- Cultura
e Storia
Anna Maria Rugarli
-
- ENSLAVED
AT THE CAPE*
-
-
- This essay focuses on the
story of some slave women involved in the slave trade
at the end of the eighteenth century. They were
brought to Cape of Good Hope Colony either as free
individuals, as slaves or as presents.
- The Cape of Good Hope colony
was established by the Dutch in 1652 and ruled by them
until 1795 and then again from 1803 till 1806 (the so
called Batavian Republic). The British took over the
Cape Colony twice: the first time in 1795 until 1803,
and then again in 1806. During the second British
phase, the most important institutions of slavery were
abolished and some major changes reshaped the Colony's
features. From the very beginning of their second
domination, the British abolished the slave trade in
1808 and then slavery in 18381.
The ensuing legislation concerning slaves was issued
from 1816 onwards and led to their emancipation and
aimed at improving slave conditions and gradually
liberating them. Also, this new body of laws was aimed
at the self-reproduction of the slave population, a
means of obtaining a new work force. The abolition of
the institution of slavery in 1834 and the subsequent
four years of apprenticeship had the objective of
preparing the slave population for freedom while
maintaining their subordination in a society where
they still were subservient labour force (Rayner:
1981, 17).
- This essay attempts to tell
the stories of some women whose destiny was that of
being uprooted from their home countries to be
enslaved. They complained and reported their
situations to the authorities trying to regain their
freedom when possible. We have their testimonies
reported in the Book of Complaints kept by the
Guardian of Slaves.
- The discussion of the issue
that follows is entirely based on original manuscript
documents of the Cape Archives of Cape Town. Such data
are used here for the first time in the context of the
role of women in the Cape Colony and in the process of
creolization.
-
-
- 1. A Closer
Look at the British Legislation
-
- To understand how things
changed for slaves after the British took over the
Cape Colony for the second time, it is necessary to
spend a few words on the legislation enforced by them.
The first legislation that changed considerably - or
at least formally - the legal position of slaves as
chattels was issued on April the 26th, 1816. It made
the registration of slaves compulsory2,
in order to distinguish them from the bulk of
manumitted slaves and Prize Negroes3.
To this end an office was established in Cape Town,
managed by an Inspector of the Registry and an
Assistant Inspector, who were in charge of registering
against their masters' names the slaves' names, sex,
age, place of origin, occupation and any remarks
concerning them.
- This measure was later
modified as part of a wider legislative initiative,
the Ordinance Nineteen of the 19th June, 1826, on
which basis a Registrar and Guardian of Slaves was
appointed to substitute the Inspector (and Assistant
Guardians were appointed for the country districts as
well). The Guardian had the specific task of listening
to slaves' complaints and investigating whether they
were founded4.
In Ordinance Nineteen the relationship between masters
and slaves was thoroughly regulated. Slave owners had
to provide a certain amount of food daily and clothes
yearly, they could not make slaves work more than what
the law, established, and they had to let them rest on
Sundays. Moreover, they could not sell slaves
separately from their wives or children under the age
of ten. Besides, slaves could testify under oath in
courts, and their punishments were restricted to a
maximum of twenty-five lashes for men and to a milder
whipping on shoulders for women. Masters had also to
instruct their slaves in the Christian faith in order
to make them "a more acceptable and politically safer
subordinate class of labourers" (Rayner: 1981, 20 and
Dooling: 1991, 75-94). Previous to this Ordinance
there had been the Somerset Proclamation of 1823,
whose measures, similar to these, were valid for
baptised slaves only.
- As underlined above, these
legislative measures were conceived as steps in a long
process after which slaves were supposed to be freed
and automatically incorporated into society as a
subordinate class of workers. Slavery was eventually
abolished in 1838, after four years of apprenticeship
during which slaves had to adapt and look after
themselves, earning their own livelihood and become
independent.
-
-
- 2. A Step
Backwards: the Acquisition of
Slaves
-
- To complete the picture of
our enslaved women at the Cape, it might be worth to
take a step back and explain how and from where slaves
were usually acquired. There were three ways in which
slaves were brought into the colony (Armstrong and
Worden, in Elphick and Giliomee (eds.): 1994,
112-122). The first was through trips to Madagascar
entirely organised and supported by the VOC, then to
Zanzibar and (after 1786) to Mozambique. In theory,
all these slaves belonged to the Company, but it was
not uncommon that some employees traded in slaves
privately, which meant that they conducted the
business without any kind of authorisation from the
VOC.
