Even during slavery, the parents of black children sometimes chose whom their children dated and married, although circumstances might limit their influence. As expected, then, when freedom arrived, they often took it upon themselves to play a major role in determining whom their children were to date and marry. After all, to do so was consistent with their concern for the welfare of the family. Since the position of breadwinner fell on the male, parents were especially interested in the marital partners selected by their daughters. Dicy Windfield, a former slave, recalled, “when I wuz ‘bout eighteen years ole I met de boy dat I married. Pa an’ ma never would let us chillun run ‘bout none so he wuz de onliest boy I ever did court. We wont allowed to go no whars together to ‘mount to nothin’.”117 Another freedwoman, Lucy Dunn, remembered that during the whole year of her courtship with her future husband, they were seldom alone. Not only did her mother accompany them when they walked home from church, but she also forbade Lucy to walk her suitor to the gate at the end of his Sunday visits. Lucy, however, finally won a big concession after her future husband proposed to her. She was allowed to walk him to the gate provided that her mother “was settin dere on de’ porch lookin.”118 Laura Bell met her future husband when she was only twelve years old. Her parents told her that she was too young to have a male friend, but they gave their blessings to her seeing him at an older age if she still wanted to.119
At least in these cases, former slaves were eventually given their parents’ blessings to marry. This, however, was not the case for some others. For example, one young woman remarked on the frustrating veto that her mother had held over her marriage plans. “My first husband courted me seven years,” she related, “and then liked to have steadied me ‘for my mother never did say yes.”120 George Weathersby remembered the problems while trying to date the woman who eventually became his wife of more than fifty years. According to Weathersby, “My love affair wont very smooth as de gals pa did not want us to git married an’did a heap o’ interferring.” At several points in their relationship, the woman’s father was working hard to keep them from getting married. But, since they loved each other so much, “de more he tried to break us up de more us wuz determined.” With the aid of his brother Steve and two cousins, Weathersby concocted a plan to steal his future wife from her father. Although the plot did not turn out exactly as planned, his lover did escape from her father and she and Weathersby were subsequently married.121
Although enslaved parents had insisted upon respect from their children and were not reluctant to use the rod on them, they would now decide when and how their children were to be punished. One freedwoman became defiant when her former master claimed the right to whip her children, boldly informing him that “he warn’t goin’ to brush none of her chilluns no more.”122 In another case, Eliza James refused to punish her son because a white man had demanded it. She explained that “she would not whip her child for no poor White folks.” For a white person to either claim the right to beat black children or demand their punishment, smacked of slavery to most freedmen and women, and this they would not tolerate.123
Once freedom arrived, some black women refused to let their sons and daughters accept clothing donated by whites that they considered ill-fitting or immodest. As free men and women, they might be poor but they were proud. Many regarded it as a badge of honor not to accept hand-me-downs from whites. Freedmen’s Bureau officials were sometimes baffled by this refusal. Northern teachers were also taken aback. Mary Ames, a Yankee, recorded in her diary: “One girl brought back a dress she had taken home for ‘Ma says it don’t fit, and she don’t want it.’ It was rather large and short, but she was very dirty and ragged, and we told her she must keep it.”124
Black men and women also took steps to free their families economically from white control now that they had been emancipated. Black men often forbade their wives and children to continue to work in the fields or as domestic servants in white households, believing that such work was a mark of slavery. One freedman told a former master who was attempting to hire his wife as a servant, “When I married my wife I married her to wait on me. She got all she can do right here for me and the children.”125 As the heads of their families under emancipation, black men hoped to be able to allow their wives to remain at home to care for the household. This was seen as important, not just so that black women could have roles similar to those of white women, but also so that black women could be protected from the sexual exploitation that had existed under slavery.126 In addition, freedmen regarded a nonworking wife as a symbol of a financially successful husband able to support her without her having to work outside the household.127
