(Published in Maryland Historical Magazine, vol. 95, #4 Winter 2000. Copyright. Used by permission.)

by R. Kent Lancaster

Professor Emeritus at Goucher College

Research Volunteer at Hampton National Historical Site

From about 1790 to 1830, the Ridgelys of Hampton owned and presided over one of Maryland’s largest African-American slave populations. That group had roots deep into the past and a branch into the distant future. The family’s commercial, agricultural and industrial enterprises employed at one time some 340 chattel slaves, who by 1790 had eclipsed white indentured servants as the real source of Ridgely labor. As is to be expected, the preserved records of this slave system are sparse in the its early years, but they multiply exponentially as time goes on. They tell us much about the administration of a great body of slaves, but disappointingly little of what slave life was all about. In essence, they are the records of slave owning. What follows, however, is an attempt to plumb those sources, whatever their limitations, for what they reveal about slavery at Hampton/Northampton. (1)

The first of the family for whom we have evidence of slave owning was Col. Charles Ridgely (1700-1772). Primarily a merchant in Baltimore, Col. Charles also bought thousands of acres of Maryland, and specifically Baltimore County, land, and developed the Northampton iron works, which was to be a major source of the family’s wealth for many decades. Col. Charles’s reputation for the acquisition and development of land has been eclipsed by that of his son, Capt. Charles, but he was no mean businessman, having accumulated more than 10,000 acres of land by 1757. The earliest extant record of his slaveowning comes from two accounts for jackets and tools provided for named slaves in 1747-48. No total number of slaves can be found for that time, but it is obvious from the tools ordered–axes–that the group was involved in work they would perform for decades, cutting timber to clear land and as time went on as fuel for the iron works. (2)

By 1760, Col. Charles had acquired a larger but unknown number of slaves, and in that year he gave ten slaves who are identified by name to his son Charles. The Colonel’s will proved in 1772 and the inventory of his property taken in the same year give a much more complete account of his slaves. Those documents show the ownership of some thirty-eight named slaves, who were dispersed among sixteen of his descendants. He directed that much of his landed property be widely divided in the same way. His son, Charles, however, already owned one third of the thriving iron works along with lands to support that industry and he soon bought another third from his brother’s estate. (3)

Capt. Charles expanded the activities of his father; he was indeed a man of great energy and a major entrepreneur. Having retired from a sea-faring life, he carried on the family’s commercial activities, developed the Hampton estate and built Hampton mansion, while overseeing personally the activities of the Northampton furnace and forge. In his early years, labor was predominantly that of white indentured servants, but by his death, and certainly in part because the Revolution had interrupted the supply of such servants, Hampton labor had come to depend most heavily on African American slaves. A 1773 tax list names thirty-four slaves owned by the Captain in Baltimore County; by 1783 he was assessed personally for ninety-nine slaves and the the Northampton iron works for thirty-one more. The childless Captain bequeathed some of his slaves to a grandnephew and to his wife for her lifetime, but most came to his principal heir, Charles Ridgely Carnan. (4)

Carnan, a nephew, changed his name to Charles Carnan Ridgely in accord with a stipulation in his uncle’s will. More polished and suave than his uncle, Charles C. Ridgely had, nevertheless, that uncle’s business acumen and drive and went on to develop fully the uncle’s plans for the Hampton/Northampton complex. He took over Hampton mansion and, living the life of a member of the landed gentry, parleyed his talents and personality into positions of eminence, including the governorship of Maryland. He bought back from relatives those final portions of the iron works that had gone to his aunts and their families until he became sole owner. An impressive and lucrative commercial, industrial and agricultural complex, Hampton/ Northampton reached its apex during his tenure. (5)

Gov. Ridgely already owned slaves when he took over control of Hampton and he inherited more from his uncle. Although the documentation as to their origin is not extant today, he also multiplied the number of slaves at Hampton, owning at least 339 at his death in 1829. A family connection, James Howard wrote,

It is likely that many of these slaves came with purchases of land but the details are obscure. By his will, the Governor manumitted all of his slaves under certain conditions, in sheer numbers alone an astonishing action at the time. Phase one of Hampton slavery ended in 1829. (6)