- The second way to obtain
slaves was through VOC ships from Batavia and Ceylon
returning to the Netherlands and stopping over at the
Cape for refreshment. In this case slave owners
(either Company employees or inhabitants of the
colony) had to ask for special permission to the
Company, since the VOC desired to control the practice
of selling slaves at the Cape by travellers from the
East Indies who otherwise would have to free their
slaves once they arrived in Europe. These individuals
preferred to sell their slaves at the Cape - where
prices for slaves were high - instead of liberating
them in Europe. The Company tried to prevent this
trade by granting them permission to take their slaves
with them only after they had paid the outward and
return journeys for their slaves.
- The third means of obtaining
slaves was to purchase some from foreign traders
(mostly British, but also French and Portuguese) on
their route to the Atlantic, coming from the African
East Coast or Madagascar. The target for such sales
were the free burghers who, in order to buy slaves,
needed the Company's authorisation.
-
-
- 3. Women
Enslaved at the Cape
-
- Women were part of the slave
trade as well as men. However, it happened that some
women were enslaved after their arrival into the Cape
Colony as free individuals. These women were brought
into the Colony from Madagascar, India, Ceylon, or
Batavia, places that were sources of slave or cheap
labour for the Dutch, French and British. The
contingency of unfavourable conditions, women's
dependence and their lack of power led them to be
burdened with the yoke of slavery from which they
could not free themselves, for their cries for help
were not successful and their attempts to regain
freedom failed hopelessly5.
As a matter of fact, some of them went to complain
about their situation and their unfair 'detention' to
the Guardian of Slaves in 1826, many years after they
had been imported, when it became possible to do so.
Some of the complainants were slaves - regularly
registered - because their mothers or grandmothers had
been or were still in such an ambiguous position. The
analysis of the cases helps to understand how they
came to be enslaved though they were free and whether
the complaints reported by the guardian were
real.
-
-
- 4. A Problem
of Terminology
-
- It is not always easy to
understand these women's real situations and
positions. Some of them were brought to the Colony
after having been already bought in their countries of
origin, 'ordered' on specific request, or with the
clear aim to sell them once arrived. Others were even
sent as presents for friends from Europeans residing
in the places above mentioned.
- This essay, however, deals
with those who arrived at the Colony as free people
who were not supposed to be sold. They were working
for passengers on the ships en route to Europe, or
they were the captains' mistresses, or they were
simply left at the Colony being unable to continue the
trip to Europe. The ambiguity of these cases is due to
the absence of evidence to prove the moment of their
enslavement.
- It is unclear whether this
was a 'practice' or a sporadic phenomenon, what is
certain is that it occurred throughout the eighteenth
century and it involved more women than those we know
of. It is unknown how widespread this was as there are
neither records nor documents of their enslavement and
since not all the women complained or told their
stories.
- Robert Shell reported one
case, dated 1742. A little girl named Clasina, who
started the journey in Batavia where she was born, was
"inexplicably left" in Cape Town though the ship she
and her family had been on was directed to the
Netherlands. The promise to send for her later on was
never kept, therefore Clasina had no choice but to
grow up far from her family, whom she would have never
seen again, and spend her life at the Cape as a slave.
The circumstances of her enslavement are not clear,
but an explanation could have been the "rescuing
[of] abandoned or orphaned children from a
worse fate" (Shell: 1994, 81-84).
-
-
- 5. 'Slave',
'Servant' or 'Present'?
-
- The Guardian of Slaves
listened to and registered these women's grievances,
trying to reconstruct the story of their lives and to
determine their true status. Thus the Guardian of
Slaves' questions are direct and precise: he had to
determine whether the reasons for their journey and
stay depended on whether they were in fact already
slaves or on other causes. That is also why the
complainants and witnesses used terms to mean
different things. The former generally referred to
themselves as 'servants', while the latter called them
'slaves'. Some were given as presents, often without
their knowledge, and these were considered property.
This interchange of terms led to a confusion in roles
and to a difficulty in defining them.
- Were individuals sent as
presents to be considered 'proper' slaves or did they
have a different status? And, if so, what was their
position? Moreover, how could some people arrogate the
lives of other human beings as presents to themselves?
