“How far will they go God knows”: Slave Policing and the Rise of the South Carolina Association in Charleston, S.C., 1790s-1820s Melissa Gismondi Department of History, McGill University, Montreal July 2012 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Arts, Melissa Gismondi 2012© 1 Abstract In 1820 a South Carolinian judge noted that, ―the Patrol Law ought to be considered as one of the safe guards of the people of South Carolina…as a security against insurrection; a danger of such a nature that it never can or ought to be lost sight of in the southern states.‖ Just two years later, another judge ruled on a patrol behaving badly. The issue of a militia captain ―acting under the colour of authority‖ arose, and Judge Abraham Nott lamented that if the problem persisted ―we are subject to a state of things even worse than that against which they [patrols] were intended to afford us protection.‖ This essay explores slave policing regimes in Charleston, South Carolina, and their relation to political and social changes within the city between the 1790s and 1820s. The project describes problems that arose with slave policing in the years before the 1822 Denmark Vesey rebellion, and then identifies a major shift that followed, in which the South Carolina Association—an elite vigilante group—assumed control of this fundamental dimension of governance within a slave society. En 1820, un juge de la Caroline du Sud a souligné que «la loi de patrouille devrait être considéré comme une mesure de protection pour le peuple de la Caroline du Sud… comme sécurité contre l’insurrection: un danger d’une telle nature qu’il ne doit et ne devrait jamais être perdu de vu dans les états du sud. « Seulement deux ans plus tard, un autre juge a statué sur une patrouille se conduisant mal. Lorsqu’un problème est survenu avec un capitaine de milice qui « agissait sous la bannière de l’autorité », le juge Abraham Nott a déploré que si le problème persiste «nous sommes assujettis à un état des choses encore pire que celui duquel ils (patrouilles) sont destiné à nous protéger. » Cet essaie examine les régimes de patrouille d’esclaves à Charleston en Caroline du Sud 2 et leurs liens avec les changements politiques et sociaux de cette ville entre les années 1790 et 1820. Le projet décrit des problèmes survenus lors de patrouilles d’esclaves dans les années avant la rébellion de Denmark Vesey en 1822 et ensuite identifie un changement majeur qui a suivi, dans lequel la South Carolina Association—un group élite de justicier—a prit la direction de cette dimension fondamentale de la gouvernance dans une société d’esclavage. 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements…………………………………………………5 Introduction…………………………………………………………6 CHAPTER 1 “Great Numbers of Negroes”: Evolutions in South Carolinian Lowcountry Slavery……………………………11 CHAPTER 2 “Liberty!” in Revolutionary-Era South Carolina………….........39 CHAPTER 3 “Slavery Disliked a Dense Population”: Urban Slavery in Charleston……………………………………………………….66 CHAPTER 4 “Demons of St. Domingo!!!”: The Denmark Vesey Revolt and Charleston’s Slave Policing System…………………………94 CHAPTER 5 The South Carolina Association: “The Most Important Association, that has Ever Been”…………………………………122 Conclusion………………………………………………………….151 Notes………………………………………………………………..156 Bibliography……………………………………………………….168 4 Acknowledgements This project is the culmination of much thought, debate, research, and writing that would not have been possible without the continual support of many, and the extraordinary support of a few, who deserve mentioning here. Many thanks to those members of the McGill Graduate History community who showed a remarkable amount of enthusiasm when I presented initial ideas of this thesis at the September 2011 series of Topics on Tap, and to those who talked through ideas with me throughout the year. Funds made available from the McGill Arts Graduate Travel award gave me one of two invaluable opportunities to engage with archival material in Charleston and Columbia, S.C. Once there, I learned that a historian is nothing without the work of archivists. In particular, Dr. Nic Butler, Christina Shedlock, and the staff at the Charleston County Public Library were invaluable to this project. Though I’ve yet to meet them in person, I thank Douglas Egerton, Sally Hadden, and Lisa Arellano for either providing unpublished material and/or enriching my understanding of the many themes addressed in this thesis. I’d also like to thank the McGill History Department staff, who—despite it being a difficult year—helped me maneuver the logistics of travel awards and thesis submission. Thank you to Dawn Little who graciously edited pieces that I had looked at far too many times, Chelsea Peterdy whose help in tracking down a rare court transcript made this project look possible in its early stages, and Chris Gismondi who walked through many of Charleston’s museums and