Because of the death of his oldest son the Governor left Hampton to his second son, John. It was, however, a much curtailed Hampton–the mansion and 4000 acres with a supporting bequest of only one thousand dollars. As personal property was to be divided among the residuary heirs, the court sold even the animals and farm implements from Hampton. John’s second marriage, though, was to the wealthy Elize E. Ridgely whose fortune went to the redevelopment of Hampton and to underwriting the purchase of a new group of slaves. At the beginning of his tenure, John depended on slaves hired from his sisters, who were the residuary heirs of his father, or from among those ex-slaves freed immediately by the Governor’s will. In time, John purchased a slave population of some seventy-seven individuals for the second phase of slavery at Hampton. These were freed in 1864, when by the provisions of a new state constitution, slavery in Maryland was ended. (7)

Questions about the nature of slavery at Hampton are often asked at the site today and it is tempting to reply with some canned answer drawn from a secondary source which may treat the Eastern Shore of Maryland or even Louisiana. The truth is that Hampton was sui generis; the nature of its chattel slavery depended to a remarkable degree on the personality and attitudes of the owner at the time. Because slaves were illiterate and had no real means to preserve records if they had not been, material on Hampton slavery is almost totally white-engendered. Humans seldom record the seamier or questionable sides of their lives and that is true here. Nevertheless, two indices of change with successive ownership are discernable, attitudes toward slave families and toward manumission. To take the latter first, there is no evidence of Col. Ridgely’s having manumitted any slave; they were property and property alone to him. In his will, he distributed his slaves among his descendants as one might give pieces of jewelry or books. Capt. Ridgely seems in some ways a much harder businessman than his father, but he manumitted five slaves by his will and it is obvious from that document that they were individuals–humans–to him. (8)

The great puzzle in the history of slavery at Hampton is why Gov. Ridgely manumitted all of his slaves. A variety of influences has been suggested–the most frequent, perhaps, Methodism. Gov. Ridgely, however, showed few overt signs of interest in that sect. A practicing Episcopalian, he patronized a number of churches, including Episcopal, Unitarian and Methodist ones, but evidence of real closeness to the Methodists is not forthcoming. Other suggested influences include his wife ,who had been dead for fourteen years when he made his will; his sister-in-law and aunt, Mrs. Capt. Charles Ridgely, dead for sixteen years and with whom the Governor was often at odds during her lifetime; and finally the fact that a son with whom he never seems to have shared a great deal of respect was succeeding to Hampton. It seems more likely that Ridgely, from a generation that had often questioned the morality of the slave institution and realizing his own mortality, simply decided on a last act of altruism. The altruism, at any rate cost the Governor no single minute of discomfort, because manumission was only effective on his death. Nor did it really cost his estate anything, because no slave was given any economic support in moving into freedom. (9)

Ridgely’s manumission in 1829, included immediately only those females between twenty-five and forty-five years and males between twenty-eight and forty-five.. The ceiling was set by state law to stop the practice of manumitting worn out slaves and letting society assume their care; the Governor ordered that slaves above forty-five were to receive permanent good care. The earliest year of manumission was limited generally by the state to that time when an individual could be self supporting. Slaves older than forty-five were to be taken care of honorably by the heirs and those under age were to become free when they reached the proper ages. The choice by the Governor of twenty-five years for women and twenty-eight for men indeed seems high in a society where a twelve year old could move into adult work. It meant that the Governor’s heirs could look forward to a considerable period of labor before the slaves they inherited reached the required ages and were freed. (10)

Those heirs were seven of Ridgely’s daughters or their heirs. The will, administered by one of those daughters and her husband, Mary and Charles S. W. Dorsey, took years to resolve. One of the problems, indeed, was the disposition of the younger and older slaves among these residuary heirs. Two of the sons-in-law, George Howard and Henry B. Chew, petitioned the court to have the slaves sold and the proceeds divided among the heirs. The Dorseys petitioned in response, noting among other things that such sale would glut the market and would have inhumane aspects and the court honored their petition. The division was accomplished slowly but with apparent care, for equity was obtained in distributing age groups among the legatees and, more important here, great care was exercised in keeping family groups together. At any rate the administration of the Governor’s will by the Dorseys was a rather benign piece of work for the time. (11)

