The Denmark Vesey Conspiracy Conceptualizing Crime and Religion in Slaveholding Societies Paul Schneider-Krumpus
This project was supported by the University of Minnesota Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program Premise of Research
Through the UROP program, I have conducted an historical documentary analysis of the Denmark Vesey conspiracy, an alleged plot of slave rebellion that was exposed in Charleston, South Carolina in 1822.
This research is meant to be part of Professor Katherine Gerbner’s wider research on the construction of religion and crime in relation to New World slavery.
Little documentation of the alleged plot exists outside of court documents from the trials of the accused, and so these were especially important source materials.
New strides are being made in the understanding of the Denmark Vesey conspiracy, as professional historians continue to accumulate sources and construct new and fuller interpretations of the events. Objective of Research
The objective of this research was to use primary sources relevant to the Denmark Vesey conspiracy to learn about the relationships between law, religion, and the institution of slavery in the antebellum American South, particularly in relation to slave revolts.
Considering the religious nature of the plot, its conspirators, its suppressors, and the very society it took place in, the Denmark Vesey conspiracy is especially suited to an analysis of this sort.
Compared to other slave revolts, this plot is only lightly studied. It could be essential to understanding other North American slave revolts though; the number of people involved is alleged to be well over 6,000, which would make it one of the largest uprisings ever conceived of in this part of the world. Brief Editorial Notes
Since this research involved analysis of primary sources, editorial transparency is paramount. • The wording, punctuation, and spelling in original documents, even if incorrect, are reproduced as faithfully as possible. • The Denmark Vesey conspiracy has been known by several different names to historians. Because there is no clear consensus, I consistently refer to the plot as “the Denmark Vesey conspiracy” in this research. • There is some debate over the historical reality of the Denmark Vesey conspiracy. Today, historians assert with some unanimity that the plot was real, but as a nod to these other interpretations, and the fact that the historiography of the events is still developing, I use open language when possible. I address this point again in General Conclusions (slide 23). Brief Editorial Notes (continued)
• Documents used in this research are sometimes inconsistent with the naming of enslaved people. Although documents often refer to enslaved people by their first names only, I refer to these people using their first name and the last name of their enslaver (unless quoting directly). This was, and is, common practice when applying last names to enslaved people for the sake of identification. • Documents used in this research sometimes use derogatory words in reference to black people. These words appear only as quotations throughout my research. Source Material
Because this research is intended to be document-based, and certain conclusions could lack originality if influenced by secondary interpretations, secondary sources were used only sparingly in the course of this research project.
The original trial record; contemporary correspondences and newspapers; and subsequent legislation are the most important (and essentially the only) source materials for studying the Denmark Vesey conspiracy.
The original trial record though, no longer exists. Fortunately, four versions of the original trial record survive. Source Material (continued)
The original trial record no longer exists. Fortunately, four versions of the original trial record survive. These versions are: • “Document B House of Representatives” – a trial transcript requested by Governor Thomas Bennett Jr. for the South Carolina House of Representatives • “Evidence Document B” – a trial transcript requested by Governor Thomas Bennett Jr. for the South Carolina Senate • An account of the late intended insurrection among a portion of the blacks of the city – a collection of court documents compiled by James Hamilton Jr., Intendant of Charleston • An official report of the trials of sundry Negroes charged with an attempt to raise an insurrection in the state of South Carolina – a collection of court documents compiled by Lionel H. Kennedy and Thomas Parker Jr., magistrates of the trials Source Material (continued)
Of the four versions, Hamilton’s Account of the late intended insurrection was written first, only a handful of weeks after the trials ended, lending to its reliability.
The other three versions were completed at around the same time: three months after the trials ended. Kennedy and Parker’s Official report is the lengthiest and most detailed version available, and in general it factually concurs with Hamilton’s Account.
The transcript prepared for the House is incomplete; it lacks documents about trials that occurred in August of 1822. The transcript prepared for the Senate is complete, but contains contradictions with the other versions.
Douglas R. Egerton and Robert L. Paquette, The Denmark Vesey Affair : a documentary history (Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida, 2017), xvi-xvii. Source Material (continued)
I chose to primarily use Kennedy and Parker’s version, because of its completeness and the inclusion of narrative sections. It is more detailed than Hamilton’s version (and four times longer), and was created as a record, unlike the Senate and House transcripts, which were prepared only for presentation to state politicians.
