Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FORWARD
Woodland Plantation was built in the 1830s by river pilots Captain William Johnson and his partner George Bradish. After traveling from Nova Scotia and working for Juan Ronquillo, they built the Magnolia Plantation, south of where Woodland would be built.
Captain Johnson, 40 years after Magnolia Plantation was built, sold his shares and built Woodland Plantation with his four sons. Woodland made its business in sugar cane and the slave trade. Captain Johnson was in partnership with Jean Latte, the pirate. Latte would steal slaves from ships offshore and bring them to stay in one of the four slave barracks on the Plantation. From there, the slaves would be brought upriver to New Orleans to be sold in the auction houses.
Orleans. It seems accepted that the pirate Jean Latte proted in this nighttime business and horror. His story has been told and embellished, and its not my story.
I know with more certainty that there were 198 slaves on the plantation in 1856. I know this because there is a Louisiana Supreme Court case (which I include as my Afterward) about Woodland that tried to interpret a preCivil War will dealing with the property and the slaves. The original will bequeathed slaves from one brother to another brother with the condition that after enjoying the fruits and revenues of this plantation with the result of the labor of all the slaves thereon, for ve years, he was to liberate them all, send them to Liberia, and give them each fty dollars. Its an amazing story, but the Louisiana Supreme Court told that story in 1874.
My story is about something just as old that came alive for me last year. On Woodland, there is a slave overseers house still standing, though Hurricanes Katrina and Isaac battered it. After Katrina, my uncle was repairing the structure and something wedged in the rafters caught his eye. It was a water-logged and rodent-gnawed book, but the pages were legible.
I asked my uncle if I could try to preserve it. He said yes. And thats what Ive done and thats this story. My dad helped me nd a preservationist, Renee DeVille, who unbound it so I could image every page. That way, reading the pages, I wouldnt be opening and shutting the book countless times. Since then, Ive been deciphering the journal entries. The overseers handwriting is owing cursive, cleaner than mine. He wrote in pencil on yellow paper. His book was published by Philip J. Cozans, a bookseller, stationer, and valentine manufacturer.
The book could t in your pocket, but because I have imaged every page, I work on it on my computer. I have done much of my work at Tulanes Amistad Research Center, and I am grateful to the Center and its director, Mr. Lee Hampton. The ledger begins with New Year's Day, 1861. Come with me to Woodland Plantation on February 8, 1861:
16 wheeling dirt 18 women with Will topping off back levee. 4 young ones stirring up & burning off trash 2 cleaning out drains back of plows.
I am interested that the overseer had everybody working, men, women, and children, at hard labor. Throughout the journal, throughout 1861, the women were put to the same work as men. Often the young ones were too.
I am interested that he calls one slave, Will, by name in this entry and elsewhere. The only other proper name referenced in this entry is the neighbor, the Huffs. The naming of neighbors is common throughout the journal. The naming of slaves, like Will, is rare. In fact, the overseers frequent name for groups of slaves is the word gang.
What is most interesting, evident in this entry and every other, is what Hannah Arendt once referred to as the
3
Clear Slight Frost 8 Ploughing up middles in pt [plant] cane at Huffs nished at 3 oclock & continued Same work in grave yard cut.
banality of evil. This overseer, 150 years ago, starts each entry with the weather, here, Clear Slight Frost. Then he gives an accountants description of the slave labor, wheeling dirt, topping a levee, burning trash, and cleaning drains. Again, men, women, and children. By contrast, describing himself, he can be light-hearted. On March 10th, he tells us he was in bayou & caught a ne lot of sh. Even speaking about his tools and livestock, he expresses concern. Often, we read mules taken care of. Ironically, the closest we glimpse of concern for slaves comes two days before the rst shots were red beginning the Civil War. Down in Plaquemines Parish, the overseer was oblivious to the fatefulness of history. Instead, he conducted his business, but on April 10th, his business had him concerned: Clear. 4 Plows breaking up middles 5 barring [?] off Plant Cane 2 cleaning out Drains Gang weeding & choping in pt Cane
4
War began. But the overseer simply records days of slavery. Even more remarkable, he had no foresight that the property he called slaves would become his equals under the law by 1864 when Louisiana was readmitted to the Union without slavery. Nor did he sense that in 1874 the Louisiana Supreme Court would conrm the liberty and equality of the people he referred to as nameless slaves throughout the 365 pages of this book. In my hands, this book is full of pain and irony; in his hands, holding it so long ago, it was nothing more than a business ledger.
This tiny, pocket-sized book sat for 150 years up in the rafters. And now I read it, and provide it to you. As I read, I wish for adjectives and adverbs to introduce me to the humanity of these people. Instead, I turn to the place and, as I walk their land, I think of them, especially the "Sick ones Some better."