There are no signs of interest in manumission in John Ridgely’s time except for one instance, the freeing of a male slave whom descendants believe was John’s son. This case, however, seems to have been unique. In studying slave clothing lists from John’s period, a number of slaves disappear from the records through the years without explanation. It appears though that these individuals were probably escapees. Some of them were apprehended and returned, but strangely even they do not appear on subsequent clothing lists. There is no evidence of slave sale in this period. Henry White (1850–1927), grandson of John and a somewhat nostalgic critic of slavery, wrote in his memoirs that there was no case of splitting families by sales during his grandfather John’s time. Nor is there real evidence of brutality. There are, however, constant and consistent hints that his control over slaves was less benevolent than was his father’s. While abroad in 1846, John wrote back to his overseer to sell any slave or all slaves who were unruly during his absence. Slavery was a thing of the past by the time John made his will, but there is little to suggest that manumission might ever have been a priority for him. (12)

It has been generally and validly accepted that the Ridgelys were patrons of family life among their African-American workers. This was in contrast to the attitude toward white indentured servants for whom family experience was usually not possible. The indentures, however, were short timers and slaves were slaves for life. There is no evidence of overt slave breeding; the Ridgelys simply seem to have understood that the family made for stability and some measure at least of satisfaction and thus control. Col. Ridgely stood as the exception to this rule. His will shows clearly that concerns over family relationships counted for little with him. He bequeathed individuals, irrespective of relationship, to his children and grandchildren with no attempt even to keep mothers and children together. He, in fact, left a number of individual slave children to individual granddaughters.(13)

Succeeding generations of Ridgelys were indeed family oriented. The care with which Gen. Ridgely’s slaves were allotted to his heirs has already been noted. More telling perhaps is a shoe list from the 1780's in which virtually each slave is identified by family relationship. Interest in the relationship to the mother is assumed as the slave state passed from mother to child, but this list includes other relationships as well, including husband and wife and siblings. From that list it is possible to reconstruct a number of family groupings. Dum Cate who lived on the adjacent White Marsh plantation is a good example. Listed as deaf and dumb, she was the wife of Alek and the mother of at least three children: Mingoe, aged one, Pegg, three, and Diner, eight. Blacksmith Jack of the furnace was married to Amy; they were the parents of Harry, Lucy, Moses, Nancy, Little Nick and Phebe, none of whose ages is known. Some of these families can be traced down through several generations. Henry White noted that his grandmother, Eliza E. R. Ridgely, in the next century,

Paradoxically, manumission could damage the family severely. The Governor’s seemingly altruistic freeing of his slaves demonstrates this clearly. Freeing all the slaves would not have affected this basic institution, but the Governor’s pattern of manumission did, although it was dictated in essence if not in each detail by state law. That he was concerned with the unit, is shown by his granting mothers the right to take into freedom children under two. He could not, by law, grant these infants freedom, and this may have put them in jeopardy later when proof of manumission was required. They were not free but only with free mothers. There was left, however, the fact that those from two to twenty-five or twenty eight years were to be held until they reached those ages and those over forty-five were permanently slaves. The case of Sam and Keziah Anderson illustrates this paradox clearly. At manumission both were freed, and Susan, two, was allowed to go with her mother. Three other children between four and nine years, however, had to be left behind. Perhaps even more damaging was the Batty case. Hetty, forty- one, was freed and little Louise was permitted to go along. Husband George, however, was fifty- four and not ever to be eligible for freedom. Six children were left behind to be freed at intervals over the next twenty-two years. Both the Andersons and the Battys went to single residuary heirs, so remnants of the families at least were preserved together. (15)

Patterns of housing can reflect attitudes toward slave families. Hampton is known today as unusual among early mansions for having three extant slave houses. They were indeed part of a large group of houses or cabins that stretched some quarter of a mile eastward from their present location. The existing houses seem to have been designed for double family use and not as dormitories, but there is, unfortunately no hard evidence at all to corroborate this. A tax assessment of 1798 cites nine Negro houses on the Hampton property, all of logs and ranging in size from ten by twelve to twenty-two by thirty-two feet and lists nine other log houses that may have been slave quarters. The largest of these was perhaps a barracks for single slaves but the smaller ones were comparable to log houses provided for hired white workers most of whom were married.. The same assessment notes that there were ninety-two slaves at the time at Hampton/ Northampton. The sizes of these houses, in addition to the Ridgely’s apparent attitude toward family units, would suggest that the smaller houses were for family occupancy, but again hard evidence is missing. (16)

