in Florida.” Florida Historical Quarterly 28 (July, 1949): 29 – 38.

Bates, Thelma. “The Legal Status of the Negro in Florida.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 6 (January, 1928): 160 – 182.

Brown, Canter, Jr. “Where Are Now the Hopes I Cherished? The Life and Times of Robert Meacham.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 69 (July, 1990): 2 – 37.

______. “Carpetbagger Intrigues, Black Leadership, and a Southern Loyalist Triumph: Florida’s Gubernatorial Election of 1872.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 72 (January, 1994): 276 – 302.

Clark, James C. “John Wallace and the Writing of Reconstruction History.” Florida Historical Quarterly 67 (April, 1989): 410 – 428.

Cox, Merlin G. “Military Reconstruction in Florida.” Florida Historical Quarterly 46

69 (January, 1968): 220 – 234.

Dailey, Jane. “Deference and Violence in the Postbellum Urban South: Manners and Massacres in Danville, Virginia.” The Journal of Southern History 63 (August, 1997): 553 – 590.

Edward K. Eckert. “Contract Labor in Florida During Reconstruction.” Florida Historical Quarterly 47 (July, 1968): 35-51.

Foster, John T., Jr. and Sarah Whitmer Foster. “The Last Shall Be First: Northern Methodists in Reconstruction Jacksonville.” Florida Historical Quarterly 70 (January, 1992): 266 – 281.

Fryman, Mildred L. “Career of a ‘Carpetbagger’: Malachi Martin in Florida.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 56 (January, 1978): 318 – 339.

Hall, Robert L. “Tallahassee Black Churches, 1865 – 1885.” Florida Historical Quarterly 58 (October, 1979): 186 – 197.

Haulman, C. A. “Changes in the Economic Power Structure in Duval County, Florida, During the Civil War and Reconstruction.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 52 (October, 1973): 176 – 185.

Laurie, Murray D. “Union Academy: A Freedmen’s Bureau School in Gainesville, Florida.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 65 (October, 1986): 164 – 175.

Marchman, Watt P. “A Trip to Florida, 1867.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 33 (October, 1954): 143 – 153.

Osborn, George E., ed. “Letters of a Carpetbagger in Florida.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 36 (January, 1958): 240 – 286.

Peek, Ralph L. “Lawlessness in Florida.” Florida Historical Quarterly 40 (October, 1961): 165 – 186.

______. “Aftermath of Military Reconstruction, 1868 – 1869.” Florida Historical Quarterly 43 (October, 1964): 124 – 142.

______. “Election of 1870 and The End of Reconstruction in Florida.” Florida Historical Quarterly 45 (April, 1967): 353 – 369.

______. “Military Reconstruction and the Growth of the Anti-Negro Sentiment in Florida, 1867.” Florida Historical Quarterly 47 (April, 1969): 381 – 401.

Richardson, Joe M. “The Freedmen’s Bureau and Negro Labor in Florida.” Florida

70 Historical Quarterly 39 (October, 1960): 168 – 186.

______, ed. “A Northerner Reports on Florida: 1866.” Florida Historical Quarterly 40 (April, 1962): 382 – 391.

______. “An Evaluation of the Freedmen’s Bureau in Florida.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 41 (January, 1963): 224 – 239.

______. “Florida Black Codes.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 47 (April, 1969): 366 – 380.

______. “We Are Truly Doing Missionary Work: Letters from American Missionary Association Teachers in Florida, 1864 – 1874.” Florida Historical Quarterly 54 (October, 1975): 179 – 196.

Rosen, F. Bruce. “A Plan to Homestead Freedmen in Florida in 1866.” Florida Historical Quarterly 43 (April, 1965): 380 – 385.

Shofner, Jerrell H. “The Constitution of 1868.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 41 (April, 1963): 357 – 375.

______. “Political Reconstruction in Florida.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 45 (October, 1966): 146 – 171.

Sowell, David. “Racial Patterns of Labor in Postbellum Florida: Gainesville, 1870 – 1900.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 63 (April, 1985): 435 – 445.

Williamson, Edward C., ed. “Florida’s First Reconstruction Legislature: A Letter of William H. Gleason.” The Florida Historical Quarterly 32 (July, 1953): 42 – 44.

