The Story of Jane Scott, Surry County, NC:

I've spent a lot of time studying a fascinating document, the "Surry County, North Carolina Court Minutes, Volumes I and II, 1768-1789", transcribed by Mrs. W. O. Absher. Mostly I was looking for information on my relatives, but found some of the minutes to be quite interesting in their own right.

In these minutes I found a curious reference to one Jane (or Jean) Scott, and began to examine her case in more detail. And by the end of this examination I was very troubled by what had happened to Jane and her children, and by what it told me about life and attitudes in North Carolina.

I posted an early draft of the report you are now reading on a genealogy forum. In response I received a posting of additional information from another researcher, regarding a later case involving one of Jane's children (named "Jack", sometimes called "Free Jack"). This 1824 case was appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. It told me a great deal more about Jane Scott, but is written in complicated legalese. That posted reference can be read in its complete form at:

http://genforum.genealogy.com/aa/messages/1560.html

I will offer quotes from both sources in the following, using different formatting to distinguish them. The Surry County Court Minutes will look like this:

(This is the format used for Surry Court Minutes.)

And the Supreme Court of North Carolina 1824 notes will look like this:

(This is the format used for Supreme Court of North Carolina notes.)

Following is Jane's story, as best I can make it out:

Background:

But first, some background,

The Surry Court sits for a few days, once every three months.

One of the frequent activities of the Court was to deal with orphan children. General practice was that the children were "bound" out to another family - - this was their version of foster childcare (and possibly a source of cheap labor). In an era of short life expectancies, the incidence of orphans was all too frequent. Most of the time, this "bondage" was probably a reasonable solution for tough times. The "Terms of Indenture" often provided that the orphan was to receive a certain level of education, and learn a trade.

A little more troubling is that it seems "base born" (illegitimate) children were automatically considered to be orphans, particularly if they were of mixed race? The following excerpt from the Rowan County (predecessor to Surry County) minutes for 17 Jan 1769 conveys something of the attitude:

Ordered: "CHARLOTTE DEORMOND, a white woman servant of Major JOHN DUNN has had a white & a mulatto bastard; she must serve a year for the white bastard and two years longer for the mulatto, who, being a female, is bound to said Dunn until 21 years old."

You will find many references below to men with the title "Esquire", abbreviated "Esq". Generally, this is a term of respect showing the person's connection to the legal profession. In the context of the court notes, it generally refers to the men who are serving the court as Justices. The minutes for any given day start out by listing the names of those presiding over the court on that day, and labeling them "Esqrs".

Why do I bother to name the "Esqrs" in this discussion? Because in many of the cases below the "Esqrs" are appearing both as the men running the court, and as the men to whom the orphans are bound. Is there a conflict of interest?

Jane Scott, and her "Orphan" Children:

This complicated and troubling case first appears in the Surry Minutes on 9 Feb 1779, with John HUDSPETH, William HALL, William MEREDITH, William DOSSON, Esqrs.:

Ordered: "Abraham CRESON be bound with security to produce negro woman named Jane SCOTT who lives with him and claims her freedom at next court, motion made by Colo. OSBORN."

(MEMO: Later evidence here will show that it was John HUDSPETH, Esq., who brought forward Jane’s case. There will be several references to John’s connections to Jane and her family in the following.)

Two days later, on 11 Feb 1779, the court addressed the issue again, this time with Charles McANALLY, Matthew MOORE, and Robert WALKER, Esqrs.:

Ordered: "Didimus Potestatum issued respecting Jane SCOTT, a supposed free Negro in possession of Abraham CRESON, concerning her freedom."

My Latin is non-existent, but a little research suggests that "Didimus Potestatum" probably means an attorney, or someone, was ordered to represent Jane in the upcoming case. Sounds like justice is progressing!

Three months later, and the Court is back in session. (Note: The John HUDSPETH, named earlier, is now "elected Sheriff") The Court convenes on Thursday, 13 May 1779, with Martin ARMSTRONG, Robert LANIER, Benjamin WATSON, Esqrs.