What do we know of the treatment of slaves under the Ridgelys? The answer in essence is very little. The thousands of records preserved by the family are white-engendered documents and simply do not readily give information about control or treatment. Once a slave owner wrote to ask if he might send his slaves to Hampton to be trained, which suggests, at least, that Ridgely discipline was exemplary to one white owner. There were regular escapes from Hampton throughout the period but whether they were reactions to the slave system in general or reactions to the severity of a single such system is unclear. Escapes increased dramatically with a change in ownership–at a time when the instruments of control seemed weakest. On Gov. Ridgely’s death, for example twelve male slaves fled Hampton. All were caught. Ironically several returned to find that they had been freed. But the point is that they took their chances to gain freedom from a weakened system. The very fact of weakness at these key points implies stability of Hampton under normal conditions, partially because of family living patterns but also because of a tight and effective system of control. (17).

Because they have bars, it has been suggested that the cellar of the Hampton mansion and the nearby Hampton icehouse were used to incarcerate slaves. This, however, is nonsense as a family with the resources of the Ridgelys would hardly keep miscreants in their own dwelling or immediately in front of the primary entrance where carriages arrived. There was a jail on the property but a single piece of information about is exists–that its roof was renewed in 1799. (18)

It has also been posited that the slave quarters were positioned well down the hill from the mansion so that the cries of slaves as they were beaten would not be heard. This was probably not a factor in the design of Hampton. Important there was the concept of the site as a picturesque English-style village with the manor house on the hill overlooking a peaceful village below. There were slave beatings. Evidence of one comes from the narrative account of the Ridgelys written by James Howard. In two short stories designed primarily to show the majesty of Governor Ridgely, he tells first of a slave touching his hat to the Governor, who returned the salute in the same way and ‘was reproached by his companion for his extra courtesy to a negro.’ Ridgely responded, ‘Do you think that I’ll allow a negro to have better manners than I?’ This is followed immediately by a tale of the Governor ordering the overseer to give ten lashes to a delinquent slave whose face remained ‘sullen and defiant.’ The Governor, three times then, ordered ten more lashes. Howard concludes, ’He knew that as long as the face was defiant & sullen the punishment was doing more harm than good.’. Howard in some ways violated the code of his class by retailing this story. It is, however, evidence of the nature of control under the seemingly most benign of Hampton owners. The record of beatings is blank otherwise. (19)

No evidence exists that any Ridgely slave was a first generation African-American. Some few of their given names may suggest their ultimate origin, Gamboe, Mingo, Subo, Kiah, Quash among them. Some are drawn from the Western classical period–Nero, Venus, Vulcan, Cato, and Caesar (spelled every way but that in the records), for examples, and some are Old Testament in origin, Moses, Abraham, Jacob. Most, however, are of English or Christian origin, if the two can be separated. Jim, Tony, Cate, Dick, and Susan were popular. It is obvious that the slaves whom the Ridgelys purchased had acquired their given names before they came to Hampton and that most were probably second generation Americans at the time of purchase. As time went by, the popular names can be traced as styles change by generation. Every master of Hampton from 1750 was a Charles or a John, but significantly neither name was popular among the slaves. There is, in fact, no evidence that the Ridgelys influenced slave names at all. (20)

One of the problems in tracking Ridgely slaves, in determining their family relationships and in tracing them forward is something that also threw into relief their servile status–the emphasis in the records on given names alone. These are often supplemented by descriptive and identifying words such as Big Bett, Yellow Harry, Tom smith (not of the Smith family, but a blacksmith.) Surnames are almost unrecorded except in rare and special instances. One of these was the freedom certificate that had to be filled out for manumitted slaves in 1829-30 and in which surnames were expected. Another appears in the list of shoes given out to family, servants and slaves from 1810 to 1828. After years of identification by given names alone, that document suddenly shifts in June 1827 to the use of surnames for no apparent reason, providing for the first time last names for the bulk of Ridgely slaves. These two documents help in identifying slaves for the first times, although it is still difficult to reconcile those surnames with earlier lists because of the heavy use of certain given names among the population. Unfortunately the practice of using surnames was not maintained; the bulk of the slave documents from John’s time revert to sole use of given names and the obscuring of identities resulting therefrom. There is nothing on any occasion to suggest that the Ridgelys or their agents supplied surnames for slaves; this leaves open the question as to how and when they acquired them. Interestingly, no slave has been found to have used the Ridgely name, although some slaves did have the names of landowners in the area, Howard and Sheredine, for examples. (21)