Many black women were happy to stay at home and no longer work in the fields or as domestic servants in white households. They, too, wanted to reduce the chances of sexual exploitation by white men and to devote more time than had been possible under slavery to caring for their children and attending to their own households.128 Withdrawal from the fields and from the white plantation house was also tied to their insistence on working less and differently than they had as slaves and was part of their strategy to take absolute control over their time and labor. Historian Leslie Schwalm has shown that with respect to freedwomen in the South Carolina Low Country, this strategy may have reflected their efforts to cope with the conditions of life after the war. Owing to the physical devastation of the countryside, the shortage of food, clothing, and the most basic necessities, and the poor harvests of the 1860s, home labor increased after the war.129 Noralee Frankel argues that freedwomen in Mississippi chose to work in their own households as much as possible because they needed more time for their families. Cooking and clothes-making often ceased to be communal activities as they had been under slavery.130 Moreover, now that they were free, some black women felt that they should stay at home and be supported by their husbands just as white women were by their men. As one planter learned, “The black women say they never mean to do any more outdoor work; ... white men support their wives and they mean that their husbands shall support them.”131
White Southerners found the withdrawal of black women and children from wage labor intolerable because it upset the daily operations of many white households. Furthermore, it smacked of social equality for black families to have the same roles and expectations for their members that white families had. These fears were unwarranted, however, for the shift in the locus of black female labor from field work and paid domestic service to the unpaid maintenance of their own homes proved to be only temporary. With the rising cost of rents and the dire poverty of most black families as a consequence of the depression of the 1870s, it became necessary for both black men and women to contribute to the family’s income. Therefore, although emancipation did not eliminate wage labor by black women and children, it fundamentally altered control over it. The family itself, headed now by the black man, not the white owner or overseer, made the decision about where and when black women and children would work. Thus, blacks were able to liberate their families to some extent from the authority of whites.132 This liberation was to them an important element of freedom.
Emancipation also transformed the black family itself. Within the slave family, men were not the breadwinners and their authority was limited. The dominance of masters was paramount. In a real sense, both black men and black women were powerless during slavery, but with emancipation men’s new role strengthened their position within the family and institutionalized the notion that men and women should inhabit separate spheres. Thus, for the first time, many black men assumed authority and a sense of superiority over women.133
This evolution was strongly influenced by outside events. Because black men had fought in the Union army, they had been able to participate more directly than women in the struggle for freedom. Also, black men assumed the same attitude toward women that they saw in white men and that was supported by the policies of the Freedmen’s Bureau. The Bureau officially designated the man as the head of the black ho
usehold, insisting that men sign contracts for the labor of their entire families and establishing wage scales that set lower wages for women than for men doing identical plantation labor. Political developments also contributed to promoting the notion that black men should be dominant over black women. Whereas both black men and women participated in informal mass meetings in the early days of freedom, only black men served as delegates to organized black conventions. Black men were given the right to serve on juries, vote, hold office, and play a leading role in the Republican Party. But neither black nor white women could vote and play formal roles in political parties. And although militia units and fraternal societies might have female auxiliaries, their memberships were all male.134
THE ADOPTION OF NAMES ASSOCIATED WITH FREEDOM
Of all the changes brought by emancipation, perhaps none meant more to the former slaves as a symbol of their new status than the opportunity to choose names and surnames. Most black children were named after their parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles during slavery, but often slaveholders assigned names from ancient history or mythology such as Primus, Bacchus, Scipio, Orpheus, and Caesar. Biblical names such as Isaiah, Moses, Joshua, and Ezekiel symbolized blacks’ new status as free men and women and continued to be passed from one generation to the next. After emancipation, there appeared a host of Anglo-Saxon-sounding names such as Mary, Elizabeth, John, William, Charles, and George, which also were identified with freedom.