Unpublished Material: Carper, Noel Gordon. “The Convict-Lease System in Florida, 1866-1923.” Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Florida State University, 1964.

Hennessy, Melinda Meek. “To Live and Die in Dixie: Reconstruction Race Riots in the South.” Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Kent State University, 1978.

Books: Ayers, Edward L. Vengeance and Justice: Crime and Punishment in the 19th Century American South. New York: Oxford Press, 1984.

Bentley, George. A History of the Freedmen’s Bureau. Oxford: Oxford Press, 1955.

Brown, Canter, Jr. Ossian Bigley Hart: Florida’s Loyalist Reconstruction Governor Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1997.

71 Cox, Oliver Cromwell. Race: A Study in Social Dynamics. New York: Monthly Review Press, First ed. 1948, Reprint, 2000.

Dailey, Jane, Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, and Bryant Simon. Jumpin’ Jim Crow: Southern Politics from Civil War to Civil Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Davis, William Watson. The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1964.

Doyle, Bertram Wilbur. The Etiquette of Race Relations in the South: A Study in Social Control. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1937.

Dunning, William Archibald. Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction. New York: Harper & Row, 1897, Reprint, 1965.

Fredrickson, George M. The Arrogance of Race: Historical Perspectives on Slavery, Racism, and Social Inequality. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press,1988.

______. The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro American Character and Destiny, 1817 – 1914. New York: Harper & Row, Publishing,1971.

Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.

Gossett, Thomas F. Race: The History of an Idea in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1963, 2nd ed. 1997.

Grimshaw, Allen D., ed. Racial Violence in the United States. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969.

Hahn, Steve. The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeomen Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Hunter, Tera W. To ‘Joy My Freedom: Southern Black Women’s Lives and Labor after the Civil War. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Hyman, Harold, ed. New Frontiers of the American Reconstruction. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1966.

Jordan, Winthrop D. White Over Black: American attitudes toward the Negro, 1550 1812. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968.

Litwack, Leon. Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery. New York:

72 Vintage Books, 1979.

Magdol, Edward. A Right to the Land: Essays on the Freedmen’s Community. Westport, Greenwood Press, 1977.

Mancini, Matthew J. One Dies, Get Another: Convict Leasing in the American South, 1866-1928. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996.

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Ballantine Books, 1988.

______. Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam, The Battle that Changed the Course of the Civil War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Rabinowitz, Howard N. Race, Ethnicity, and Urbanization: Selected Essays. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1994.

______. Race Relations in the Urban South: 1865-1890. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Richardson, Joe M. The Negro in the Reconstruction in Florida. Tallahassee: Florida State University Press, 1965.

Rose, Willie Lee. Rehearsal for Reconstruction: The Port Royal Experiment. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964.

Shapiro, Herbert. White Violence and Black Response: From Reconstruction to Montgomery. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1988.

Shofner, Jerrell H. Jackson County, Florida – A History. Greenwood: Penkevill Publishing Company, 1985.

______. The History of Brevard County: Volume 1. Stuart: Southeaster Printing Company, 1995.

______. History of Jefferson County, Florida. Tallahassee: Sentry Press, 1976.

______. Nor is it over yet: Florida in the Era of Reconstruction, 1863-1877. Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 1974.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1796.

Stampp, Kenneth. The Era of Reconstruction. New York: Knopf, 1966.

73

Thomas, Brook, ed. Plessy v. Ferguson. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997.

Trelease, Allen W. White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction. New York: Harper and Row, 1971.

Wallace, John. Carpetbag Rule in Florida: The inside workings of the reconstruction of civil government in Florida after the close of the Civil War. Kennesaw, Georgia: Continental Bk. Co., 1959.

Williamson, Joel. The Crucible of Race: Black-White Relations in the American South Since Emancipation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Woloch, Nancy, ed. Muller v. Oregon: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1996.

74 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Christopher S. Day was born on February 25, 1975 in Altamonte Springs, Florida. He graduated from Lyman High School in 1993. He received a Bachelor of Arts in history from Stetson University in DeLand, Florida in 2000. Chris and his wife Zainab currently reside in Tallahassee, Florida where he continues his work.

75