EDITOR’S NOTE: This article may include historical materials that could contain offensive language or negative stereotypes. Such materials must be viewed in the context of the relevant time period. The Georgetown Times does not endorse the views expressed in such materials.

By Tom Rubillo

Mood and Prioleau were publicly hanged for advocating rebellion against the tyranny of slavery. X (name unknown) suffered the same fate for threatening the woman who reported their urging. Quacooo was banished to some tropical island and resold into bondage for his effort to gain freedom.

All four men were tried by a judge and jury of slave owners. The worst fear of these owners was retaliation for the cruelties of slavery. Trials of plot leaders gave each jurist the opportunity to confront (or, more accurately, to try to get control of) their fear. Judging themselves blameless in causing resentment and rebellion, owners responded harshly and made examples out of those thought to be leaders.

Trials of X, Mood and Prioleau were convened within days after their arrest. Quacooo’s trial followed a week or two later.

At the trials, the accused were not represented by legal counsel. They were not permitted to offer evidence or any defense. Instead, unsworn testimony was admitted against each, all without cross-examination. Witnesses were rewarded with acquittals of pending charges arising out of the same events. Execution by hanging followed immediately after guilty verdicts were announced. Attendance of other slaves at the spectacle was mandatory, all as a lesson to other would-be plotters. While legally entitled to “benefit of clergy,” annals do not report whether that solace was provided to the three men before they were lynched.

Oddly, there was an appeal in Quacooo’s case, but only for the purpose of determining whether his “owner,” Francis Kinloch, was entitled to be paid by the State of South Carolina for the loss of Quacooo’s services as had happened with claims for the loss of use of X, Mood and Prioleau. (Basically, a 5th Amendment claim for “just compensation” because of a “taking” of “private property” by the government.) It is because of that appeal — for money, not justice or mercy — that any record exists of this incident.

The gravamen of Kinloch’s appeal was that judges could only acquit or hang Quacooo, not order his deportation to avoid paying Kinloch for loss of his slave’s services. Questions about the fairness of trial procedures were incidental to this monetary issue. They had little to do with Quacooo. As far as Quacooo was concerned, he would either be (a) banished and resold, (b) returned to his bondage at the hands of Kinloch or (c) hung. He would not be set free, no matter what the appellate court decided.

Kinloch was legally entitled to the proceeds of the resale of Quacooo to a slaver in the tropics, so the South Carolina Supreme Court denied Kinloch’s request for a governmental bailout. As to the quality of justice meted out, the Court ruled that slaves “have no rights, other than those which their masters or owners may give them.”

In its 1830 opinion in Kinloch v. Harvey, the Court rationalized that formal legal protection was not required because “[t]he great security and happiness of the slave is the humanity and kindness of his master and [the] interest he [the owner] has in the preservation of his [the slave’s] health and bodily labor; which, in return, requires of his master protection, kindness and every necessary support for his sustenance and comfort.”

According to the Court, this “protection” and “kindness” included “usual and common” forms of antebellum justice like “whipping, branding, cropping or other infamous punishments” like hanging, all without the benefit of any trial at all, no matter what the motives of the accuser might be, the truth of the matter, how unfair the procedures or how premeditated the verdict.

This regression into a previously published episode of local history serves a purpose. It is to try to answer the question that the Supreme Court begged in its opinion. It is this: If 90 percent of Georgetown’s population was dependent upon the level of “humanity and kindness” of the remaining 10 percent, just how “humane” and “kind” were those who held their fellow human beings in bondage?

One way to look for an answer to this question is to resort to modem techniques relied on by mental health professionals. Psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors and others follow a process of first identifying an individual’s negative or harmful behaviors or traits and then treating them. A central part of any treatment regimen is some form of psychoanalysis — generally speaking, an effort to increase the patient’s level of self-awareness. When successful, treatment results in happier and emotionally healthier people who have greater control over their own emotions and lives. There is a catch, however. To work, people have to be honest with themselves about themselves. That can be very painful.

