The State of Missouri Versus Harrison (a slave)
by Bob Brail
A good source that sheds light on how slaves were viewed by their owners is the federal censuses of 1850, specifically the population census, which did not list any slaves, and the slave census, which enumerated them according to their owners' names. Consider, for example, the David K. Pitman family of Dardenne Township. The population census lists the names, ages, birthplaces, and other information about each person in that slaveowner's family. The slave census, however, gives no names for the twenty-seven people held in bondage by Pitman, listing only their age, sex, and “color” (either black or mulatto). Indeed, it is rare to find slaves' names anywhere, although they do sometimes appear in legal documents.
One such source can be found in the judicial records of St. Charles County. In fact, the various documents in this file list more than twenty slaves by name. The case involved the killing of slave by another slave in southern St. Charles County in 1862. It was “The State of Missouri versus Harrison (a slave) and Nathan (a slave) at the St. Charles County courthouse” in the summer of 1862.
The fight occurred in the lane leading to the home of slave owner Priscilla Farnsworth, the widow of Alden Farnsworth, on June 8, 1862. Several slaves had gathered there on a Sunday afternoon, some without the requisite pass. According to court records, the slaves who eventually gathered in the lane that day included the following:
From the trial testimonies of three slaves, Dorwell, Lewis, and Harold, it seems that several slaves had gathered that day at the Farnsworth farm for no apparent reason; no argument was anticipated. According to the slaves' testimonies, slaves present included Dorwell, Jerard, Betty, Sarah, Lewis, Ellen, Charles, and Smith. On their way to the Farnsworth place, some of these slaves had met “a quarter of a mile from the bridge.” After about an hour's conversation, other slaves arrived and an argument started between Smith and two of these later arrivals, brothers Harrison, and Nathan. Information in the 1860 Slave Census about the Farnsworths' seven slaves suggests that these men were about twenty years old. Smith told Harrison that he “would wear the lane out” with him, and “You are the one I am talking to.” Harrison told Smith he didn't want anything to do with him, but brother Nathan told Harrison to say what he pleased, that he (Nathan) was there, apparently letting his brother know that he would support him in whatever ensued. The men argued as they moved up the lane to the road. Near the road, Smith, a large man, struck Harrison with his fist and knocked him down down and kicked him, and then ran toward the road. Harrison and Nathan followed. Smith stooped to pick up a fence rail to use as a club. By this time Harrison and Nathan each was wielding a knife in their hands. Before Smith stood up, Harrison and Nathan each struck Smith with their knives. Nathan's knife struck Smith's forearm, but it was not the fatal blow. Harrison's large knife plunged into Smith's right chest with its double-edged blade to a depth of six inches, causing death within a few minutes. Before he fell, Smith struck once at Harrison with the rail. Dorwell then caught Smith as he fell, while the dying Smith threatened to whip both Harrison and Nathan. Smith told Dorwell to release him, which he did. After he died, two iron knuckles were found in Smith's pants pocket.
Dardenne Township Justice of the Peace Josiah B. Cosby issued arrest warrants for both Harrison and Nathan the next day. Constable Francis Nohl served the warrants. The following day, June 10, Harrison's and Nathan's statements were taken at Cosby's office in Cottleville. Harrison was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on July 21. He was then incarcerated until the trial in August. Harrison was defended by William A. Alexander, whose fees were most likely paid by the county, since the Harrison had no money.
It it as some point during the two month incarceration that Nathan disappears from the case file. This was probably due to the fact that authorities learned that the wound Nathan gave Smith was not fatal and he was therefore not culpable for Smith's death. Nathan is not named in the verdict or the ensuing sentence.
The trial of Pizarro Howell's Harrison was held on August 7, 1862. Witnesses called for the state (prosecution) were Dr. John C. Edwards, Martin Miller, John Fetsch, and slaves Harold, Dorwell, Lewis, Bill, Sarah, Mary, Jerard, Sarah, and Levi. Of these, only four testified in court: Dr. Edwards, Lewis, Harold, and Dorwell. All the slaves' owners apparently had to appear with their slaves in court because both owners and slaves were served subpoenas the last ten days of July. The jury consisted of white males (*slave owner): Foreman Cary A. Boyd* , Caspar Thro, Henry Schneider*, D. B. Wells, Lawrence Bruin, Peter Hausam, John H. Stewart, James Harmons, A. T. Cunningham*, Daniel Hammonds, Anton Meyer, and William Taggart. The prosecuting attorney was C. Orrick.
Missouri law prohibited a slave who killed another slave from being charged with first degree murder. A slave who killed another slave could be charged with second degree murder only. However, this killing was clearly not planned by Harrison, who was provoked at least to some extent by Smith. After the testimonies of the four men, the jurors were given instructions as to how they could decide on the verdict. If the jury believed from the evidence that Harrison killed Smith “in the heat of passion upon any sudden or sufficient provocation given by the deceased to the defendant,” they were to find Harrison not guilty, on the grounds of excusable homicide. If, however, the jury decided that Harrison killed Smith “in a heat of passion,” but also “in a cruel or unusual manner,” and “not under circumstances which would render it justifiable or excusable,” they were to find the Harrison guilty of manslaughter in the second degree. After deliberating, the jury's verdict was read: “We the jury find the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the second degree.”
In 1850 the Missouri Supreme Court had ruled that a slave owner could not be held liable for the criminal act committed by his slave, even the murder of another slave. This meant that the sentence could not in any way directly penalize Priscilla Farnsworth for Harrison's act. It also meant that Pizarro Howell would not receive any compensation from the court (it is possible Farnsworth compensated him in some way but there is no record of this). The sentence could include “transportation,” which required the slave to leave the state within sixty days and not return for twenty years. This, of course, usually meant that the slave was sold to someone from another state.
Unless his owner requested, the convicted slave was not imprisoned, so the punishment was physical, usually a whipping. This was true in Harrison's case; he was sentenced to receive thirty-nine lashes on August 12. These whippings were to be held in public and were supposed to be “well and truly laid on such offenders' bare backs, and that without favor or affection.” When Harrison Trexler wrote his book about slavery in Missouri in the early twentieth century, he described the official Lafayette County whip, or flagellum, that still survived and had been used on the backs of convicted slaves: “It is composed of a wooden handle attached to a flat piece of rubber strap about eighteen inches long, an inch and a half wide, and a quarter of an inch thick. It has the appearance of having been cut from rubber belting, being reenforced with fiber as is rubber hose.” Trexler explains that this whip would cause the slave much pain but that it would not leave a scar. This was important to the owner of the convicted slave, since scars on his back could make him less valuable to sell,since a buyer might see the scars and conclude the slave is a troublemaker. Usually the county sheriff was the one who executed the whipping, so Harrison was most likely flogged by Sheriff Charles B. Branham.
In the days of slavery in America, it was customary to bury a slave outside the confines of the owner's family cemetery and with only an unmarked stone. The historical record tends to treat the majority of slaves in the same manner, burying them in the past with no mention of names. The court records relating to the trial of Pizarro Howell's Smith are unusual in that they record for us the names of so many slaves.
Sources: Federal Population and Slave Censuses; Plat Book of St. Charles County, Missouri, 1875; Slavery and Crime in Missouri, 1773-1865 by Harriet C. Frazier; Slavery in Missouri by Harrison Anthony Trexler; “The State of Missouri Versus Harrison (a slave) and Nathan (a slave), Missouri Judicial Records Hisorical Database (s1.sos.mo.gov).