Ordered: "On motion Nathaniel WILLIAMS and Spruce McCAY, Esqrs., the Sheriff is to bring "in the body" of Jean SCOTT, detained in prison in his custody to be tried, signed by Joseph WINSTON, Wm. DOBSON and Benjamin WATSON."

"Jean SCOTT appeared, alleged she was detained by Abraham CRESON as a Slave, when in fact she was Free Born and prays she might be at liberty"

The Surry minutes do not state what evidence Jane presented, but the later Supreme Court case recounted some of the evidence, and stated what they thought of it:

"…named Jane Scott, who, in the year 1774 was in the possession of one Allen: Allen stated that she was free, and while in his possession acted as a free-woman. . . . Allen, after making the declarations above stated, sold Jane Scott, to one Cresong. . . (That would be the Abraham CRESON noted above)"

"The evidence of the free condition of Jane Scott, was clearly proper. . . It is not necessary to prove the fact of her manumission. From the nature of the thing, evidence that she acted as a free-woman, was generally reputed to be such for a long time, and that nobody claimed her as a slave, must be received. It comes within the reason of pedigree and boundary."

The Surry Court apparently felt exactly the same way, and they ruled:

"Ordered Jean SCOTT to be freed from her Bondage and the children of said Jean be bound as Orphans: Sarah age 10, Prisilla age 8, Keziah age 6 and Happy SCOTT age 2 1/2 years be bound to John HUDSPETH until they arrive at 18 years and learn to read, spin, knit and weave."

"Ordered Jemima SCOTT, aged 4 1/2 be bound to Joseph WILLIAMS til 18 years to learn same."

So Jean (Jane) won her case, and is a free woman. But wait – now her children are officially orphans, and they are bound out to various families until they reach age 18. And one of the men to whom they are bound has served as an officer of the Court. And we also observe that Jane, the Plaintiff, has been held in jail pending her hearing.

Memo: We also find that the above list of Jane's children is NOT complete, there were many more, but it is not apparent why more were not listed. The 1824 Supreme Court notes include the phrase:

"Jane Scott . . . together with twelve of her children . . ."

One year later, there is an additional Surry entry for 9 May 1780, with Joseph WINSTON, William MEREDITH and George HAUZAR, Esqrs.:

"Ordered: Gabriel SCOTT, a Free Mulatto Boy, bound Wm. Terrel LEWIS"

There is no other mention of Gabriel in the Surry minutes that might clearly tie him to Jane SCOTT, and nothing indicating his age. However he is bound to William T. LEWIS, whom we will see shortly becomes involved with Jane's other children. Therefore there can be no doubt that Gabriel is another of Jane's children.

We do indeed have to be careful about assuming the Surry Minutes are complete – the Surry abstract contains the following declaration:

"There are no minutes (after May 1783, and) no Minutes at all for 1784."

But there was clearly at least one more action taken by Surry, and the 1824 Supreme Court notes tell us about it:

" In 1784, the Plaintiff (Jane's son Jack) was indented by Surry County Court, as a free boy, to one Meredith, who frequently said he was free, but at length sold him to one Moses Woodruff; Woodruff afterwards sold him, and stated, that as he was reported to be a free boy, the purchaser must take him at his own risk."

This would seem to suggest that the bound children were sometimes traded, pretty much as if they were slaves? Anyway, no more is heard from Surry about Jane or her family for the next five years, until the court session of 17 Feb 1786, Henry SPEER, Absalom BOSTICK, Matthew MOORE, Esqrs.:

"Jane SCOTT vs Abraham CRESON: David HALL, witness for Pltf., 200 miles, 4 days.."

As is typical of many of the court minutes, this is a very indirect reference and tells us very little about what has actually been going on. It's purpose, I believe, is for the court to compensate David HALL for his expenses to travel to court as a witness for the Plaintiff (that would be our Jane), for which he had to travel 200 miles and spend 4 days. We can only guess – perhaps Jane decided to file a civil suit against Abraham CRESON, for her former bondage? (A more diligent researcher might now try to turn up the relevant court records and transcripts.)

