Vol.I, The Hall and Overstreet Families Carrol Carman Hall, Springfield, IL, 1981
|
the family cannot escape history! When family members in Illinois first came into knowledge of the Will of John Hall, d. 1794, they were shocked by the discovery that he was a slave owner. They knew that the family had lived in Virginia but because they were several generations removed and their ancestors had fought for the Union during the Civil War - they did not visual family members being involved in the institution of slavery. A study of the family archives reveals that all branches of the family that lived in Virginia were slave owners - the Halls, the Overstreets, the Dabneys and the families they inter-married with. Those family members that stayed in the South became involved in the institution of servitude some time after the Revolution. Those family descendants that migrated West below the Ohio River carried slaves with them. The Hall-Overstreet group that migrated above the Ohio River to Ohio and then to Illinois did no bring slaves with them - they had none. The descendants of Hezekiah Hall, d, 1811, came from a family in Virginia in which slavery did not exist. The Northwest Territories to which they migrated forbid the importation of slaves.
When William Hall was killed in 1757, there was no listing of slaves in the inventory of his property. Therefore, the introduction of slavery in the Hall family came from John Hall, d. 1794, as this is the first record found. The descendants of John were involved as they became Our Southern Cousins and supporters of the Confederacy. Likewise, slavery can be found in the descendants of other children of William who lived in the same areas of Virginia and followed the same migration paths to the west. This is ironical, as the earliest Halls had Quaker connections and had come into Virginia through the influence of the Tidewater Virginians to check the proportion of the blacks in the colony. The early migrants were seeking more freedom: in another half-century they were denying it to others. Basically, it was the result of economic changes. Settled on their lands, these people, following the Revolution, became engaged in the culture of tobacco and somewhat later cotton - both crops requiring much hand labor because of the primitive farm tools of that era. It was an 'energy problem' of an earlier period in our history. Another factor in the lives of these people must be considered. It is the social aspects of property ownership. The rise in social and economic status is that of imitating those above. Thus, the poorer folks of Bedford county, unconsciously patterned themselves after their richer countrymen living in the Tidewater areas. Having slaves became a status symbol. If your neighbor down the road had a slave or two, then the 'urge' to have some of your own. +Portions of this material were used by Mr. Hall in a lecture before a Lincoln Land Community College group in "Black History' on the evening of February 11, 1976. Only three whites were present in a large group of black class members: the instructor; the speaker; and another Hall relative - a lone white member of the group. This is much like the acquisition of automobiles by Americans during the XXth century - the desire to own or have feeds on itself. Due to the nature of the land and the type of land holdings in Bedford county, the numbers of slaves owned remained somewhat modest, perhaps not exceeding fifteen to a 'farm'; more likely in the range of from three to six per farm family.
It came as a discovery to the writer to learn that even in slavery, the black had some rights - albeit limited. They did have right of trial by jury, some property rights and also some protection by law in which when sold or 'hired' to another owner, there were certain provisions as to the personal possessions, clothing, bedding, etc. One wonders why the Southerners were so tenacious about slavery when there were many problems connected with it and it was not help an economic success (some question on this). It was that a great amount of their personal wealth was tied up in the ownership of the blacks - sometimes exceeding their other personal property. This will be illustrated in two or three of the Hall estates. Blacks were personal property and so inventoried in the estates. Slaves were only identified by given names.
To imagine that the owners were not without fear of black uprising, reprisals, etc. is foolish. An incident or two from the Hall history will dispel that notion. Since families buried their members on grave plots on their land, so were the slaves buried in an area of the plot reserved for them. They were identified, when the graves were marked, by their given names only. Here are some slave stories from the Hall family: From the Will of John Hall, d. 1794, we learn the names of his slaves and to whom they were to be given. Those given his wife Magdalene for her lifetime, were allocated among the children. (I think John assumed the slaves would live forever!). Slave Frank in John's will was to be found in Elisha's estate in 1840 as an old man. In the settlement of Magadalene's estate (John's wife) we find that they were purchased principally by family members, who gave notes in the true Southern fashion for them. Her slaves were being purchased by her in-laws, sons and grandsons, indicating that by that date slavery was accepted throughout the family. From Elisha's estate settlement in 1840 we learn that he had only three slaves for a rather large farm operation. Joe, Ben and Frank. Joe and Ben were valued at $600 and $800 respectively, and poor old Frank was worth only $25.00. Interestingly enough, these slaves were allowed to make claims against the estate for such items as: 1 house of tobacco; 1 spotted shoat; two cows and one bee hive!