Once freedom came, blacks also acquired surnames. Some adopted the surnames of their masters, not out of affection, but because it was convenient and the easiest way to be identified. The slaves on the same plantation with Martin Jackson of Texas, for example, took the name of their owner, Fitzpatrick.135 George Selman and his parents also adopted the surname of their owner at the time of emancipation.136 Likewise, Albert Henderson took his owner’s name when he was freed.137 Hundreds took the names of historic or public figures such as Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Grant, Hamilton, Lincoln, Fillmore, Madison, or Polk—names that were associated with the concepts of independence and freedom. Nelson Polk, for instance, was named after President James Polk rather than any master.138 And Austin Grant’s father took his name from General Ulysses Grant, and his grandfather was named for President Millard Fillmore.139
Other blacks adopted surnames because they simply liked the way they sounded or found them to be unique. Some had an emotional or cultural appeal. Aaron Ray recalled, “Me an’ my sister us changed our names to Ray case us jes’ lak dat name, an’ hit wuz anodder name, an‘ dar didn’t seem to be noboddy dat had dat kind ob er name.”140 James Martin took the surname Martin after the man who brought his grandfather from England,141 and Martin Jackson adopted the surname Jackson because one of his grandfathers in Africa was called Jeaceo.142 In most cases, however, blacks took the name of the first master in the family’s oral history, as far back as it could be recalled.143 For instance, although William Moore and his parents were owned by Tom Waller when emancipation arrived, they called themselves Moore after their first owner.144 Similarly, although the family of Mandy Jones was owned by a man named Stewart, the family took the surname of their first owner, named Young.145 Like their black counterparts living in Southern states, Seminole freedmen adopted the last names of their fathers or former owners. To the citizenship rolls of the Seminole Nation were added the family names of Abraham, Cudjo, Dindy, Primus, and Sandy—names still borne by their descendants today.146 Regardless of the name, it was important to blacks that they made the decision themselves without the interference of whites.
Along with the symbolic disassociation from whites represented by their taking new names came efforts by freedmen to physically separate themselves from whites, the most visible reminders of slavery. Whitelaw Reid noted that “the more intelligent negroes generally think it would be better for their people to be freed from contact with the whites; but their idea of accomplishing it is, not to remove the blacks, but to have the whites remove from them.” Thus, Reid continued, “They believe in colonization; but it is in colonization on the lands they have been working.”147 Apparently, a large number of freedmen and women shared this view. Annie Young, a former slave, recalled that “after the war my stepfather come, and got my mother and we moved out in the piney woods.”148 One freedman’s former owner offered him a nice house nearby, but he refused to accept it and moved instead to a shack in “Freetown.” He also declined the former owner’s offer to grind his grain at no charge because it “make him feel like a free man to pay for things just like anyone else.”149 In an effort to minimize contact with whites, freedmen built all-black communities where they could live among themselves and control their own affairs. All-black communities were established at Princeville, North Carolina; James City, North Carolina, near New Bern; Kendleton, Shankleville, and Board House, all in Texas, to name only a few.150 Some of these all-black settlements still exist today. Princeville, for example, was a relatively thriving town until Hurricane Floyd devastated it in September 1999.