And then, one year later, on 16 Feb 1787, with Martin ARMSTRONG, Joseph WINSTON, Charles McANALLY, William Terrel LEWIS, Esqrs.:

Ordered: "Jesse SCOTT, a baseborn Mullatto child aged two months, bound to Wm. Terrel LEWIS, Esq. Til 21 years old.."

Ordered: "Mima SCOTT, a baseborn Mulatto girl bound to Joseph WILLIAMS and wife, Rebekah, from age 18 years to 21 years."

Ordered: "Pricilla and Happy SCOTT, two baseborn Mulatto girls bound to Wm. Terrel LEWIS and wife, Mary, from ages of 18 to 21 years."

Ordered: "Jesse SCOTT (son of Sarah), a baseborn Mulatto child aged now 6 months bound to Henry SPEER, Esq. Til 21 years."

Wow. The bondage terms for 3 of Jane's children (Jamima, Pricilla, and Happy) have been increased from 18 years to 21 years. Further, we learn that another of Jane's children, Sarah (now age 18) has had an illegitimate child of her own named Jesse, and that little Jesse is now also bound out for 21 years.

Later that year, on 15 Nov 1787, Absalom BOSTICK, James MARTIN, Henry SPEER, Esqrs."

Ordered: "The words 'to read and write and also' to be deleted from certain indenture binding Jesse SCOTT to Wm. T. LEWIS, Esq.."

Obviously, there was a horrible mistake made in the indenture terms for Jane's grandson Jesse (see 16 Feb 1787 order), and words were left in the standard indenture saying he was to be taught to read and write! Obviously the Court had to correct that! And in the same session:

Ordered: "Prisscle and Happy SCOTT to Wm. T. LEWIS, Esq., and wife Mary. Jeremia SCOTT is bound to Jos. WILLIAMS, Esq., and Rebecca, his wife and Jesse SCOTT is bound to Henry SPEER, Esq; they being Base Born Children and of mixed blood."

So the kids are being shuffled about. (I'm a bit confused about references to Jesse being bound to Wm. LEWIS, and then a line later bound to Henry SPEER – my guess is that there was a "sub-lease" of the child between LEWIS and SPEER? Something similar occurred in the earlier 16 Feb session.)

Now we come to the session on 12 Aug 1788, George HAUZER, William HUGHLET, Gideon EDWARDS, Esqrs.:

Ordered: "Charles SCOTT, son of Sarah SCOTT, a mullattoe child aged 3 months, 5 days be bound unto Henry SPEER until age 21 years to learn art and mistery of a Planter."

So, Jane's daughter Sarah now has another illegitimate child, and little Charles is now also bound to the same man who holds his brother Jesse. Interestingly, the age of "3 months 5 days" actually allows us to work out Charles' birth date of 7 May 1788.

Next we move to 13 May 1789, William COOK, John TALLIAFERO, Constant LADD, Esqrs.:

"Abraham CRESON vs Jane SCOTT, determined some years ago, writ of error made known; ordered proceedings be sent to next Superior Court.."

Uh oh, there was a claim of error in the original 1779 case involving Jane, and it is being appealed to a higher court, and Surry County Court now must forward the record of its proceedings to that Superior Court.

And the Salisbury Superior Court did indeed THROW OUT the original case - - and the 1824 Supreme Court ruling explains why:

In rendering judgment on the writ of error, the question, whether Jane Scott was a slave or not, was not examined; the ground of reversal of the County Court of Surry was, that the County Court had not jurisdiction in such cases. . . ."

Surry County was split into two in 1789, and the old Surry court minutes end with the record of 13 November 1789. But the minutes of their very final session offers one more relevant entry, with William Terril LEWIS, Henry SPEER, and Jacob SHEPPERD, Esqrs.:

"Affidavit Jane SCOTT proved by oath Obediah Martin BENGE who swears he saw her sign freely; certificate also proved by oath Wm. MEREDITH that he drew an original and this is true copy."

