Difference between revisions of "George Wythe and Slavery"

Revision as of 16:25, 16 February 2018

Thomas Jefferson stated that George Wythe was "unequivocal" on the issue of slavery,^[1] implying that Wythe left no doubt about his opposition to slavery. A honest look into Wythe's life, however, requires context to support this "unequivocal" view. For a majority of his life, Wythe owned slaves. Indeed, he was in his early 60s when he finally began to put beliefs into practice and remove all slavery connections from his life. Publicly, Wythe benefited from the institution of slavery; but strong evidence reveals that Wythe opposed slavery, publicly and privately. Unlike any other Virginian of his time, Wythe appeared to believe in the inherent equality between the Negro race and the white race. As Chancellor, Wythe frequently decided cases that applied property law to slaves. Yet, when given the chance to decide on issues of freedom and equality, Wythe put his private beliefs into practice. These beliefs also influenced many of his students to oppose the institution of slavery.

Slavery and Wythe's Heritage

George Wythe's maternal great-grandfather, George Keith, initially began his religious career as a Quaker minister and used his influence in the Quaker community to oppose slavery.^[2] In 1693, Keith published An Exhortation & Caution to Friends Concerning Buying or Keeping of Negroes which urged the manumission of blacks.^[3] Keith later converted to the Church of England, but he retained his blatant abolitionist views.^[4] Keith died before George Wythe was born, but his influence on the family likely trickled down through his daughter, Anne Walker (Wythe's grandmother) and granddaughter, Margaret Walker Wythe (Wythe's mother). Although never a Quaker himself, Wythe's maternal religious lineage did seem to have influence on his life.^[5] Some authors have argued that Wythe's anti-slavery viewpoint traces back to Wythe's great-grandfather through the education he received from his mother.^[6] Wythe's parents, however, owned slaves at their Chesterfield home, so Margaret may not have shared her grandfather's anti-slavery worldview.^[7] Regardless, Wythe's views correspond well with those of the great-grandfather who composed the first Quaker abolitionist manifesto.^[8]

Wythe's Slaves

Despite being considered a foe of slavery, George Wythe did own slaves. As early as 1748, there is record of Wythe selling a Negro slave girl to one of his relatives.^[9] In 1776, one of Wythe's slaves, a man named Charles, was placed in the Williamsburg jail, for an unknown charge, and later sentenced to work in the lead mines in western Virginia.^[10] For some authors, Wythe's involvement in slavery, both in ownership and in selling, supports the conclusion that Wythe's revulsion against slavery did not dominate his mind until later in life. However, during his lifetime, Wythe did free some of his slaves. Virginia law prohibited slave owners from freeing slaves without the Government's permission, but, in 1782, Virginia passed its first manumission law, which allowed private manumission. Under the Manumission Act, Wythe freed most of his slaves in 1787.

At any given time, Wythe likely had around ten to twenty slaves at his home in Williamsburg. The 1783 Williamsburg Personal Property Tax recorded that Wythe had fourteen slaves, but by 1788, that number had gone down to three. Wythe's wife, Elizabeth Taliaferro Wythe, died in 1787. Upon her death, Wythe gifts at least nine of his slaves to his brother-in-law, Richard Taliaferro, who died in 1779, for his children. It is likely that those slaves were originally a part of Elizabeth's inheritance from her father. The law may have required Wythe to return "property" that belonged to Elizabeth back to her father, because the couple were childless and Elizabeth died without an heir. Wythe did free the last three slaves that he owned in 1788. Lydia Broadnax - Wythe's cook for years in Williamsburg and Richmond - was among those three slaves. There is some dispute about the number of slaves that Wythe freed or transferred at this time, but most sources conclude that after Elizabeth's death, Wythe rid himself of all of his personal slaves through one means or another.

