THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, March 22, 1996 TAG: 9603210156
SECTION: PORTSMOUTH CURRENTS PAGE: 04 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: Olde Towne Journal
SOURCE: Alan Flanders
LENGTH: Medium: 72 lines
A slave named Peter, owned by Ann Bruce of Portsmouth Parish, was without warning taken to the steps of the Norfolk County Courthouse one day in 1785. No doubt, Peter was filled with fear and uncertainty because the courthouse was adjacent to the slave market.
But instead of being sold or traded off, Peter found himself set free by the will of his previous owner.
Until the Emancipation Proclamation, which abolished slavery, area slaves had few opportunities for freedom.
As early as the Revolutionary War, Royal Governor Dunmore tried to recruit area slaves for the British army by promising to free them from their Colonial owners.
However, until the Civil War, there were very few freedom routes for slaves with the exception of risking life and limb to escape to nearby Fort Monroe or Baltimore. But even there, escaped slaves were not safe because fugitive-slave laws allowed bounties to be issued for runaways.
About the only way for local slaves to obtain real freedom was literally through the wills of those who owned them.
Surprisingly, a number of 18th and 19th century slave owners in Portsmouth and Norfolk County released their slaves under varying conditions at their deaths. During the probate of their wills, it became the responsibility of local courts to issue affidavits listing the first names of the slaves to be free and the last names of their former masters as proof of their ``manumission.'' Thus, it became a common practice for an emancipated slave to adopt by default the last name of his or her former master.
What motivated the owners to free their slaves remains unclear, but as many of these wills indicate, a mutual respect must have grown between master and slave.
For example, William Boushell of Norfolk County directed in his 1790 will that his wife, Letitia, should have ``use of Negro woman Sue for term of 10 years from this date.'' But then, he added, ``If there is a sufficiency for paying my just debts, Negro Sue is to be emancipated.''
In Norfolk County, planter James Jolliff's 1791 will indicates the personal regard he had for his servant Amy. A codicil of his will reads, ``Negro woman AMY, to be at full liberty to live where she pleases and to enjoy all privileges of a free person - not to be compelled to labor, except for herself, for the faithful service she has heretofore done me.''
William Forster, a prominent businessman and planter in Norfolk County, not only emancipated his slave Lidea and her two children, he also allowed for their continual support after he was gone. In his 1792 will, he added, ``My special desire is that my Negro woman Lidea and her two youngest children, Cipio and Charity, should be free and that my Executors do establish them and any expenses that may accrue for so doing shall be paid out of my Estate.''
Owners often passed slaves to their wives or children with written instructions promising freedom at a later date. For instance, Norfolk County resident William Spelmond wrote in 1794 that ``at his wife's death, Abram should be freed.''
In some cases, personal acts of kindness and charity promised by wills must have placed the families of slave owners in some uncomfortable social situations among other slave-holding families. As example, Standley Jamerson of Norfolk County not only freed his slave Phillis through his 1795 will, but he ordered ``her future increase to be free from all slavery after my death.'' Jamerson also provided for Phillis as he stated, ``I give her a small piece of land to live on during her natural life.''
In retrospect, it seems ironic that both master and slave could not have come to terms over the issue of manumission until the mater's death. Just what the process was that brought slave owners to this decision is left for us to decipher from their wills and testaments. by CNB