What did she sign? Other sources report the following is the text of the statement she agreed to (I’ve added a few paragraph breaks to make it more readable):

State of North Carolina, Surry County

This day personally appeared a Black Woman before us the subscribing Justices by the name of Jean or has, for some years went by the name of June Scott.

In making Oath on the Holy Evangelist of Almighty God, that from the earliest of her attaining to knowledge, she understood nothing else but that she was born a slave for life and knew her mother to be such. Nor did not for many years after that she was purchased as such by a Gentleman in Virginia and brought into North Carolina and by him sold by Mr. Abraham Creson for life as she at her own knowledge well remembers. That she served him a number of years as a faithfull slave should then master.

That after the war commenced between Greate Britian & America that it was infused into her head by a mr. John Hudspeth that she might by his assistance obtain her freedom which she verry readity agreed to be obedient to his will, serve him as a servent for some years besides thanking him for anything that he could do on her behalf that he the said Hudspeth then produced and obtained an order of Surry County Court at May term 1779. upon which she the said Jane Scott as is so called was liberated with all the Children she then had from the said Abraham Creson.

She further swears that previous to the Salisbury Superior Court March term 1789, she was served with a notice by John Thomas Langino, then Deputy Sheriff of Surry County from the said Creson that he ment to Carry up the proceedings of the County Court of Surry to the Superior Court of Salisbury by a writ of error that when she received the notice the Sheriff informed her of the notice of it.

She then finding that the matter was to be canseld and knowing in her continence that she had no right to her freedom, cheerfully submitted to whatever might be the decree of said Court. She further swears that since Salisbury Superior Court September term 1789 she was with a number of her Children delivered to Wm T. Lewis by Mr. Hugh Armstrong the sheriff of Surry County as he the said Lewis had purchased her with the rest of her Children of Mr. Abraham Creson and had power of Attorney to act in his behalf and receive us wheon recovered this dessorman further says that as she believes there is a God, that she never insisice had a right to freedom nor never wished nor intends to strive for such a thing neither by herself nor any person for her.

The above affidavit I have had fairly & plain by read and knowing it to be the truth and nothing but the truth doth freely & voluntarily swear to & subscribe my signature to it this 9th day of November 1789.

Her

Test Zach Ray Jane Scott

Att? Benge Mark

Also present

J. M Lewis

James Downey

North Carolina Surry County, November tern 1789"

One might seriously doubt if this "deposition" admitting she had always been a slave was freely given, and not under duress, and not just the easiest way to give up her hopeless battle? (While the Superior Court apparently received this deposition, they actually decided the case on the basis of "lack of jurisdiction" for the Surry Court.)

The 1824 Supreme Court notes now tell us what next happened to Jane:

"Cresong (CRESON) . . . sold her, together with twelve of her children, including the Plaintiff (Jack) to William Terril Lewis, on the 22d. October, 1788; and Lewis carried or sent such of the children as he had in his possession, (Jack not being one of them) out of the state; assigning as a reason for so doing, his fear that if they remained he should lose them."

SUMMARY:

So, Jane was technically a "free woman" for the 10 years from 1779 to 1789. But during that 10 years her children were still held in bondage as "Orphans": And in the end a higher court overruled the original Surry County case on a technicality, and she and all her children were returned to Abraham CRESON, who promptly sold them all to Wm. T. LEWIS, who quickly sent most of them out of state. And then 35 years later the North Carolina Supreme Court in effect decided that Jane should have probably indeed been free, if the case appeal had been heard on its merits!

So, what happened to her son Jack, in his 1824 case before the Supreme Court of North Carolina? The language of the decision is tortured by legalese, but it seems clear that "Free Jack" WON his freedom! Unfortunately, that did nothing for Jane, for her other 11 children, or for her grandchildren.

There ought to be a movie script in here somewhere!