The Burlington County Court Book has little to offer about Thomas Greene, but there was one incident witnessed by him that tells us a lot about life (and death) in West New Jersey in the 1680s.
On August 9, 1686, Thomas Greene and Katherine Greene were called as witnesses in the case against James Wills, who was accused of beating “a Negro woman” to death. More specifically, he pleaded not guilty to “giving the woman Negro any blowes that occasioned her death.” He did admit to burying the woman without notifying any official of her death, “not knowing that the Lawe required there should have beene an Inquest touching the cause of her death.”1
Katherine Greene testified that “the Negro woman Servant [was] by said James Wills sent to be a while at the house of the said Katharine.” She had come to get some advice from “a Negro that belongs to the said Katharine” regarding “some distemper [she had] upon her.” That “distemper,” which sounds so mild, was a “back very sore.” The Negro woman told Katharine it was caused by “Fum, fum, which is (beating) and that further shee the said Katharine found a small Scarr upon her Belly which was sore,” which had also come from a beating. But Katharine did not think any of these injuries would cause the woman’s death. Thomas Greene testified to the same.
Throughout the testimony of this case, the woman’s name was never mentioned, and she was never described as a slave, even though Wills was called her “Master.” But her use of the expression “fum fum” suggests that she came from Jamaica, for the term does appear in the Dictionary of Jamaican English. (Thanks to Ben Zimmer for that tip.) Perhaps the most poignant testimony was given by William Myers:
“. . . hee heard at a Considerable distance many blowes or stripes and walking onward as hee thought hee heard a Negro Cry out many tymes, and soe heard stripes or lashes continued till hee gott home, and then he supposed it to be James Wills beating his Negro woman, and heard still many Lashes more and Crying out, until hee was greevd and went into his owne house and shut the dore, and said to his wife oh! Yond cruell man, and sayth hee believes hee heard full a hundred stripes or lashes, but did not see James Wills beat his Negro.”2
But there were a couple eye-witnesses—blacksmith Thomas Gladwyn and William Peachee. They appeared in court to say what they saw, but despite being “greeved,” they returned to the Smithy to continue with their work, and so could not testify that the woman died of her wounds. Worse testimony came from James Hill who said he saw Wills
“Beat his said Negro and tye her hands, and hang her up, but that her feet reached the ground and might sustaine the weight of her body, but hee believes it was painfull to her and that hee [James Hill] took her downe, but sayth the Negro was soe stubborne and willfull that might well provoke any Master to use her sharply: But sayth hee saw nothing done to the Negro that in his Judgment might be the cause of her death; But that hee this Deponent believes she was unsound.”
The Jury found Wills not guilty of the woman’s death. Either they thought murder was not proved or that her ‘stubborn and willfull’ character made lawful what Wills’ had done–in other words, justifiable homicide. They seem to have been a little uncomfortable about this, noting that she was “unsound,” meaning ill.
“But in regard it appears the said Negro was unsound, it was a fault, that hee did not therefore be the more spareing; and for that hee buryed her without a Jury or Inquest.”
And so, for punishment, he was required to pay all court costs. Such a slap on the wrist for what we would consider a heinous offense. And so mild compared to the punishment meted out to the rapist Charles Sheepey.
These were godly Quakers, after all, and yet they seemed to believe that severely beating a Negro woman was permissible. Distasteful, perhaps, but nothing to interfere with. And yet it would be wrong to conclude that these people were heartless. They were good people, but they were blinded by custom to acts that are now unacceptable. It tells you a lot about the power of culture to influence our judgments and blind us to the humanity of others.
Jerseyman
November 27, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
Marfy:
The Burlington Court Book is full of factual stories waiting to be told. You have done justice to this one.
The second OED entry for “fum” indicate it means “thump or beat,” which may be derived from the first entry, “To play (on a guitar) with fingers” or “strum” or “thrum.” The OED further illuminates the second entry for “fum” with the following:
“(The quotation is negro-English but compare to Fum-Fum below)
1790 J.B. Moreton W. Indies 254 ‘Then misses fum me wid long switch…me fum’d when me no…me fum’d too if me do it.’”
A check of Moreton’s work confirms he derived the above quoted phrases from the Island of Jamaica.
Likewise, the OED has several entries for “unsound,” including both physical illness and mental illness. From re-reading the passages in the Burlington Court Book concerning the case, I discern that both definitions may be inferred.
James Wills, son of Dr. Daniel Wills, was an artesan in the coopering trade. His name appears numerous times throughout the Burlington Court Book in various capacities. When he died in November 1700, his personal estate inventory aggregated to £388, including “three (3) slaves” valued at £125 Sterling.
The Quakers who meted out justice in Burlington often failed to recognize the humanity of those involved in the cases brought before them, particularly as it applied to blacks and also to criminal “inhabitants.” Regarding the issue of slavery and the Society of Friends, those in England initiated the first discussions of slavery and its evils during the late seventeenth century. The Quaker meetings that operated under the aegis of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting did not adhere to decisions emanating from the society in Great Britain, so these American meetings lagged behind in enlightened thinking. The Chester Meeting in Pennsylvania drafted the first language in the Middle-Atlantic colonies concerning society members owning slaves in 1711. West New Jersey meetings soon began their own discussions, with the Haddonfield Quarterly Meeting directed the Monthly Meeting “…to make inquiries into, and to answer in their reports, the situation of their members, “respecting the buying and selling slaves” during First month, 1738. John Woolman, among others, led the Burlington Meeting members to receive testamony against slavery beginning in 1758.
Best regards,
Jerseyman
Marfy Goodspeed
November 27, 2010 @ 7:40 pm
Dear Jerseyman,
Thank you for the thoughtful comment and for fleshing out the story.
You cited the OED which connected “fum fum” with the sound of a drum or guitar, but it seems to me that the term is scarily onomatopoeic for the sound created by a lash on a bare back. Perhaps that’s just my too vivid imagination. Before finding this court case, it had not occurred to me that the early Quakers of West Jersey were slave owners. I’ve had to revise my ideas about them.
After publishing this post, I came across an interesting article by Kristen Block, “Cultivating Inner and Outer Plantations: Property, Industry, and Slavery in Early Quaker Migration to the New World (Early American Studies, vol. 8, no. 3 (Fall 2010) pp. 515-548). She describes the development of Quaker slave-holding in Barbados, prior to the Quaker settlements in the mid-Atlantic, and how ambivalent the Quakers were about the peculiar institution that made it possible for so many of them to become wealthy. Ms. Block also mentions how English Quakers were disconcerted by the slave-holding practices of American Quakers. And she points out that the slave-owners were the wealthiest Quakers and thus had enough influence to overrule Quakers who were uncomfortable with the practice. All in all, a fascinating subject.