I accessed the court documents, newspaper sections, and correspondences by using an extensive documentary collection published in 2017 titled The Denmark Vesey Affair: a documentary history, edited by Douglas R. Egerton and Robert L. Paquette.
Among many other options, The Denmark Vesey Affair presented itself as the most complete and best management of primary documents available. Editorial honesty and awareness in this book truly make it the culmination of historical research on the Denmark Vesey conspiracy. A Note on Historical Interpretation
There are many levels to historical interpretation:
Some are very base, and closely tied to their primary sources (e.g. rifling through a city directory for addresses, to know where someone lived).
Others are highly abstracted, and barely touch primary sources (e.g. evaluating how historians in the 1960s wrote about nullification, to know how the historical discourse has changed since then).
This UROP is meant to be at the baser level of historical analysis. Primary sources were interpreted to make low-level conclusions about the events they concern. Procedure of Research
The general research process was as follows: 1. Discover, evaluate, and select primary sources 2. Read and take notes on primary sources a) Trends in the conceptualization of law, religion, slavery, trial procedure, certain individuals, and plot consequences emerged in the primary sources b) These trends were identified, and examples were noted, sometimes retroactively c) As inconsistencies in trends arose, trends were either discarded or modified to account for new information 3. Reassess gathered excerpts and notes and solidify trends into conclusions 4. Articulate conclusions and connections between them, using excerpts and notes as evidence The Denmark Vesey Conspiracy
This presentation is not meant to be a complete reproduction of the findings of the UROP research project (nor is it even meant to be presented, it’s August 2020 and I have no audience to present to). In the following slides though, I provide an overview of conclusions reached. 1
A brief summary of the Denmark Vesey conspiracy: From June to August of 1822, 131 people were investigated on suspicion of organizing a slave rebellion in Charleston, South Carolina. Denmark Vesey, a freedman, along with “Gullah” Jack Pritchard, Monday Gell, and Peter Poyas were ringleaders of this plot. The uprising was to take place on June 16th, but many were arrested before this, and the city guard were too vigilant for the remainder to incite the insurrection. The plan was to kill all white people who did not flee, and to then sail for Haiti. 35 people were executed for their involvement, including Denmark Vesey, who has become the namesake of the plot.
1. Thus the wordy presentation! General Conclusions
In the final report produced by this research, there are eight primary conclusions: 1. The discovered plot prompted a call for new legislation. 2. Exceptions to laws and procedures were made during the trials. 3. South Carolina elites acted in self-interest through government and civilian actions. This affected legislation passed and the conduct of the trials. 4. Certain ideas about slavery affected how South Carolina elites approached the discovered conspiracy. These ideas were namely: a) a distinction exists between good/loyal slaves and bad/disloyal slaves b) free blacks and native Africans were particularly rebellious/dangerous c) effective examples could be made of conspirators’ punishments General Conclusions (continued)
5. South Carolina elites made strong distinctions between white clergy and black clergy, and white religious organizations and black religious organizations 6. South Carolina elites placed blame for the conspiracy on dangerous ideas from outside of South Carolina, namely abolitionism from northern states and Great Britain, and revolutionism from Haiti. 7. Denmark Vesey was individually important to the plot and its nature. 8. “Gullah” Jack Pritchard was individually important to the plot and its nature. General Conclusions (continued)
1.) The discovered plot prompted a call for new legislation Many white Charlestonians were alarmed by news of the failed insurrection. If a plan as large and as well-organized as Denmark Vesey’s could form, regulation of black people (enslaved and free) was not thorough enough in the minds of some. Policy recommendations came from: • Important local figures such as Governor Thomas Bennett Jr., Intendant (Mayor) James Hamilton Jr., and Thomas Pinckney • Citizens that wrote to newspapers and composed memorials demanding closer regulation of Charleston’s black population • Organizations like the South Carolina Association and the Charleston Bible Society, which petitioned government figures General Conclusions (continued)
1.) The discovered plot prompted a call for new legislation When trials started in 1822, the acting legislation for the regulation of black Charlestonians was a 1740 code put into law by the British colonial government after the Stono Rebellion of 1739.