PROBLEMS WITHIN AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
Strengthening the bonds of their own community was a major goal of freedmen, but the new black community was confronted with many serious problems. Despite the fact that most black men fulfilled their roles as husbands and fathers admirably, some did not. They beat their spouses, were adulterous, refused to support their families, and broke promises to prospective wives. Black women in the South flooded the Freedmen’s Bureau with complaints about these marital problems. Julia Gibson reported that her husband beat her over the head and bit her hand. 151 A woman named Esther was constantly whipped and maltreated by her husband, who also threatened to poison her.152 Julia Ray complained that her husband, Alec, beat her badly, and a Freedmen’s Bureau official noted that “her appearance is such as to indicate a gross assault.”153 Rose Freeman’s husband, David, repeatedly beat her and refused to support her. When Rose informed him that she would go to the Bureau to lodge a complaint against him, he replied, “damn the Freedmen’s Bureau—I’ll cuss you before them.”154 Betty Ann Ellington caught Harry, her husband, in their bed with another woman. When she confronted him, “he seized her by the throat and choked and beat her.” He took his belongings and left with the woman, deserting not only Betty Ann but his three children as well.155 Harriet Buchanan accused her husband, Alfred, of having sexual relations with another woman. Alfred eventually moved in with the woman, leaving the two children behind with Harriet. When Harriet charged him with living with the woman, Alfred beat her.156 Charlotte Brown complained to Bureau officials that her husband, George, was having illicit sexual intercourse with a white woman, Amelia Tines. After promising to foresake his bad conduct, he was caught by Charlotte at Amelia’s house. When Charlotte struck Amelia twice, George intervened and “held her off the woman and put her out of the yard and picked up a stick and struck her with it and put a large hole in her head.”157
Black women were not reluctant to file charges against the white fathers of their babies if they refused to support their children. Harriet Ogleby, for example, asked the Bureau to assist her in forcing Drew Ogleby, the father of her son, Beauregard, to provide child support.158 Ellen Nesbit also went before the Bureau to argue that Frank Lumpkin, a white man, was the father of her son Frank, and that he was not providing support.159
Sometimes the Freedmen’s Bureau rendered decisions favorable to black female complainants. For example, Celia Horn successfully sued her husband for child support. Reese Horn was ordered to immediately pay twelve dollars and then two dollars per month for two years. George Washington Holmes was forced by the Bureau to support Louisa, his former wife, and their children, whom he had deserted.160 A father in Louisiana was ordered by a Bureau officer to pay four dollars per month for his daughter’s upkeep until she was ten years old. Ellen Nesbit and three other women from Athens, Georgia, received lump-sum payments of $50 to $60 from the white fathers of their children.161 Henry Goaldsby was found guilty of brea
ch of promise to marry Amanda Moore and fined $150. And a man named Simmons lived with Ann Marshall for several years. Even though Ann gave him her savings of almost $400, he refused to marry her. He was heavily fined for using the prospect of marriage to defraud her.162
Black men also complained of being physically, psychologically, or emotionally abused. David Fry accused his wife of beating him, refusing to sleep in the same bed with him, and denying him all “matrimonial connections.”163 Jackson Fields of Louisville, Kentucky, swore in an affidavit before a Freedmen’s Bureau agent that his first wife, Sarah, had been unfaithful to him, having lived with another man while he was in the armed forces. As a result of Sarah’s alleged infidelity, Jackson felt justified in taking another wife. Jackson was so incensed at Sarah that he refused to pay child support. After hearing the case, the Bureau agent gave judgment that Jackson pay fifty dollars to Sarah “to assist in supporting her child of which he is the Father.”164
During Reconstruction, the black community was confronted with problems such as unemployment, hunger, homelessness, prostitution, drunkenness, and lack of adequate medical attention. In order to solve these problems, however, blacks relied upon a tradition of self-help that they had developed during slavery. They counted on themselves, not on the Federal government or sympathetic Northern whites. Freedmen took great pride in their ability to care for their orphans, widows, widowers, cripples, and those who were destitute through their own mutual-aid and beneficial societies. Beneficial societies required members to pay dues so that funds would be available to provide respectable funerals for their members and to pay death benefits to their widows and children. Mutual-aid societies were organized for the benefit of members but they sometimes would help poor nonmembers as well. As soon as the war ended, blacks in Nashville, Jackson, New Orleans, Atlanta, Richmond, Charleston, and in many rural areas began the work that would bring them pride and dignity as a community, raising money to establish orphanages, soup kitchens, employment agencies, and funds for relief of the poor. Although not exclusively, most of the beneficial and mutual aid societies were organized by black churches. They will be discussed in detail in Chapter Seven.
Climbing Up to Glory Page 21