Well, there was that slave ...

When doing some ancestry stuff – studying the 1840 census of Smith County Tennessee – I came across one of those things that goes against what I was always told: “Our people were too poor to own salves.” That statement indicates “our people” would have owned slaves, had they the means to buy other people. But they did not have the money, so none owned a slave or slaves.

Not so fast.

The 1840 Federal Census of Smith County Tennessee shows my great-great-great grandfather, George Merriman, and his wife, Nancy Walker Merriman, owned a male slave.

Now, that was a surprising fact to learn. However, the surprising fact of ownership does not bother me. I am not responsible for any action, moral or less than, done by any of my ancestors. I will not carry a sense of guilt for what dead white dudes did a long time ago.

But there is another aspect of George Merriman’s slave. The census record says the unnamed slave was “55 to 110 years old.” My guess is he was on the low side of that age bracket, but whichever, George most likely did not get as much work out of his slave as he would have from, say, a 35-year-old slave.

Of course, there is the question of affordability. In the 1840-1860 period, slaves increased tremendously in cost. Records from Red River County Texas show a prime slave was worth around $300 in the early 1840s. Personal property records of 1854 value, for tax purposes, a prime slave at $5,000.

I do not know how much money George and Nancy Walker had in 1840. George was a farmer, and if he and Nancy had any disposable or investment cash, the farm must have done quite well.

There is another, possible, reason George and Nancy had a slave in 1840. Some Southerners bought relatives from slavery.

I do not know if the 1840 unnamed slave was a relative, nor would I be overcome by any repulsion if he were.

I was thinking, though … If the slave was a relative, how much affirmative action protection have I missed? Would those three newspaper editors who fired me hesitated had they known I might have a black ancestor? Could I have received college scholarships by stating my whiteness misleading? Can I get two votes in elections, to make up for past discrimination? Where are my reparations?

I want my 40 acres and a mule!

Funny thing … Some people would be head-over-heels joyful if a census showed actual or even possible Indian ancestry. But most of those same people would be appalled to discover a dark ancestor, hiding in the woodpile or in plain sight.

I don’t care.

It is an interesting possibility, though, and one that needs more research.

This sort of thing never happened …

Or so most writers of history say.

In the spring 1843 session of Sixth District Court in Red River County Texas came the case “The Republic of Texas vs. John, a slave for life – Assault with Intent to Murder.”

There is not much else in the large, thick ledger-size books. The initial entry does not list who owned John, nor is there an account of the crime for which he was accused. We do not know who it was John was accused of assaulting. The case has a document number, but that number is not in the boxes from 1843.

A few weeks after the first listing is another, with the same title, plus a trial date and the entry that a jury found John, a slave for life, not guilty of the charge of assault with intent to murder.

If you search “rights of slaves in America,” you will discover a quick answer. “None.”

Here are facts: John, a slave for life, was arrested by a white law officer. John was charged by a white justice of the peace or judge. John was indicted by a grand jury of white men. John was tried by a white prosecutor before a white judge and defended by a white attorney. And a jury of 12 white men found John not guilty of assault with intent to murder. John was then released from jail, probably returned to the man or woman who owned him, probably to remain a slave for life.

And another thing: Most likely, John was accused of assaulting a white man. Had he assaulted another slave, John’s owner and the owner of the other slave would have settled the matter.

Historians say slaves had no rights. In the main, that is true, if we consider today’s rights. But somewhere in the emotions of the Republic of Texas, lay the idea that the man John deserved a legal trial for his supposed transgressions.

I talked with Jim Clark about the case. Jim’s long ago ancestor James Clark was the founder of Clarksville. Jim said, “There shouldn’t have been a trial in the first place.”

“Why not?” I asked.

“Because,” Jim said, “property cannot commit a crime.”