Chapter IX

MODERATE CORRECTION AND ACCIDENTAL DEATH—STATE _v._ CASTLEMAN.

The author remarks that the record of the following trial was read by her a little time before writing the account of the death of Uncle Tom. The shocking particulars haunted her mind and were in her thoughts when the following sentence was written:

What man has nerve to do, man has not nerve to hear. What brother
man and brother Christian must suffer, cannot be told us, even in
our secret chamber, it so harrows up the soul. And yet, O my
country, these things are done under the shadow of thy laws! O
Christ, thy church sees them almost in silence!

It is given precisely as prepared by Dr. G. Bailey, the very liberal and fair-minded editor of the National Era.

_From the National Era, Washington, November 6, 1851._

HOMICIDE CASE IN CLARKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

Some time since, the newspapers of Virginia contained an account of
a horrible tragedy, enacted in Clarke County, of that state. A slave
of Colonel James Castleman, it was stated, had been chained by the
neck, and whipped to death by his master, on the charge of stealing.
The whole neighborhood in which the transaction occurred was
incensed; the Virginia papers abounded in denunciations of the cruel
act; and the people of the North were called upon to bear witness to
the justice which would surely be meted out in a slave state to the
master of a slave. We did not publish the account. The case was
horrible; it was, we were confident, exceptional; it should not be
taken as evidence of the general treatment of slaves; we chose to
delay any notice of it till the courts should pronounce their
judgment, and we could announce at once the crime and its
punishment, so that the state might stand acquitted of the foul
deed.

Those who were so shocked at the transaction will be surprised and
mortified to hear that the actors in it have been tried and
_acquitted_; and when they read the following account of the trial
and verdict, published at the instance of the friends of the
accused, their mortification will deepen into bitter indignation:

_From the “Spirit of Jefferson.”_

“COLONEL JAMES CASTLEMAN.—The following statement, understood to
have been drawn up by counsel, since the trial, has been placed by
the friends of this gentleman in our hands for publication:

“At the Circuit Superior Court of Clarke County, commencing on the
13th of October, Judge Samuels presiding, James Castleman and his
son Stephen D. Castleman were indicted jointly for the murder of
negro Lewis, property of the latter. By advice of their counsel, the
parties elected to be tried separately, and the attorney for the
commonwealth directed that James Castleman should be tried first.

“It was proved, on this trial, that for many months previous to the
occurrence the money-drawer of the tavern kept by Stephen D.
Castleman, and the liquors kept in large quantities in his cellar,
had been pillaged from time to time, until the thefts had attained
to a considerable amount. Suspicion had, from various causes, been
directed to Lewis, and another negro, named Reuben (a blacksmith),
the property of James Castleman; but by the aid of two of the
house-servants they had eluded the most vigilant watch.

“On the 20th of August last, in the afternoon, S. D. Castleman
accidentally discovered a clue, by means of which, and through one
of the house-servants implicated, he was enabled fully to detect the
depredators, and to ascertain the manner in which the theft had been
committed. He immediately sent for his father, living near him, and
after communicating what he had discovered, it was determined that
the offenders should be punished at once, and before they should
know of the discovery that had been made.

“Lewis was punished first; and in a manner, as was fully shown, to
preclude all risk of injury to his person, by stripes with a broad
leathern strap. He was punished severely, but to an extent by no
means disproportionate to his offence; nor was it pretended, in any
quarter, that this punishment implicated either his life or health.
He confessed the offence, and admitted that it had been effected by
false keys, furnished by the blacksmith, Reuben.

“The latter servant was punished immediately afterwards. It was
believed that he was the principal offender, and he was found to be
more obdurate and contumacious than Lewis had been in reference to
the offence. Thus it was proved, both by the prosecution and the
defence, that he was punished with greater severity than his
accomplice. It resulted in a like confession on his part, and he
produced the false key, one fashioned by himself, by which the theft
had been effected.

“It was further shown, on the trial, that Lewis was whipped in the
upper room of a warehouse, connected with Stephen Castleman’s store,
and near the public road, where he was at work at the time; that
after he had been flogged, to secure his person, whilst they went
after Reuben, he was confined by a chain around his neck, which was
attached to a joist above his head. The length of this chain, the
breadth and thickness of the joist, its height from the floor, and
the circlet of chain on the neck, were accurately measured; and it
was thus shown that the chain unoccupied by the circlet and the
joist was a foot and a half longer than the space between the
shoulders of the man and the joist above, or to that extent the
chain hung loose above him; that the circlet (which was fastened so
as to prevent its contraction) rested on the shoulders and breast,
the chain being sufficiently drawn only to prevent being slipped
over his head, and that there was no other place in the room to
which he could be fastened, except to one of the joists above. His
hands were tied in front; a white man, who had been at work with
Lewis during the day, was left with him by the Messrs. Castleman,
the better to insure his detention, whilst they were absent after
Reuben. It was proved by this man (who was a witness for the
prosecution) that Lewis asked for a box to stand on, or for
something that he could jump off from; that after the Castlemans had
left him he expressed a fear that when they came back he would be
whipped again; and said, if he had a knife, and could get one hand
loose, he would cut his throat. The witness stated that the negro
‘stood firm on his feet,’ that he could turn freely in whatever
direction he wished, and that he made no complaint of the mode of
his confinement. This man stated that he remained with Lewis about
half an hour, and then left there to go home.