historic sites with me. Likewise, I owe Caitlin Stall-Paquet for helping me with translations. Throughout the year, Raymond Leonard squashed any doubts I had in the project or my capabilities as a historian, and Maggie Little’s encouragement always kept me motivated. Many thanks also go to Prof. Leonard Moore who allowed me to sit in his office over the years for hours on end, and who fostered my initial interest in American slavery and the U.S. South. To say this project couldn’t have been completed without the support of my supervisor and mentor, Prof. Jason Opal, is a great understatement. Jason has helped me work through complex historical ideas and gave me the opportunity to travel to, and then tackle often tricky southern archives. I thank Jason for guiding me when I felt that the project was perhaps either out of my hands, or too insignificant to matter. I’ve been truly fortunate to have a mentor who is both a brilliant scholar and one of the kindest people I know. Lastly, I can’t say thank you enough to my parents for their unwavering support in my pursuits, both inside and outside the academic world. 5 Introduction Early in the morning on January 12, 1821 Captain William Cattell, asleep in his Charleston-area plantation, woke to the sound of gunfire. Cattell, a captain in South Carolina’s militia, was soon summoned by one of his slaves to inspect a disturbance in the nearby slave quarters. There Cattell encountered Joseph Cole, a militia beat captain who had recently been given land nearby. Standing next to Cole was one of Cattell’s slaves, who alleged that Cole had been beating her. What, Cattell likely asked, had his slave done to deserve such a beating? Cole replied that he was ―patrolling‖ and that the slave was being ―insolent.‖ Cattell acknowledged that as a slave ―patrol,‖ Cole could enter his plantation and inspect the slave quarters. But Cattell had a right to know exactly why his slave was being physically abused by another white man. While South Carolinian slave patrols had considerable power to punish not only slaves, but also the free black population, they were not supposed to beat another man’s slave without just reason—to do so compromised slaveowners’ sense of sovereignty, a necessary component of a slaveholding society. Just then another slave appeared who attested that Cole had also beaten him—this time with the butt of his gun. As Cattell later learned, Cole’s ―patrolling‖ had also led him to shoot Cattell’s dogs to death, and to chop them up into little pieces. From high atop his horse, Cole then started shouting at Cattell, claiming that he was ―a damned mean fellow,‖ and his slaves were ―a nuisance to the parish.‖ A witness to the affair said he had ―never heard any man so outrageously abused as Cole abused Cattell.‖ The confrontation left William Cattell so anxious that he later moved his family to ―relieve 6 them from the constant alarm in which they were kept by the turbulent conduct of the patrols.‖1 What happened between Joseph Cole and William Cattell was neither unusual nor unpredictable. Rather, the incident was indicative of larger problems surrounding slave policing regimes in Charleston, South Carolina. Indeed, the experience of Cattell—a prominent member of Charleston’s ―slaveowning aristocracy‖—was a manifestation of a much deeper problem for both prominent planters and non-slaveholders alike. Charleston’s slave policing system was complex and convoluted—a mixture of both state and city run mechanisms that sought to keep Charleston’s slaves enslaved. As a militia captain, Cole assumed that he had the right to also be captain of his local slave patrol. But Cattell—and many other prominent planters—resented the role of men who they considered of ―questionable character‖ policing their slaves. As the notorious 1822 Denmark Vesey revolt in Charleston suggested, the slave policing regime had serious flaws. And to Charleston’s slaveowning aristocracy, the revolt—and incidents like what happened between Cole and Cattell—suggested that the official slave policing system needed the guidance of an unofficial association made up of Charleston’s ―finest‖ gentlemen.2 While the confrontation between Cole and Cattell highlights decades of problems concerning slave policing, it was also emblematic of a definitive shift that occurred in the wake of the 1822 revolt. Frustrated with the complexities and ―questionable‖ representatives of the official system, the South Carolina Association, a vigilante group made up of Charleston’s elite, stepped onto the scene and took over Charleston and South Carolina’s official slave policing systems. In so doing, the S.C.A. reasserted the role of 7 Charleston’s slaveowning aristocracy in how slaves and free blacks would be policed throughout the entire state, and in the process, reaffirmed the notion that the state—in the broadest sense of the word—would not overpower a prominent slaveowner’s sovereignty.