In December 1822, two new state laws were codified: • An Act for the Better Regulation of Free Negroes and Persons of Color – no free person of color can leave the state and return. Failure to pay a special tax for colored people can result in deportation. Enslaved people can no longer hire out their work or time. • Negro Seamen Act – ships in Charleston harbor, regardless of port of origin, must hand over black crew members to city authorities for imprisonment for the duration of the ship’s stay. General Conclusions (continued)
2.) Exceptions to laws and procedures were made during the trials The court was criticized (such as by Governor Bennett, Supreme Court Justice William Johnson Jr., and northern newspapers) for its unusual conduct during the trials of the Denmark Vesey conspiracy.
Unusual features included: • The court was specially organized by the “Corporation,” the governing body of the city • Although criminal cases, the trials were barred to the general public • Defendants were not confronted with everyone testifying against them • Religious figures cooperated with the court to extract confessions • Defendants were denied visitors during the trials • Several instances of censorship exist in the trial records General Conclusions (continued)
3.) South Carolina elites acted in self-interest through government and civilian actions. This affected legislation passed and the conduct of the trials. • The magistrates of the court were very wealthy and influential people in Charleston. • All were slaveowners, and all had ties to local (white) religious organizations. Charles Manning Furman was the son of Richard Furman, a very influential Baptist minister in this time period. • All had a personal stake in the suppression of black Charlestonians and the discouragement of rebellion. • The South Carolina Association and the Charleston Bible Society were made up of the state and city elite. These organizations insistently promoted elite interests. General Conclusions (continued)
4.) Certain ideas about slavery affected how South Carolina elites approached the discovered conspiracy. • A distinction exists between good/loyal slaves and bad/disloyal slaves • This affected the credibility lent to certain witnesses • Conspirators in the plot sometimes also made this distinction • Free blacks and native Africans were particularly rebellious/dangerous • Denmark Vesey was a freedman. Monday Gell and “Gullah” Jack Pritchard were native Africans • The most active conspirators were those with access to the city, or those that knew a trade well • Effective examples could be made of conspirators’ punishments • There was moderate debate regarding the necessary harshness of justice • This affected the number of people executed • This became a point of honor when criticized by northerners General Conclusions (continued)
5.) South Carolina elites made strong distinctions between white clergy and black clergy, and white religious organizations and black religious organizations. • The African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston (then commonly called “the African Church”) was blamed for the uprising. It was banned, razed, and its leading ministers were deported. • Denmark Vesey was scolded as a heretic • “Gullah” Jack Pritchard, who made use of charm-based African spiritual traditions, was scolded as a “Necromancer,” and his practices were bracketed with the African Church. • White religious figures were trusted and used by the court • The Charleston Bible Society, a leading white religious organization, denounced the existence of black clergy General Conclusions (continued)
6.) South Carolina elites placed blame for the conspiracy on dangerous ideas from outside of South Carolina. • The debates leading up to the Missouri Compromise in 1820 intensified North- South animosity. Senator Rufus King (NY) used anti-slavery rhetoric, which proved extremely unpopular with South Carolinians. • The black population of Charleston was generally aware of these debates and discussed them. • Black Charlestonians were also aware of Haiti’s independence, and ringleaders of the conspiracy used it as a model for their own uprising in some aspects. • Blaming abolitionism served many purposes for Charleston elites, such as maintaining the institution of slavery and asserting state sovereignty. General Conclusions (continued)
7.) Denmark Vesey’s significance to the plot Denmark Vesey was evidently the chief organizer of the plot. As a freedman, former ship- hand, and class leader of the African Church, he introduced a determined religiosity to the plot.
8.) “Gullah” Jack Pritchard’s significance to the plot “Gullah” Jack Pritchard’s “necromancy” and charm-use convinced many to join the plot. He was an intimidating figure that could speak Gullah and was familiar with the countryside outside of Charleston. General Conclusions (continued)
A further note on the plot’s historical reality: Although not the focus of this research project, I found it fascinating that some historians debate the historical reality of the Denmark Vesey conspiracy.
The plot’s reality was questioned by Richard C. Wade in a 1964 article published in the Journal of Southern History, and as recently as 2012 by Lacy Ford. 2 I always used open language to allow for this possibility, but throughout the research project, I never found any documentation that put the plot’s existence into doubt. No contemporary figure disputed this. The complexity of the conspiracy, and all the details revealed through testimonies convince me that a large-scale slave revolt almost occurred in Charleston in the summer of 1822.
2. Egerton and Paquette, xxii-xxiii. References
Egerton, Douglas R., and Robert L. Paquette. The Denmark Vesey Affair : a documentary history. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida, 2017.