Along with the slaves in Williamsburg, Wythe also owned slaves at the Chesterfield family plantation, in what is now Elizabeth City County, Virginia. In his will, Thomas Wythe, George Wythe's older brother, bequeathed all property to his wife. Thomas Wythe's slaves were split between his wife and niece. In a 1793 complaint filed with the Norfolk County court, it is stated that George Wythe "purchased of his Brothers widow all her right to the said slaves." The plantation, along with all of the slaves, returned to the ownership of George Wythe. As for the slaves bequeathed to Thomas Wythe's niece, Wythe, "by desire of his mother, without receiving any consideration," gifted at least ten slaves to his niece and her husband Thomas Claiborne. It is unclear how many slaves were left at the Chesterfield plantation after this transference. Wythe possibly gifted half of the slaves to the niece in accordance with Thomas's will. If so, Wythe would have been left with ten slaves at the Chesterville plantation. Wythe did not spend much time at the plantation, but instead, hired a manager to watch over the land and the slaves. Near the end of the American Revolution, Wythe's Chesterville manager deserted the plantation. In December of 1781, Wythe wrote to Jefferson that he would come to Monticello if "[his] presence at Chesterville were not indispensably necessary to adjust my affairs left there in some confusion by the manager who hath lately eloped." During this time, one of Wythe's Chesterville slaves, a man named Neptune, was caught as a runaway and sent back to Wythe after being imprisoned. It is suggested that many of the other Chesterville slaves either ran away or escaped to fight for the British, who promised them freedom. Whichever the case, after the revolution, Wythe had to go to Chesterville and fix his affairs. Some authors suggest that when Wythe returned to Chesterville, only two or three elderly slaves remained.

Wythe proceeded to try and sell Chesterfield, which would seem to further decrease his reliance on slave labor. In 1792, Wythe extended this task to Daniel L. Hylton. There is evidence that at least some slaves were included in the first attempt to sell the plantation. Advertisements throughout Richmond described the plantation's advantages as including: "the land, the orchard, the livestock and negroes, and the following buildings…" Thus, in 1795 - the time of this advertisement - the sale included some people of the Negro race. Wythe's first attempt to sell Chesterfield was unsuccessful. Hylton did not manage to restore and sell the land, so Wythe forced a sheriff's sale and acquired back the deed. Wythe finally sold Chesterfield to Holder Hudgins in 1801, without making a large profit. Some authors suggest that Wythe's lack of profit in the sale supports the argument that he freed those slaves left at the Chesterville plantation, especially considering that Wythe freed his personal slaves earlier. The lack of profit, however, could also be explained by the sale only including a few elderly slaves. Unfortunately, the relevant Elizabeth County's property records were destroyed during the Civil War making it impossible to form a concrete conclusion.

Lydia Broadnax, continued to work as a cook Wythe, as a free woman, until his death. When Wythe moved to Richmond, Lydia followed. There has been some speculation that an interracial relationship existed between Broadnax and Wythe. This speculation suggests that Michael Brown - a mulatto boy who also lived with Wythe - was the son of Broadnax and Wythe. However, both speculations have been largely debunked. Wythe and Broadnax's age provide the strongest argument against this allegation. Broadnax would have been in her fifties and Wythe in his late sixties at the time of Brown's birth. Even by modern standards, having a child at that age is highly unlikely. Further, the allegation first appears in what is called the Dove memo, written by Dr. John Dove. The Dove memo has been regarded as an untrustworthy source due to the circumstances surrounding its creation. Most authors conclude that the allegation of impermissible relations between Broadnax and Wythe were likely fabricated. It is more likely that Lydia was married to Ben, another freed slave that worked for Wythe. Wythe's treatment of his freed slaves suggest that he regarded them to be the same as white persons. Wythe not only paid Lydia for her cooking services, but also provided her housing apart from his residence. Additionally, Wythe made sure that other people paid Lydia when she worked in her capacity as a paid servant. As for Michael Brown, there is no clear consensus as to where the boy came from, but Wythe took it upon himself to educate the boy.

Wythe continued to educate him as he would any other student - teaching Brown Latin and Greek.  In his will, Wythe devised the estate so that Lydia, Ben, and Michael each received a portion of the estate.  Wythe also requested that Jefferson teach Brown after Wythe's death, furthering his belief that the boy should be educated like his white counterparts.  However, this never came to past because Brown died at the same time as Wythe.  Broadnax was the only freed servant that survived Wythe's death.