The Ridgely slaves seem to have had constant and close medical care, although it is not clear whether this care emanated from concern with humans or with property or both. Always over the decades a doctor was kept on contract, usually to treat both the Ridgely family and the servile population. Treatment was perhaps poor by today’s standards but the same treatments were utilized for both races. Drs. Charles Weisenthal in the 1780's was typical of the itinerant doctor of the time; he would visit, perform his office and then often stay overnight. In the next century, Ridgely cousins, the doctors Pue, were under contract. Mid-wives were in attendance for family as well as slave births, usually drawn from among the older slaves, but on occasion a white woman from outside was brought in. The records of the time often reflect medical conditions, which obviously affected the value of slaves. Rupture was a common complaint among men during the time as was ‘pains in the neess.’ One slave ‘lost senses by smallpox.’ Normally only those conditions or complaints that affected the work or the natural increase of the group are noted. At any rate the Ridgelys protected their investments by keeping the slaves healthy. (22)

Of 122 slaves listed on the clothing list of 1782-87, ten died during those years at an average age of forty-two. The Hampton population was indeed both a young one and an old one. Ages are available for 292 of the 339 slaves owned by Governor Ridgely at his death in 1829. The mean age of those 292 was only 23.3 years (median 18). In a period of enormous infant mortality and with a tradition that slave systems did not reproduce themselves, it is surprising to find that 18% of Ridgely slaves were under four years and 31% under ten. These figures approximate those for Baltimore County in general and other slave populations in the County, but differ markedly from Baltimore City where only 21.8% of the slave population was under 10 years. The reason for the latter differential were perhaps that rural life was exempted from some of the health scourges of the city. (23)

Hampton also had more older slaves (above 55) than the norm: 7.8% in contrast to 4.5% and 3.8% for the County and City respectively. This suggests that the Ridgelys supported a larger group of slaves who were legally dependent and perhaps non-productive than was usual and again suggests stability of the community. It should be no surprise that the value of slaves declined sharply with old age, but it is rather shocking to discover that what seems to be a listing of all slaves in the inventory taken of his property that the older slaves were simply not listed. Non-productive, they had no value and thus no place in an inventory of property.. It is only from the documents dividing them among residuary heirs that aged slaves emerge into the record. Significant, too, is the differential between the values of male and female slaves. Males were considered more valuable at every age. Males, for example, have nominal value for fifteen years after females are considered valueless.

No information exists as to how Hampton slaves met their religious needs until well into the nineteenth century. Even then, filtered through white perceptions, the information we have may say more about white attitudes than slave realities. Eliza E. R. Ridgely made a concerted attempt to address religion for the slaves, but it is, for the most part, from a somewhat patronizing position, the nineteenth century Christian missionary stance. She provided church services in the attic of the Hampton carriage house under the direction of a white minister, Mr. Galbraith, until it was discovered that that individual had married a woman suspected of having African blood, at which point he was dismissed. Mrs. Ridgely oversaw funerals and weddings in the great hall of the mansion and her young daughter, Eliza or ‘Didy,’ records with satisfaction having taught a group of slave children the Lord’s Prayer. One surprising act from the very Protestant Ridgelys was paying for the casket and grave plot in a downtown Catholic cemetery for the child of a slave, Lucy Jackson. This action was especially noteworthy because Hampton had its own black burial ground. James Howard described rather condescendingly several events at Hampton later, in one of which Nick Toogood, a Hampton black, sat passive through his wife’s bout of cramp colic and explained ‘" thought Jehovah had her"...yells and groans being quite the mode of expressing this change of spiritual condition among the negroes at that day.’ In another of Howard’s accounts of Hampton life, the same Toogood led a "funeral procession from the ‘quarter’ to the burial ground singing hymns. The hogs hearing the familiar voice that called them to eat each day joined the procession." Again, what we know of Hampton slave religion comes from the perspective of white practices filtering down. Anything else was considered quaint and amusing. (24)