“After punishing Reuben, the Castlemans returned to the warehouse,
bringing him with them; their object being to confront the two men,
in the hope that by further examination of them jointly all their
accomplices might be detected.

“They were not absent more than half an hour. When they entered the
room above, Lewis was found hanging by the neck, his feet thrown
behind him, his knees a few inches from the floor, and his head
thrown forward—the body warm and supple (or relaxed), but life was
extinct.

“It was proved by the surgeons who made a post-mortem examination
before the coroner’s inquest that the death was caused by
strangulation by hanging; and other eminent surgeons were examined
to show, from the appearance of the brain and its blood-vessels
after death (as exhibited at the post-mortem examination), that the
subject could not have fainted before strangulation.

“After the evidence was finished on both sides, the jury from their
box, and of their own motion, without a word from counsel on either
side, informed the court that they had agreed upon their verdict.
The counsel assented to its being thus received, and a verdict of
“_not guilty_” was immediately rendered. The attorney for the
commonwealth then informed the court that all the evidence for the
prosecution had been laid before the jury; and as no new evidence
could be offered on the trial of Stephen D. Castleman, he submitted
to the court the propriety of entering a _nolle prosequi_. The judge
replied that the case had been fully and fairly laid before the jury
upon the evidence; that the court was not only satisfied with the
verdict, but, if any other had been rendered, it must have been set
aside; and that if no further evidence was to be adduced on the
trial of Stephen, the attorney for the commonwealth would exercise a
proper discretion in entering a _nolle prosequi_ as to him, and the
court would approve its being done. A _nolle prosequi_ was entered
accordingly, and both gentlemen discharged.

“It may be added that two days were consumed in exhibiting the
evidence, and that the trial was by a jury of Clarke County. Both
the parties had been on bail from the time of their arrest, and were
continued on bail whilst the trial was depending.”

* * * * *

Let us admit that the evidence does not prove the legal crime of
homicide: what candid man can doubt, after reading this _ex parte_
version of it, that the slave died in consequence of the punishment
inflicted upon him?

In criminal prosecutions the federal constitution guarantees to the
accused the right to a public trial by an impartial jury; the right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witness in his favor; and to have the
assistance of counsel; guarantees necessary to secure innocence
against hasty or vindictive judgment,—absolutely necessary to
prevent injustice. Grant that they were not intended for slaves;
every master of a slave must feel that they are still morally
binding upon him. He is the sole judge; he alone determines the
offence, the proof requisite to establish it, and the amount of the
punishment. The slave then has a peculiar claim upon him for
justice. When charged with a crime, common humanity requires that he
should be informed of it, that he should be confronted with the
witnesses against him, that he should be permitted to show evidence
in favor of his innocence.

But how was poor Lewis treated? The son of Castleman said he had
discovered who stole the money; and it was forthwith “determined
that the offenders should be punished at once, and _before they
should know of the discovery that had been made_.” Punished without
a hearing! Punished on the testimony of a house-servant, the nature
of which does not appear to have been inquired into by the court!
Not a word is said which authorizes the belief that any careful
examination was made, as it respects their guilt. Lewis and Reuben
were assumed, on loose evidence, without deliberate investigation,
to be guilty; and then, without allowing them to attempt to show
their evidence, they were whipped, until a confession of guilt was
extorted by bodily pain.

Is this Virginia justice?

Lewis was punished with “a _broad leathern strap_,”—he was “punished
severely:” this we do not need to be told. A “broad leathern strap”
is well adapted to severity of punishment. “Nor was it pretended,”
the account says, “in any quarter, that this punishment implicated
either his life or his health.” This is false; it was expressly
stated in the newspaper accounts at the time, and such was the
general impression in the neighborhood, that the punishment did very
severely implicate his life. But more of this anon.

Lewis was left. A chain was fastened around his neck, so as not to
choke him, and secured to the joist above, leaving a slack of about
a foot and a half. Remaining in an upright position, he was secure
against strangulation, but he could neither sit nor kneel; and
should he faint, he would be choked to death. The account says that
they fastened him thus for the purpose of securing him. If this had
been the sole object, it could have been accomplished by safer and
less cruel methods, as every reader must know. This mode of securing
him was intended probably to intimidate him, and, at the same time,
afforded some gratification to the vindictive feeling which
controlled the actors in this foul transaction. The man whom they
left to watch Lewis said that, after remaining there about half an
hour, he went home; and Lewis was then alive. The Castlemans say
that, after punishing Reuben, they returned, having been absent not
more than half an hour, and they found him hanging by the neck,
dead. We direct attention to this part of the testimony, to show how
loose the statements were which went to make up the evidence.