Wythe's Views on Slavery: Private & Public

During his lifetime, those closest to Wythe knew him to be avidly opposed to slavery. In 1785, Jefferson wrote that Wythe's, "sentiments on the subject of slavery are unequivocal." This "unequivocal" view did not necessarily mean that Wythe was radically attempting to dismantle the institution of slavery. During the revolution, correspondence occurs between Wythe and Jefferson on the issue of runaway slaves. Wythe is aware of several negroes in the area who are expected to be slaves. Based on that information, Wythe requests that Jefferson send him a description of the servants Jefferson expects are missing. The request likely indicates that if found, Wythe planned to return the runaways to Jefferson. Nevertheless, Wythe does seem to truly hold the view that slavery was an evil that needed to be eradicated. There were other Virginias at the time who theoretically opposed slavery, while practically enjoying the its benefits. But, even if Wythe is included with the Virginians that theoretically opposed slavery, he differed significantly on one point: the equality of the Negro race. Wythe personally thought that the Negro race held the full attributes of humanity; therefore, they could be educated just like people of the white race. Because Wythe's view was a novel one, he sought to prove equality through experiments in education. Specifically, Wythe tested, "the theory that there was no natural inferiority of intellect in the negro, compared with the white man." For this reason, Wythe taught slaves to read and write in the same manner as his white students. The Chancellor also taught Michael Brown, Greek, Latin, and Natural Science, until the time of their deaths. Wythe's disposition that the Negro race was equal, also effected how he viewed abolition. Benjamin Watkins Leigh, in 1832, wrote that, "Mr. Wythe, to the day of his death, was for simple abolition." Simple abolition requires the freedom of slaves without any method of deportation or removal.

In Virginia, Wythe largely held this view on his own, because it was contrary to the normal views of abolition in the south.   For example, Jefferson stood for abolition that required the transfer of the slaves to another location once they were free.  Wythe opposed this type of plan because he believed that it was an, "objection to color as founded in prejudice."   Thus, Wythe may not have been the only person opposed to slavery at the time nor the only person who understood the full humanity of the Negro race; but, he is the only Virginian to try to prove the absence of inferiority between the races. 

Prior to George Wythe's time as chancellor, the issue of slavery came up frequently in his professional life. Even if Wythe's personal anti-slavery position stayed consistent, he played a role in perpetuating the institution of slavery in Virginia. For example, in 1770, Wythe represented a slave owner who wanted to keep his mulatto servants as slaves. Jefferson, the attorney for the other side, argued that the law should be on the side of freeing the slaves - the same argument that Wythe would later use himself in his slavery opinions as Chancellor. Howell v. Netherland, cannot truly speak to Wythe's public views because the court ruled in favor of the defendant without giving Wythe the opportunity to speak. However, it does show that his personal views did not keep him from representing slave owners. During the revolution, Wythe's public duties also intersected with the issue of slavery. General George Washington was concerned with the number of slaves that were fleeing to fight for the British army in exchange for freedom. Wythe was tasked with addressing this issue and led the committee charged with solving America's problem. After the war, George Wythe, Thomas Jefferson, and Edmund Pendleton worked to re-structure Virginia's constitution and laws. In the original draft, it appears that Wythe, Jefferson, and Pendleton included a provision providing for the gradual manumission of slaves. But, the provision was never presented to any legislative body. The provision is only documented in Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia. As Jefferson noted, "[t]he public mind would not yet bear the proposition." Wythe and Jefferson did use this opportunity to reduce some of the more heinous Virginia laws against slaves, such as eliminating cruel punishments and banning the further importation of slaves. Yet, they did not attempt to seriously dismantle the institution. It is likely that even if they tried, any such suggestion would have been unanimously rejected. At this time the citizenry of Virginia, including Wythe and Jefferson, largely profited from the institution of slavery and no moral argument could change their mind. By 1795 there was a slight shift in Virginia on the issue of slavery. In November of that year, Wythe was one the many petitioners from Virginia who sent to the House of Delegates a draft requesting an anti-slavery act that would free slaves born after its passing. The petition also asserted that members of the Negro race where not inferior, but created by God just like members of the white race. Although unsuccessful, it demonstrates that Wythe contributed to some public anti-slavery sentiment. In his private life, Wythe may have acted on his "unequivocal" position on the institution of slavery; but, it was not until Wythe was Chancellor that his public position truly displayed the same fervor.