OVERSEERS DIARY
This book is comprised of digital images from the true diary of the Overseer of Woodland Plantation for the year 1861. While this was a momentous year for the United States of America, and the Confederate States of America, you will see that day-to-day life in southern Louisianas plantations remained relatively constant. This diary provides us a unique insight into how plantations were run in the early stages of the Civil War.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
194
195
198
199
200
201
202
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
AFTERWARD
26 La.Ann. 570 Supreme Court of Louisiana. Heirs of E. A. Johnson v. Bradish Johnson. No. 3360. | May, 1874.
Appeal from the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans. Cooley, J. Morgan, J. George W. Johnson died in September, 1856. He owned large estates in New York and in Louisiana. Forming part of his possessions in this State, was a tract of land known as the Woodland plantation, situate in the parish of Plaquemine, of which he owned the eleven-sixteenths. The other ve-sixteenths, belonged to his brother, Bradish Johnson. He also owned twenty-ve slaves in his own right, twelve slaves in common with his brother Bradish, and the eleven-sixteenths of one hundred and sixty-one others. He died without leaving any forced heirs, and bequeathed his property to his brothers. To Bradish he gave the Woodland plantation and all the improvements thereon. Upon this bequest he imposed a charge. This was, that after enjoying the fruits and revenues of this plantation with the result of the labor of all the slaves
212
thereon, for ve years, he was to liberate them all, send them to Liberia, and give them each fty dollars. His will was accepted by his heirs as a just disposition of his property, and in two separate deeds, made at dierent periods, they ratied the same. Under the will and in virtue of these acts, each heir was put in possession of the share which was coming to them. His heirs were three brothers. It is the heirs of one of these brothers who are the plaintis in this suit. In 1857, the Legislature of Louisiana passed a law prohibiting the emancipation of slaves. In 1858, J. D. Johnson and E. A. Johnson (father of the present plaintis) instituted suit against Bradish Johnson, in which they alleged that the provisions of George Johnsons will by which he directed the emancipation of his slaves were null and void, the same being prohibited by law. They prayed that all of the provisions of his will relating to the Woodland plantation and the negroes thereon might be declared null and void, as contrary to the laws and policy of the State, and they prayed to be decreed to be the owners each for one-third
213
thereof. This suit was decided by the Supreme Court to be premature. The opinion was read on the fteenth of June, 1859. It has not been reported. Subsequently, John Johnson instituted another suit in which he declared that Bradish Johnson, in deance of the laws of the State, contemplated the emancipation of the slaves mentioned in George Johnsons will, and, averring that he feared they would be removed out of the State, applied for and obtained an injunction directed against him prohibiting him from so doing. This suit remained on the docket until twelfth November, 1861, when it was dismissed. The slaves were never sent to Liberia, and they were not emancipated by Bradish within the ve years as required by the will. The heirs of E. A. Johnson, claiming through their father, ask that they be decreed to be the owners of the one third of the eleven-sixteenths of the Woodland plantation, and that Bradish Johnson may be compelled to account to them for the revenues thereof since he has been in possession of the same under the will. By a special agreement the rents and
revenues are disconnected from this suit, and the only question before us is, the title to the land. Plaintis contend that inasmuch as the terms of the will were not complied with, and inasmuch as the terms of the will were the conditions of the legacy, the legacy lapses and the property falls into the mass of the succession, to be divided equally among the heirs. Every one who was in Louisiana at the time knows, that it would have been impossible for any one to have emancipated a slave in September, 1861, and that it would have been equally impossible to have sent one, much less one hundred and ninety-eight to Liberia. Late in April, 1862, the United States forces took possession of New Orleans and the neighboring country. By a military order, issued in May, 1863, the statute of 1857 was declared never to have been in force during the occupancy of the country by the federal troops, and owners of slaves were authorized to manumit them on presenting a petition to that eect, to any court of record.
In March, 1864, Bradish Johnson led a petition in which he prayed leave to emancipate the slaves mentioned in his brothers will. The application was granted. The slaves were freed. It is contended that this proceeding was unnecessary, inasmuch as two months before, General Banks, the then military commander here, had declared all slavery laws null and void. This does not follow, but it is not necessary that the matter should be inquired into. In the construction and application of testamentary dispositions, the object of the testator is one of the rst things to be ascertained. What was the object of George Johnson with regard to the slaves which he owned? Was it to send them to Liberia? In our opinion this was a mere incident to the bequest, and made simply in what he considered might be the interest of those to whom he desired to be bountiful. His main object we think was the emancipation of those whom he had held in bondage and whose labor had contributed to his wealth. His principal end was to make them free; the place where they were to enjoy their freedom was a very secondary
214
consideration. They were freed, and thus his object was accomplished. They were freed also by the act of his legatee, and thus the provisions of his will were carried out. They were not sent to Liberia, it is true, but this is not the fault of the legatee. In this regard he tendered to those who wished to go, the means stipulated in the will, which they declined. Besides, this was a stipulation in their own behalf, and not one in which the heirs have any interest; for it would hardly be contended, we think, that if they could have been emancipated under the laws of Louisiana when they would have been entitled to their freedom under the will, with permission to remain in Louisiana, and they had been emancipated and had refused to go to Liberia, that this portion of the will would have been set aside. The rst privilege of freedom is the right to choose a home from out the world; it might have been worse than slavery to them to force them from the place of their birth, to break up their associations and to sunder even such weak ties as were socially known to them, and to drive them across the seas, among strangers, and in a distant land. Being free to go or not to go, was the question which their own choice alone could determine, and whether they went or staid was
215
not a matter in which the heirs of their liberator had any say. It is their ground of action against the legatee to force a compliance with the terms of the will, if they choose to occupy it, but it is no reason why his bequest should be set aside. Beyond this, all the heirs of George Johnson ratied and conrmed his will, as has been seen; they were recognized and put in possession of their respective shares; his succession has been fully administered, and his executors have been discharged. After all these proceedings, and in the face of their solemn acts, the heirs can not, we think, be heard, when they seek to annul the will in any of its parts. Judgment armed.