Laws regarding the teaching of slaves to read

[hanktrent]

Originally Posted by Rob Weaver

How forcefully the law was prosecuted seems also to be at issue.

Another example, showing the other side of the coin, was reported by Frederick Douglass in Maryland.

...We had scarcely got at work--good work, simply teaching a few colored children how to read the gospel of the Son of God--when in rushed a mob, headed by Mr. Wright Fairbanks and Mr. Garrison West--two class-leaders--and Master Thomas; who, armed with sticks and other missiles, drove us off, and commanded us never to meet for such a purpose again. One of this pious crew told me, that as for my part, I wanted to be another Nat Turner; and if I did not look out, I should get as many balls into me, as Nat did into him. Thus ended the infant Sabbath school, in the town of St. Michael's.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Pvt Schnapps]

Originally Posted by Linda Trent

I'm curious. I looked up Stonewall Jackson on the internet and got a Wikipedia hit. Now normally I'm not a fan of Wiki unless the article is well footnoted, which this one was. What I found interesting is the article stated that Jackson Does anyone have that book, and if so can you check the reference, please?

What I find funny is, if the above is true, the very thing that the south feared about educating the slaves came to pass. As soon as he became literate he ran away. I wonder how Stonewall's uncle felt about the loss of a young slave? Did the uncle find out that his nephew had been teaching his slave? Did the uncle make Thomas pay for his loss? Did the uncle decide not to prosecute because he was kin? So many interesting questions.



Actually, laws regarding teaching slaves to read would be civilian, but here's just fine.

Thanks for moving it! I think it needed it's own thread.

Linda.

A version of the Jackson story occurs on p. 394 of the 1948 Federal Writers Project guide to West Virginia: http://books.google.com/books?id=Q3n...ots%22&f=false

According to this version, Jackson taught the slave to read in return for pine knots that would enable him (Jackson) to study at night. This occurred at some vague period between 1830 (when Jackson was six, and the act would have been legal) and 1842.

[Blair]

Hank,

A young slave boy by the name of Fred Bailey was owned by Thomas Auld, of Talbot Co. Maryland. Young Fred ran way in 1837 and gained his freedom and changed his name to Frederick Douglass. The Auld's are relatives of mine.
Thomas Auld's brother, Hugh Auld had been loaned Fred Bailey to do household chores at the family business at Fells Point. Hugh's wife, Suzanna Harrison Auld taught the slave boy Fred how to read and write.
Frederic Douglass does not have kind things to say about Thomas or Hugh in his autobiography, but has kind words for his teacher.
The "Master Thomas" you mentioned is most likely Thomas Auld.

[Bee]

"An accepted view seems to be "Why would anyone want to educate a piece of property?", a concept quite foreign to our modern thinking."

But that's like saying, why would one want to train a horse? And the answer is because it makes it easier to handle, safer and more valuable.

Interestingly, when Maryland lawmakers, including a majority of staunch Unionists, were debating the proposed State constitution of 1864, and included into it the apprenticeship laws, which basically returned minor emancipated blacks back into a "piece of property", they then allowed the exclusion of white masters from current law, which was applicable to white apprentices, that an apprentice be taught to read and write.
Maryland frees its slaves

Elizabeth

[hanktrent]

Originally Posted by Blair

The "Master Thomas" you mentioned is most likely Thomas Auld.

Yep. Frederick Douglass leads into the long story concerning the attack on the Sunday school with a description of Thomas Auld's conversion a few pages before.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[hanktrent]

Originally Posted by Bee

Interestingly, when Maryland lawmakers, including a majority of staunch Unionists, were debating the proposed State constitution of 1864, and included into it the apprenticeship laws, which basically returned minor emancipated blacks back into a "piece of property", they then allowed the exclusion of white masters from current law, which was applicable to white apprentices, that an apprentice be taught to read and write.
Maryland frees its slaves

The link didn't work for me.

But it occurs to me that I should have clarified: it only makes sense to train one's property up to the point that the training increases the value and/or makes the property easier to manage. If reading and writing is perceived as more harmful than helpful, it's not going to be encouraged. There's a difference between slaves reading the Bible about masters obeying their servants, or reading the latest abolitionist tracts, and only a master could make the prediction which way his individual slaves might go with their particular training.

Linda and I were talking about this yesterday, and about the fact that if the law followed public sentiment, there was a dual issue.

On the one hand, you didn't want abolitionists and general trouble-makers putting ideas into Blacks' heads or Blacks gathering and organizing in large numbers without supervision.

On the other hand, you didn't want to step in between the rights of an owner to do what he wanted with his property, because if a man couldn't do what he wanted with his own slaves, the terrorists win... uh, I mean, the abolitionists win.