Wythe's Views as Chancellor: Judicial Decisions Concerning Slavery

As Chancellor, Wythe often decided cases that dealt with slaves being transferred as property, upon the death of their owner. In property cases, Wythe applied the law as written and treated slaves as property. Wythe adhered to his duty to apply the law even when it conflicted with his personal views. Some authors suggest that Wythe's treatment of slaves in property cases supports the argument that Wythe often chose to use the "mask of the law" to avoid having to test the veracity of his private views. However, did put his beliefs into practice as Chancellor. In the rare instances where Wythe was faced with a slave's freedom, the Chancellor went beyond the existing law and legally argued for a fundamental right to freedom. In Pleasants v. Pleasants and Hudgins v. Wright, Wythe made legal arguments that provided freedom for the slaves in question. In both cases, the Court of Appeals affirmed Wythe's conclusions, while explicitly disregarding Wythe's legal and ethical challenges to the institution of slavery. The issue in Pleasants was whether John Pleasant's will - requiring that all of his slaves be set free when private manumission was possible - could be upheld in court. The legal administrators under the will opposed manumission and wanted that portion of the will struck down as unenforceable. Using well-crafted legal tools, Wythe concluded that the will could be enforceable; thereby, freeing over eight hundred slaves. This case was one of the first cases to explore the legal foundations of the Virginia Manumission Act. Wythe concluded that the Manumission Act could apply retroactively because it restored the slave's natural right to freedom. Wythe viewed the request for freedom as a "restitution of a right, of which they…could not have been deprived without violation of equitable constitutional principles." Because Wythe argued that manumission was grounded in natural law and slavery was not, Pleasants could legally stipulate this kind of contingency in his will. Further, Wythe refused to interpret Pleasants' allocation of freedom as a conditional gift, because transfer of property laws have little applicability in cases where, "human liberty is challenged." Thus, Wythe's decision in Pleasants centered on his belief that human rights triumph property rights when freedom is challenged. Along with enforcing the slave's legal right to freedom, Wythe also mandated that the slaves be paid for their period of wrongful enslavement. This decision was a shock to those of the time, particularly because it was a decision that freed hundreds of slaves and required the owners to provide back pay. The Court of Appeals upheld Wythe's judicial conclusion to enforce the will, but reversed his order of back pay. Although Wythe insinuated that freedom was a fundamental right for all raced in Pleasants, he explicitly stated that conclusion a few years later in Hudgins v. Wright. Unfortunately, the original Chancery opinion of this case has not been preserved; however, Wythe's arguments can be gleaned from the Court of Appeals decision. In Hudgins, Wythe was faced with slaves who were claiming freedom based on their Indian heritage. By law, people of Indian decent were presumed free in the court of law. Based on his observations, Wythe did conclude that the Wrights were of Indian decent. He could have decided the case on the narrow ground that the Wrights were of Indian descent. Instead, Wythe took this opportunity to declare that under Virginia law, all people were presumed free because freedom came from a natural right. Wythe concluded that when an enslaved person requests freedom the burden is on the slave owner to prove that the person should be enslaved. Wythe based this conclusion "on the ground that freedom is the birthright of every human being, which sentiment is strongly inculcated by the first article of our 'political catechism,' the bill of rights." Wythe's conclusion, that people of the Negro race have a natural right to freedom, was a radical conclusion that caused a great disruption. Naturally, this shock led to the case being automatically appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed Wythe's decision, but only on the narrow ground that the Wrights were of Indian decent. The appeal judges unanimously rejected Wythe's reasoning that all races had an intrinsic right to freedom. Instead, they re-affirmed that people of the Negro race have the burden of proving a right to freedom. Wythe was likely aware that this attempt to undermine the institution of slavery in Virginia would be futile, but it is possible that end of his life putting his principles into practice mattered more than being reversed.

Wythe's Death & Slavery

The circumstances surrounding Wythe's death also reveal insight into Wythe's view on slavery. At the time of his death, Wythe had completely rid his personal life of all ties to the institution of slavery. Wythe incorporated into practice his philosophical teachings about the equality of blacks. The choices that Wythe made concerning his free black servants may have influenced the circumstances surrounding the Chancellor's poisoning. Before his death, Wythe had changed his will to provide for a greater portion of the estate to go to Michael Brown, his freed student. Wythe also left parts of his estate to Lydia Broadnax and Benjamin. Specifically, Wythe requested that money from his estate be used to, "support [his] freed woman Lydia Broadnax, and [his] freed man Benjamin, and [his] freed boy Michael Brown." In the event that Lydia and Benjamin died, their portion would go completely to Michael Brown. This inevitably took some of the inheritance away from Wythe's heir and nephew, George Wythe Sweeney. There have been many reasons offered as to why Sweeney poisoned George Wythe. Some authors suggest that it had to do with Wythe's choice to display publicly his belief that freed persons of color should be treated equally to white persons. At the time of his death, Wythe had been one of the only southern antebellum founders to believe in the full humanity of the Negro race and the only judge to attempt to judicially undermine slavery.