Considerable effort was expended making sure that the Hampton slaves were clothed and shod. Shoes were made on the place by resident shoemakers and were of a number of grades depending both on workmanship and type of leather used. Slaves could usually expect the lowest grades–known generally as ‘slave shoes’ and were shared for a time with indentured servants. House slaves might get a better grade if they were in public view. There are sometimes extraordinary gifts of fancier shoes to slaves, and it is obvious that they were one of the indicators of status. Early on there was probably no attempt at sizing, but by the nineteenth century shoes were made for individuals. A long shoe list reaching from 1810 to 1828, and noteworthy as an early census of Hampton slaves, covers both the making and repairing of shoes. It is possible to determine who among the population wore out shoes most often which could perhaps refine our perceptions of slave labor. The resident shoemaker, sometimes a white, sometimes a slave who had learned the skill, was a very necessary cog in the successful running of the estate. The Hampton slaves seem to have been well, if not fashionably, shod. (25)

Clothing the slaves was as important as shoeing them, and with a population that reached about 340 at one time, was obviously a major enterprise. Much of this work is a matter of record, but it is obvious that much more planning went on behind the scenes. In the nineteenth century, the lady of the house was often in charge of clothing the servants. Eliza E. R. Ridgely, who has been portrayed heretofore as the aristocratic beauty playing her harp and entertaining graciously had also a serious business side. Daughter of a merchant and married into a family who recorded every transaction however trivial, Eliza kept careful accounts of all her expenditures down to nine and one half cents for a piece of ribbon. Partially personal, these accounts are also evidence of her office as over seer of slave clothing. The very first page of her account of 1838-46 shows both her care with money and her official role on the site buying cloth and shoes for the servants:

A survey of clothing given out in five year periods from 1782-6 and from 1842-46 shows few changes in types of apparel allotted, but an increase in numbers of garments.

Clothing was provided twice a year, in late spring and in early winter. Excellent records exist, both from the 1780's and from the mid-nineteenth century, about these allotments. Slaves were listed by names, so it is possible to trace slave clothing through a number of years. Slave Demboe, aged 35 in 1782, for example, got seven pairs of trousers, nine shirts and five pairs of stockings over five years; Bill Davis, thirty-seven in 1842, was given fifteen shirts, fourteen pairs of trousers and eight pairs of stockings between 1842-46. Dum Cate, thirty-five, was provided with nine petticoats, eight shifts, three pairs of stockings but no dresses in the earlier period; while Pegg Humphrey, thirty-six, got ten shifts, fifteen frocks, thirteen aprons, and twelve pairs of stockings but no petticoats from 1842-46. Additional items handed out irregularly in both periods included hat, shawls, jackets, etc. The passing years brought an improvement in the number of clothes each slave was given, but in a climate with extremes at both ends of the thermometer, three dresses or three shirts a year were unlikely to lead to any accumulation of clothing. Slave clothing was at best very near the line of inadequacy. (27)

Only in the latter period can farm or forge and house slaves be separated. There was then a marked difference in their clothing. Certainly those servants likely to be in public view in the house were better clad. Mark and Nathan, who served as butlers in mid-nineteenth century were even provided with green livery and both received worn items from the master. Lest used clothing be considered unimportant, it should be noted that at his death, Gov. Ridgely’s clothing was divided meticulously among his sons-in-law who were men of considerable wealth and standing. (28)

For the earlier period, clothing was essentially the same as that provided to indentured servants. Later there was more variety and sometimes references as to colors or pattern were noted in the records. Men frequently got blue and white striped trousers and women had checked or plaid cottons. Occasionally hints are given as to the comparative size of slave women in the number of yards allotted for their dresses. In both periods the tailor in some guise or other was important. Sometimes cutting was performed off the site and sewing farmed out among wives of employees or servants at Hampton, but usually both functions fell to one hired individual. At any rate, in the latter period at least, the mistress of Hampton knew where to get material, how much to get, and how to have it processed for a sizeable community. This was no mean task.

What then was the nature of slavery at Hampton? It needs to be remembered that virtually everything we know came from whites and reflects their perspectives. This alone should make us treat the evidence gingerly. There is another voice, unrecorded so far, from a different perspective. We know nothing, for example, of life in the quarters. Did the slaves strum banjoes of an evening and sing spirituals, or were they too worn out to do much more than eat and go to bed? Was there happiness or chronic discontent, and if the latter did it reflect a general slave attitude? Hopes for freedom were totally impractical for many slaves until the Governor’s manumission and general emancipation thirty-five years later. An occasional escapee made it into freedom, the number rises sharply after mid-nineteenth century. But escape was increasingly into a hostile environment where nothing–food, raiment, or shoes–was provided. Escape was really not an option for most slaves until the very end. But did that kill the desire for freedom?