Why was Lewis chained at all, and a man left to watch him? “To
secure him,” say the Castlemans. Is it customary to chain slaves in
this manner, and set a watch over them, after severe punishment, to
prevent their running away? If the punishment of Lewis had not been
unusual, and if he had not been threatened with another infliction
on their return, there would have been no necessity for chaining
him.

The testimony of the man left to watch represents him as desperate,
apparently, with pain and fright. “Lewis asked for a box to stand
on:” why? Was he not suffering from pain and exhaustion, and did he
not wish to rest himself, without danger of slow strangulation?
Again: he asked for “something he could jump off from;” “after the
Castlemans left, he expressed a fear when they came back that he
would be whipped again; and said, if he had a knife, and could get
one hand loose, he would cut his throat.”

The punishment that could drive him to such desperation must have
been horrible.

How long they were absent we know not, for the testimony on this
point is contradictory. They found him hanging by the neck, dead,
“his feet thrown behind him, his knees a few inches from the floor,
and his head thrown forward,”—just the position he would naturally
fall into, had he sunk from exhaustion. They wish it to appear that
he hung himself. Could this be proved (we need hardly say that it is
not), it would relieve but slightly the dark picture of their guilt.
The probability is that he sank, exhausted by suffering, fatigue and
fear. As to the testimony of “surgeons,” founded upon a post-mortem
examination of the brain and blood-vessels, “that the subject could
not have fainted before strangulation,” it is not worthy of
consideration. We know something of the fallacies and fooleries of
such examinations.

From all we can learn, the only evidence relied on by the
prosecution was that white man employed by the Castlemans. He was
dependent upon them for work. Other evidence might have been
obtained; why it was not is for the prosecuting attorney to explain.
To prove what we say, and to show that justice has not been done in
this horrible affair, we publish the following communication from an
old and highly-respectable citizen of this place, and who is very
far from being an Abolitionist. The slave-holders whom he mentions
are well known here, and would have promptly appeared in the case,
had the prosecution, which was aware of their readiness, summoned
them.

* * * * *

“_To the Editor of the Era_:

“I see that Castleman, who lately had a trial for whipping a slave
to death, in Virginia, was ‘_triumphantly acquitted_,’—as many
expected. There are three persons in this city, with whom I am
acquainted, who staid at Castleman’s the same night in which this
awful tragedy was enacted. They heard the dreadful lashing and the
heart-rending screams and entreaties of the sufferer. They implored
the only white man they could find on the premises, not engaged in
the bloody work, to interpose; but for a long time he refused, on
the ground that he was a dependent, and was afraid to give offence;
and that, moreover, they had been drinking, and he was in fear for
his own life, should he say a word that would be displeasing to
them. He did, however, venture, and returned and reported the cruel
manner in which the slaves were chained, and lashed, and secured in
a blacksmith’s vice. In the morning, when they ascertained that one
of the slaves was dead, they were so shocked and indignant that they
refused to eat in the house, and reproached Castleman with his
cruelty. He expressed his regret that the slave had died, and
especially as he had ascertained that he _was innocent_ of the
accusation for which he had suffered. The idea was that he had
fainted from exhaustion; and, the chain being round his neck, he was
strangled. The persons I refer to are themselves slave-holders,—but
their feelings were so harrowed and lacerated that they could not
sleep (two of them are ladies); and for many nights afterwards their
rest was disturbed, and their dreams made frightful, by the
appalling recollection.

“These persons would have been material witnesses, and would have
willingly attended on the part of the prosecution. The knowledge
they had of the case was communicated to the proper authorities, yet
their attendance was not required. The only witness was that
dependent who considered his own life in danger.

“Yours, &c., J. F.”

The account, as published by the friends of the accused parties,
shows a case of extreme cruelty. The statements made by our
correspondent prove that the truth has not been fully revealed, and
that justice has been baffled. The result of the trial shows how
irresponsible is the power of a master over his slave; and that
whatever security the latter has is to be sought in the humanity of
the former, not in the guarantees of law. Against the cruelty of an
inhuman master he has really no safeguard.

Our conduct in relation to this case, deferring all notice of it in
our columns till a legal investigation could be had, shows that we
are not disposed to be captious towards our slave-holding
countrymen. In no unkind spirit have we examined this lamentable
case; but we must expose the utter repugnance of the slave system to
the proper administration of justice. The newspapers of Virginia
generally publish the account from the _Spirit of Jefferson_,
without comment. They are evidently not satisfied that justice was
done; they doubtless will deny that the accused were guilty of
homicide, legally; but they will not deny that they were guilty of
an atrocity which should brand them forever, in a Christian country.