Wythe as Teacher: Influence of Anti-Slavery

Wythe's views on slavery also influenced his students. Wythe's students recognized his morality and wished to learn from it. While being taught by Wythe, Peter Carr wrote to Jefferson that Wythe "adds advice and lessons of morality, which are not pleasing and instructive now, but will be (I hope) of real utility in the future." It is likely that these lessons of morality included the topic of slavery. Thomas Jefferson's most quoted statement about Wythe being "unequivocal" on the issue of slavery, was written in the context of Wythe's teaching influence. In 1785, Jefferson tells Richard Price that because of Wythe's influence, "the future decision on this important question would be great, perhaps decisive." The men who studied under Wythe were likely to come out with at least a theoretical opposition to slavery. Even Jefferson, who may have not have practiced his beliefs, asserted that the system of slavery was inconsistent with the American experiment. Jefferson, undoubtedly through Wythe's influence, fought for emancipation during his early time in the legislature. There are other student examples that show that Wythe's teaching can be credited for the foundation of anti-slavery views. One of Wythe's pupils, John Minor III, entered two bills into the Virginia legislature providing for gradual emancipation and freedom for slaves. John Marshall argued Pleasants v. Pleasants in front of the Virginia Court of Appeals successfully freeing hundreds of slaves. St. George Tucker, a student of Wythe, became very outspoken on the issue of slavery as expressed in his 1796 pamphlet, A Dissertation on Slavery with a Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of it, In the State of Virginia, and his commentaries on Blackstone. Tucker considered slavery both morally and logically inconsistent with Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Richard Randolph, (St. George Tucker's step-son) another of Wythe's students, was influenced the most by Wythe on the issue of slavery. In his will, Randolph freed all of his slaves at his death. Along with their freedom, Randolph provided that his slaves would also be given land. Randolph makes Wythe the executor of his will and states that Wythe was, "the most virtuous and incorruptible of mankind and his greatest benefactor." Randolph explicitly declares that the provisions of his will concerning the slaves, were drafted, "to make retribution." Unfortunately, due to legal issues with the will, Randolph's wishes for his slaves did not come to fruition until much later. Demonstrating the influence that Wythe had over his students does not support an argument that Wythe was creating passionate abolitionist. Only a few students, went as far as Wythe in practice to free their slaves or fight to end slavery. Other students such as Jefferson, Henry Clay, and St. George Tucker, continued to profit under the system of slavery. Jefferson, despite his attempts and eloquent statements opposing slavery, never truly tried to dismantle or rid the country of the institution. Clay, though maybe influenced by Wythe's anti-slavery beliefs, never truly followed Wythe's example in his public career. Tucker's view that slavery was morally and logically inconsistent with Virginia's Declaration of Rights did not provoke him to agree with Wythe's assertion that all men were created equal in Hudgins v. Wright. Additionally, both Tucker and Jefferson strayed away from the idea of complete abolition, unlike Wythe. For Tucker and Jefferson, free slaves equaled migrated slaves. But, even those who criticize Wythe's influence as shallow or minimal, still recognize that he had some influence on his student's beliefs about slavery. Thus, the fact that Wythe's students did not completely put their anti-slavery views in practice, does not take away from the influence - at least intellectually - that Wythe had on his students concerning slavery.

References

1. ↑ "Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 7 August 1785," in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 8, 25 February-31 October 1785, ed. Julian P. Boyd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), 356–357.
2. ↑ Joyce Blackburn, George Wythe of Williamsburg (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 74; Alonzo Thomas Dill, George Wythe, Teacher of Liberty, ed. Edward M. Riley (Williamsburg: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 4-5.
3. ↑ Dill, 5.
4. ↑ Ibid.
5. ↑ William Clarkin, Serene Patriot (Albany: Alan Publications, 1970), 3; Thomas Hunter, "The Teaching of George Wythe," in The History of Legal Education in the United States, ed. Steve Sheppard (Pasadena: Salem, Press, Inc., 1999), 1:140.
6. ↑ Blackburn, 74; Dill, 4-5, Hunter, 140.
7. ↑ John Bailey, Jefferson's Second Father (Sydney: Momentum Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Ltd, 2013), 5.
8. ↑ Dill, 5.
9. ↑ Clarkin, 9.
10. ↑ H.R. McIlwaine, ed., Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia (Richmond, Va: The Virginia State Library, 1931), 1:70-71. It is unclear why Charles was put in jail or how long he worked in the lead mines. However, it is possible that Charles is the same slave freed by Wythe in 1788. Mary A. Stephenson, George Wythe House Historical Report, Block 21 (Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, 1952).