From Elisha's estate inventory we can catch a historical glimpse of how blacks were named after the Civil War and the gaining of their freedom. In the inventory we read of Hall's Ben, Hall's Joe and Hall's Frank. When the time came, and they needed full names, they could easily become Ben Hall, Joe Hall and Frank Hall. John Hall's son, Mathew, at his death owned fifteen negroes. (Remember, his wife, Mary E. 'Polly' is thought to have been a member of the Banks family that had the indentured white girl as a member - Verlinda Austin!) Since slaves played a large role in this family considerable space will be given to discussing the impact:
While Mathew's other personal property was totaled at around $500.: the slaves at their appraised values gave the estate another $9,000 valuation. From the inventory we obtain the names, sex and value of these chattels - *
(slaves were valued in the same manner as horses; age, sex, breeding capabilities, appearances, strength, etc.)
An interesting side light as to the sale of Mathew's negroes is found in the 'specifications which the following negroes are to be hired (viz.).+ The men and boys are to be furnished each with one good woolen coat and pants, one shirt, one good pair shoes & socks, one hat, and one blanket of the usual quality furnished to hired negroes. The women and girls are to be furnished each with a coat suitable for winter, also suitable underclothes, skirt, one pair shoes & stockings, one Bonnet or handkerchief, and one blanket of good quality, said negroes to be delivered to me at Christmas the 25th day of Dec. on the premises, (date of transaction, Nov. 10, 1856). Aug. s. Thurman, Executor of Matthew Hall, Sr., dec'd. ++
Negroes hired to:
At his death in 1840, Benjamin B. Musgrove, son-in-law of John Hall, d. 1794, had a dozen or more slaves. In 1842 the Bedfort Court proceeded to divide and allot to Keziah Musgrove, Benjamin's wife, her dower in the slaves. The total valuation of the slaves was $4,725. Of this total, $1625.00 was represented in the four slaves assigned to Keziah - two men and two women. But let's proceed with the court record: 'We have allotted the four first named slaves, Tom, Cat, Sacky and Wiatt to the widow Keziah Musgrove having regard to the prices and to the interest of the estate, we have selected one and allotted to the widow (a girl Sacky) whom we considered to be unsalable in consequences of several scars on different parts of her body and which were over-looked by the commissioners who first appraised her and which make her dower amount to the sum of $50 more than her equal part of the slaves.' Sacky was originally valued at $375. Since there is record of a child dying from burns in the family, Sacky may have been also burned in the tragedy.
The story of slavery is not a pleasant one and in the Musgrove family we find the following sad incidents: Keziah Hall Musgrove's daughter-in-law Eliza Jones Musgrove, wife of Christopher Musgrove, was murdered by a slave, in 1858/6. The slave, Jane was indicted and ordered hanged. She is buried by her husband in Musgrove family cemetery. Keziah Stovel Musgrove, 1811-1893, daughter of Benjamin B. and Keziah (Hall) Musgrove married William Lockett Wilkerson in 1828. The records show that their first two children, Joseph and Benjamin died young. A number of Musgrove family researchers report that the two children were killed by the slaves. Thus, slavery had its price. The are likely other slave stories in the histories of the Hall and related families of Bedford county, Virginia but it is believed that enough has been said on this subject. It was out of this background that many men of the same families were to serve in the Confederate armies during the Civil War and a number of them to sacrifice their lives. There is another family slave story that is to be told. It, however, will be related in the section: Our Southern Cousins. Note: The economics of slavery - 'many small farmers and planters in early Virginia thought they were being crushed in the market place by the large plantation operators, using many slaves for labor! To compete, since they had only the labor of their families, they turned to slavery.
+"hired' is assumed to be a subterfuge for the word 'slavery.'
|