WINDSOR, Vt. – Professor Harvey Amani Whitfield’s July talk at the Windsor Historical Society described the case of a “freed” slave who lived in that town in 1807. Dinah, formerly belonging to the household of Judge Stephen Jacobs, was “blind, sick and infirm” when Jacobs freed her, and shows up in the historical record in a court case.
Although Vermonters are proud of their state’s legacy in advancing the cause of freedom, Whitfield’s research shows that moral evolution was not straightforward, and that the very laws abolishing slavery could be manipulated by wealthy and powerful citizens to their advantage.
Whitfield discovered records of the town’s case against Judge Jacobs, in which the selectboard sued Jacobs for Dinah’s support. The selectboard argued that Jacobs must have been aware he was breaking the law by holding her in slavery, and that Jacobs therefore owed the selectboard for her upkeep in the 7 years since she left his household.
Jacobs argued that since slavery was not legal, Dinah could not have been his slave – although the prosecution introduced the bill of sale.
Judy Hayward, Director of Historic Windsor, said the group became involved in this project when it bought the Stephen Jacobs house in 2008. Hayward noted that the Vermont Constitution, abolishing slavery, was signed 250 years ago.
“When you look at the beautiful words in the Vermont Constitution, how could this happen?” asked Whitfield. “We have to acknowledge how incredibly innovative and groundbreaking (the 1777 Constitution) was.”
Nevertheless, said Whitfield, slavery persisted in Vermont for 30 more years.
“Why did slavery persist? When you free adults over 18 and 21 you leave a gigantic loophole to enslave children,” said Whitfield. He said a generous interpretation would see that as accommodating apprenticeships. A less generous interpretation might see it as compensating slave owners for the loss of their property. “It allowed slavery to continue throughout Vermont. Those are good years of labor; ages 13-21.”
“Slave owners could and did continue to benefit from black child labor,” said Whitfield. Further, parents of those children might choose to stay on in order to remain with their children.
“The continuing existence of child slavery allowed slave owners ample time to devise methods to sell their slaves to New Hampshire, (other states) or the West Indies.” Further, how could Vermont authorities verify that a slave was not yet an adult before she or he was sold? “They couldn’t.”
“Indentured black children lived in an incredibly dangerous situation, where they could be sold out of state,” said Whitfield. He brought up an example in Bennington, citing a pastor Avery there who brought a female slave with him. Whitfield found that a majority of people supported Avery, including the people in the church. They knew he had a slave “and didn’t actually care.”
Another example of a prominent citizen was Jotham White of Springfield Vt., who sold an eight-year-old boy to a Mr. Hastings of New Hampshire for 35 pounds silver. It’s unknown who this boy’s mother was, which brought Whitfield to another point: Slave women had a double burden; the burden of slavery, and having children as the product of rape.
Whitfield then spoke about the “archival silence” on enslaved women. “We mean the archive silences the actual lived experience of enslaved people, and especially enslaved women. As I go through the story of Dinah, you’ll see what I have in mind. Dinah’s experience may be similar to other enslaved women’s, but she ends up in a State Supreme Court case. Most female slaves don’t have their stories told in a State Supreme Court case.”
In 1783, Jotham White sold a female slave, about 30 years of age, named Dinah, to Stephen Jacobs of Windsor. She lived in Jacob’s household for 17 years, at which time she was 47, blind, and infirm. According to the census, she lived in Jacob’s household with another black person but it’s not clear who that person was.
After Dinah became sick, she boarded with several local families. Her death is recorded in town records, her identity: “a woman of color.”
Jacob, on the other hand, was prominent in state government, a lawyer and a judge. He was well aware of the law he wasn’t enforcing. He served on the governor’s council and was sitting on the Supreme Court at the time the selectboard brought suit against him for Dinah’s care.
The plaintiff’s counsel argued that “no person can hold a slave de jure by our Constitution, but can do so by de facto,” and said there was a moral obligation on the master of a slave to support her in her infirmity.
Jacob’s counsel argued that Dinah would have continued in his service but was “inveigled by the siren songs of liberty and equality” away from him, and that further, Jacobs would have tried to get her back “except for his obedience to the Constitution.”
“I’ve read weird things in the history of slavery, but this is great,” said Whitfield, shaking his head. Jacobs told the court the best way to handle the situation was to “warn her out of town,” which they did.
Dinah, however, refused to go, and was cared for at the town’s expense. She is buried in an unmarked grave in Windsor.
Amanda Smith, who introduced the talk, suggested erecting a marker for Dinah in the Old South Church yard, where “there is evidence she cared for children during services.”
Whitfield points out that one of the myths of slavery is that the slaveowners cared for their slaves when they were too old to work – “Uncle Remus is sitting on the porch with Ole Massa, drinking mint juleps. But Vermont law shows that’s not true.”