So that's probably why there was an exception that allowed slave-owners to teach their own slaves individually to read and write, and also the similar exception in the Maryland law mentioned above, that allowed masters not to teach their apprentices to read and write.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Bee]

My apologies,
correct link: Maryland frees its slaves

[tompritchett]

On the one hand, you didn't want abolitionists and general trouble-makers putting ideas into Blacks' heads or Blacks gathering and organizing in large numbers without supervision.

On the other hand, you didn't want to step in between the rights of an owner to do what he wanted with his property, because if a man couldn't do what he wanted with his own slaves, the terrorists win... uh, I mean, the abolitionists win.

So that's probably why there was an exception that allowed slave-owners to teach their own slaves individually to read and write, and also the similar exception in the Maryland law mentioned above, that allowed masters not to teach their apprentices to read and write.

It also cuts to the core of the whole Southern position about slavery. If the Federal government has no right to interfere with the rights of an individual to own slaves, how can the state dictate what a slave owner can and can not teach his slaves.

[RebelBugler]

Originally Posted by Pvt Schnapps

I debated starting a new thread on this subject, but I'll let the moderators decide if there's enough there to discuss, or whether it would simply degenerate into name-calling. But the question of Stonewall Jackson as "the black man's friend" intrigued me, especially the question of whether, as claimed, he broke Virginia state law by teaching blacks to read.

The first part of this relates to his role in teaching blacks. His own letters don't say much about this. Apart from scattered references to "servants" (a popular euphemism for slave in his time and place) he doesn't seem to mention blacks at all, except in a June 7, 1858, letter to John Lyle Campbell, in which Jackson describes the "Lexington Colored Sabbath School."

You can find the entire letter on the VMI site I linked to earlier. A few points seem worth emphasizing. The school has a name and it's well-known; there's no attempt to hide any violation of law. The school meets once a week for 45 minutes -- it's a school in the Sunday school sense only. It opens with a hymn, includes a reading of Bible verses, prayer, a lecture by "its teacher" (not Jackson -- the teachers report to him and he keeps the records), and an examination of a couple students in the meaning of verses of the child catechism.

There's nothing in the description about teaching anyone to read, nor does it seem there's any time left from the 45 minutes once a week in which one could learn to read, nor does Jackson describe himself as one of the teachers in any case. In assigning verses for further study, and in periodic awards of books to "scholars," there seems some implication of reading, but where and when and how it's taught isn't specified.

But let's assume that the instruction in reading takes place elsewhere. Does this violate the law?

Both supporters of Jackson as a friend to blacks and critics of slavery seem to assume that it was against the law to teach blacks to read. This enables the first group to present Jackson as some sort of civil rights pioneer and the second group to more strongly condemn the "institution."

The historical truth was actually a little more complex and, I think, a bit uglier than either comic book version. According to a Virginia law passed in 1831 (in the aftermath of the Nat Turner rebellion) it was against the law to teach FREE blacks to read, or to teach slaves for compensation. Teaching slaves to read without compensation was OK.

See http://www.nathanielturner.com/educa...torynegro6.htm

Interestingly enough, you could be flogged for teaching free blacks, but if you took money for teaching slaves you were only subject to a fine. The authorities weren't threatened by literate slaves so much as by free blacks who thought they might have other rights.

So, whatever postwar hagiography might say, Jackson's own writings provide little or no evidence that he taught slaves to read and, if he did, he violated no law unless he got paid for it.

I was pleased to see Mr. Schaffner pursue this topic, particularly as it relates to General Jackson as the "Black mans friend". By all accounts, Jackson was not only a brilliant military officer but also a highly moral, ethical and kind human being who was, in a sense, a pioneer in the realm of racial relations. In addition to teaching the children to read, Jackson regularly made monthly contributions from his pay in support of the black Sunday school. He was personally opposed to slavery, as were a number of Confederate military officers including Robert E. Lee and A.P. Hill.

An excellent article on Jackson's influence and contributions to black society can be found at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/05/20060505-083815-2779r/?page=2

Another interesting article, which addresses General Jackson's involvement with educating young blacks and the generational impact, can be found at:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/270006.aspx

[billwatson2]

In a previous discussion on this topic generally one of the variations on "permission" was that at some times and some places, the law said teaching was OK so long as the teaching was done with the permission of the slave's owner. And these are all state laws, so there's going to be any combination you could imagine in them, especially across time.

A quick reminder that it is helpful in discussing this to pay attention to whether a law in question is intended to apply to slaves or blacks. Not all who were black in the south were slaves.