This same process can be used to analyze whole groups of people. If successful, it can lead to a healthier, freer and more self-directed society. All that is needed is some painfully honest introspection and a desire for a more harmonious community. To answer the question about Georgetown’s antebellum 10 percent, what would be needed is a bit of honest introspection by some of the people who were part of that group. As it turns out, reliable, straightforward information of that type is available about that 10 percent whose “humanity and kindness” determined the quality of life of those enslaved in days now long past.

Joseph Alston of All Saint’s Parish was born into a family of plantation owners. The family owned hundreds of slaves and accumulated a great deal of land, possessions and money over the years. Measured by money, Alston and his extended family numbered among South Carolina’s most successful citizens. He candidly reported character traits of slave owners in a love letter to Theodosia Burr (daughter of Vice President Aaron Burr), the woman he was wooing at the time and eventually married. Being part of an ancient document written for another purpose, today’s court’s of law would likely deem this document sufficiently reliable to be admissible in evidence.

To reassure the otherwise privileged Theodosia that life in Georgetown would prove agreeable should she choose to marry him, Joseph Alston wrote that the community in which he lived was “divided into but two classes, very rich and very poor … one having large fortunes, and being very little disposed by the climate to the drudgery of business or professions, [who] have full leisure.” Theodosia would join this privileged group should the couple wed.

Having so much time on their hands, Alston described his friends and acquaintances (and, by implication, himself) as being both well read and interesting conversationalists. Theodosia would, therefore, enjoy the company she kept should she marry Joseph.

As to the people who labored on behalf of this leisure class, Alston made no mention. But he did describe the effect that the institution of slavery had on the people who were his social peers.

“The possession of slaves renders them [the privileged] proud, impatient of restraint, and gives them a haughtiness of manner which those unaccustomed to them is disagreeable.”

By definition, “haughty” people are “distainfully proud; snobbish; scornfully arrogant; supercilious.” Being well read, Alston would have known the meaning of the word he used.

Alston further described his fellows as “easily irritated and quick to resent even the appearance of insult.” Short-tempered and vengeful.

In a letter to Mrs. Albert Gallatin, Maria Nicholson offered an independent assessment of Alston’s personality as someone who was “… dissipated, ill-tempered, vain and silly … ugly and unprepossessing of manners.” Extravagant, self-possessed and rude.

If anything, the descriptions in these two separate letters are consistent. Other historical records support their overall accuracy.

James Hamilton lived at Hopsewee Plantation on the North Santee River. He and his wife traveled in Alston’s social circle.

Like his peers, Hamilton had a reputation for being a hot-head. For just one example, accused by his brother-in-law, John Bowman, of having sired several “Northern children,” Hamilton challenged Bowman to a duel and shot his kinsman over the allegation. It is unclear whether the greater part of the insult had to do with illegitimacy or geography.

Hamilton’s quick temper and violent responses had made him something of a hero among Georgetown’s economic top tier. His notoriety came from two things. First, he survived all 14 of the duels in which he participated as a principal. He apparently was an admirably good shot.

Second, while a few duels (like that with his brother-in-law) involved personal matters, most of Hamilton’s challenges involved political disagreements or differences of opinion, indicting he was rigid in his beliefs, a trait often mistaken for strength of character rather than obstinance.

Hamilton was a staunch member of the State’s Rights Association, the leading advocate of the notion of nullification — the right of State governments to ignore federal laws, tariffs or treaties any individual State found inconvenient or disagreeable. This position was espoused mostly by the wealthy Southern planters who feared interference with their ownership of slaves. In fact, the national debate at the time was over whether slavery should be permitted in newly settled areas west of the Mississippi River. Hamilton’s group said the matter should be left to the new States and territories.

Nullificationists were opposed by those who looked to the central government to limit the expansion of slavery and/or for protection of individual rights of otherwise free men. In Georgetown, relatively few free people opposed slavery. Those who did were mostly Methodists. But whatever their views on the question of human bondage, local tradesmen, merchants, farmers, fishermen, seafarers and other less wealthy folks did support federal protection of their own liberty — the need for a separate Bill of Rights guaranteeing their basic freedoms. They did that because they did not want to be under the thumb of a monied aristocracy.