The biographies of two Hampton slave women–Nancy Davis and Lucy Jackson–may suggest the range of attitudes among slaves and ex-slaves. Nancy has emerged as the model slave to most whites–a strong personality, and favored for that, but loyal to death. Nancy came to Hampton from the adjacent Cowpens property with Margaretta Howard when she married John and Eliza E. R. Ridgely’s son and heir, still another Charles (b. 1830). She married a Hampton slave and became a much loved personal servant to the Ridgely children. Six photographs of her exist in the Ridgely archives, unique because she is the only slave who can be identified among thousands of family photographs. The earliest of these shows young Didy Ridgely snuggling against Nancy for protection from the camera. Emancipation came and Nancy stayed with the family. She, indeed, is the only African-American buried in the Ridgely family cemetery and has been advanced for decades as the typical Ridgely slave. (29)

Jenny Masur, however, compiled a list of Hampton escapees and found evidence of more than sixty over the years. So was Nancy typical? In contrast stands the history of Lucy Jackson who was bought from Samuel Owings Hoffman for $400 in 1838 Her age was never recorded. She was pregnant when bought which probably elevated her price from the average of about $270 for a woman of child-bearing age at the time. A son Henry was born in the month after her purchase and she had another son George in 1842. The latter died quickly and the mother apparently talked the Ridgelys into burying him in the downtown Catholic cemetery and underwriting the bill, a fairly astonishing piece of work.. During her entire career at Hampton, Lucy served as a house servant, in continuous and close contact with the family. Such servants traded better food and clothing for the increased freedom from the family eye that farm servants enjoyed. The office of house servant, however, argues for a strong measure of docility or at least diplomacy. Lucy apparently acted as housekeeper, probably the most prestigious position among those slaves. We can trace semi-annual grants of clothing and shoes to her and Henry, but there is little to separate Nancy or Lucy from other employees in these years. Young ‘Didy’ Ridgely brought home a ‘three bright color comfort’ for Henry when she attended school in Baltimore in 1841, and he is included in the yearly Christmas presents from the Ridgelys during his childhood as were dozens of others. (30)

Henry apparently fled, however, in 1861 when he was about twenty-three. That perhaps emboldened his mother, because Lucy herself is missing from the semi-annual clothing lists after May 1862, well before the 1864 Maryland emancipation. She did not return but instead, in 1866, engaged a Washington lawyer to write the Ridgelys demanding the despatch of property she claimed to have left behind. The letter reveals a new side of Lucy for it claims that the property was given her by ‘her free Husband.’ An unique listing of the items includes twenty-one dresses, including six of silk, six pairs of ‘White Lace Sleeves,’ and ‘furrs & muff.’ Whatever the validity of the claims in the letter, it nonetheless throws into relief a Lucy very far from being traditional white perception of the docile and apparently contented slave. With better chances for successful flight than most, she, certainly, personified the discontent and desire for freedom that was typical of many slaves. (31)

In sum, the Ridgelys provided the material necessities of life for their slave population. They were, however, participants in and perpetuators of an indefensible system of the enslavement and complete domination of fellow humans. As owners, there were among the masters of Hampton, men who were talented and admirable in many respects, but except for the Governor none seems to have sensed the awfulness of what they perpetuated. Even he denied himself nothing by manumission, and kept many in servitude long after they were able to support themselves. Hundreds of slave lives depended on the whim of an individual. Henry White wrote that the system injured whites as well as blacks, and it is clear that he meant injury by being tied to something indefensible as well as the great waste of time and energy consumed in fear and in assuaging guilt.. He notes that his grandmother, Eliza E. R. Ridgely, in her declining years lived in mortal dread of slave insurrection and violence. A woman of great capabilities, sensitivity and talent, she was consumed by fear of what she and her husband had produced--the very group who made the lifestyle she had chosen possible. There is no measuring conscience, but it is likely that a good part of Eliza’s disturbance was the result of hers. (32)

Notes

Home

History | Park Resources | Slavery | Activity Schedule | Take a Tour
Directions | Administrative Information | Site Map | Resources for Teachers

Last Modified: Wednesday, 22-Dec-2004 09:39:26 Eastern Standard Time
http://www.nps.gov/archive/hamp/lancaster2.htm
Author: William Blair Curtis
E-mail: The park's Superintendent