Intolerant of those who disagreed with him, Hamilton would challenge his political opponents to a duel and shoot them. The rules covering these events were ultimately set out in detail in “The Code of Honor; or, Rules for the government of Principals and Seconds in Dueling” by Georgetown’s own John Lide Wilson, himself a member of the moneyed class. Settling disagreements by violent means, it seems, was an accepted form of conflict resolution in those days, laws against white-on-white murder notwithstanding. (As a matter of law, it was generally okay to kill slaves.)

During this era, settling disagreements with violence became so pervasive that, in 1827, many members of Georgetown’s budding middle class and of its clergy formed the Winyah Anti-Dueling Society. The Winyah Intelligencer of December 12, 1827 said that the group had formed because dueling had become a big enough problem to “demoralize society, impair the peace and destroy domestic tranquility.” (Quote modified by removal of “s” from the adjectives.)

Back to the point. During the first half of the 19th century, it appears that hot-headed intolerance and violence were common personality traits among that 10 percent upon whose “humanity and kindness” slaves were left to rely by the Justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court in a short written opinion that speaks volumes about the quality of justice of those times.

Today, the American Psychiatric Association uses uniform groupings of behaviors to assess individual personalities. Those groupings and their associated diagnoses can be found in the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (the “DSM”). Insurance companies rely on this manual in paying for treatment of mental disorders. The presence of four or more of any of the following behaviors are listed in the DSM are, according to these generally accepted professional standards, indicative of dysfunctional personalities. Three groupings (and associated diagnoses) that seem relevant here are:

A. Narcissistic personality disorder. (1) Grandiose sense of self-importance; (b) preoccupied with fantasy of unlimited success, power, brilliance or beauty; (c) thinks of self as “special” and can be understood only by other high status people; (d) requires excessive admiration; (5) has a sense of entitlement — to favorable treatment or automatic preference; (6) exploits others; (7) lacks sympathy, (8) is envious; and/or (9) is arrogant. (Alston and his friends and some of today’s elected officials?)

B. The DSM diagnosis for “Conduct disorder-aggression” looks for those who (1) often bully or threaten others; (2) often initiate fights, (3) often use weapons, and (4) often resort to physical cruelty to get their way. (Hamilton, his fans and many of today’s spouse abusers, among others.)

C. “Oppositional defiant disorder” is diagnosed in those displaying four or more of the following (1) frequent loss of temper; (2) frequent arguing; (3) frequent defiance or refusal to obey rules, (4) frequent attempts to deliberately annoy others, (5) often blaming others for one’s own mistakes, (6) being easily annoyed by others; (7) often angry and resentful, and (8) often being spiteful and vindictive. (A diagnosis of more general application.)

In a civilized world, people respect one another and resolve conflicts with talk rather than violence. Uncivilized societies are the opposite. Barbarism feeds on violence, oppression and cruelty.

In his study The Psychological Effects of Slavery on Modem American Thought and Culture, Jason Smith observed that “[h]istory does not serve the purpose of holding or settling grudges. It’s merely a record of thoughts and events as recorded and told over a period of time. It serves as a guide to rectifying mistakes of the past, so to make sure we, as a society, do not repeat the mistakes made by our ancestors.”

The same is true of psychoanalysis. Individuals who are honest with themselves correct past mistakes, improve their outlook and become healthier, happier people. The same can prove true of anthroanalysis when groups of people honestly assess their prejudices, predilections, and past behavior. The objective is not to cast aspersions on those who have gone before, but have now passed. God is their only true judge. The purpose is to acknowledge past mistakes and not repeat them. Only by doing that can any of us be assured that we will leave our children a healthier, happier and more productive society in which to live out their lives. Doing that can help us all rest in peace.

Tom Rubillo used to practice law, but is now retired. He has held public office, taught government, ethics and law at area colleges and has published several books. The episodes written in connection with this project will be, at its conclusion, available in one volume, or at least that is his best laid plan.