Were they for their relatives to show their
generosity, or for friends to whom they owed
favours?
- The problem of terminology is
not to be underestimated, since it complicates the
comprehension of roles in the context of the late
eighteenth - early nineteenth century Cape Colony. The
confusion in the use of words to define the status of
people is of great concern particularly as the strata
of society were clearly divided and this division was
at the basis of that society.
- On one hand it almost seems
as if there was not the will to define roles clearly
so that their manipulation was easier, whereas on the
other hand there was the need to clarify individual
positions in the society (Iannini: 1995, ch.1 and
Malherbe: 1991, 5-7).
- As will become clear from the
stories below, if the term 'present' had been defined
there would not have been complaints on the issue
because the person would have known his/her place in
that context. The overlap was intentional in order to
use the confusion as an advantage by the ruling
class.
-
-
- 6. Women
'Illegally Detained as Slaves'
-
- In the Books of Complaints
out of ten cases that concerned women declaring
themselves as "illegally detained as slaves", six
almost certainly deal with women who were enslaved
after their arrival at the Cape, and are supported by
reliable proof given by witnesses6.
Three other are uncertain because the terminology used
and the evidence given by witnesses do not
coincide7.
The last case is not to be considered part of any of
the two 'groups', it having been retracted by the
witness - who was the complainant's
mother8.
- All the testimonies have been
recorded in the Book of Complaints, or in other
documents held by the Slave Office such as the Books
of Inquiry, the Day Books and the Letter
Books9.
- Fredrica, Janna, Lucy, Marje,
Mina and Marietje probably did not know each other and
did not know that they could have shared an important
part of their past, since their stories are different
but can be grouped and considered
together10.
- They were living in Cape
Town, they were slaves whilst they should have been
free women.
- They were all diligently
listed in the Slave Registers as properties and were
conducing their lives as they were forced to do, being
aware that they could have aspired to a better
existence. That is the basic reason why they decided
to complain11.
-
-
- 7.
Fredrica
-
- Fredrica "claims the freedom
of herself and children on the ground that her Mother
named Sara came to the Colony as a Free
person"12.
The Guardian questioned Sara who accompanied her
daughter as a witness13.
This implied that Fredrica had been born in the Cape
Colony as a slave but that her mother had been
imported. Sara was a native of Madagascar and arrived
at the Colony at the time of Governor Plettenberg (in
the late 1780s) on a French ship. According to her
deposition she was initially supposed to go to Europe
with the captain, M. Boudin, who instead decided to
leave her in Cape Town and fetch her on his way back
from Europe. Sara's parents had entrusted their twelve
year old child to him because he had promised to take
her home at the end of the trip.
- Flora, who came to the Cape
on the same ship as Fredrica, came to witness on her
behalf. In response to the Guardian's questions: "Were
you (Flora) on board as a slave?" She responded: "Yes.
I was taken from my own country (Madagascar) and sold
as a slave. But Sara was not"14.
- The last witness questioned
for this case was Mr Martinus van Blerk, son of the
person who hosted Sara when left in the Colony by the
captain15.
- In his deposition he said
that "She (Sara) was I believe given to him as a
present, but I cannot give any correct information
respecting her as far as I can understand however she
having been very young and at the time my father being
Portugueze Consul & Spanish Agent had sometime
from 2000 to 3000 slaves under his charge for sale and
occasionally received one as a present". Mr Martinus
van Blerk was unsure whether Sara had been a present
for his father or on what basis she was left at his
father's house. He presumed she had been a present due
to his father's position.
-
-
- 8.
Janna
-
- Janna's case is very similar
to the one just examined16.
She was also brought to the Cape Colony in a Dutch
ship by a "Boatswain named Andries Ross who had
adopted me as his child" when she was twelve. They
lived together at Mrs Bergh's place, but then Ross
went to Holland and left her at Mr van Balen's house
promising to return to take her home one
day17.
He obviously never came back for her. At the time
Janna spoke only Bengali, so she was transferred to
one Mr Hertzog in Breedestreet, Cape Town, who
gradually started to treat her as a slave and whose
wife registered Janna as her property in the Slave
Registers18.
In this way Janna found herself a slave in an alien
context at the mercy of strangers who decided about
her life as they pleased. The slave Domingo, the
personal servant of the late Mr Hertzog, testified in
support of her complaint. He stated that he had heard
his master saying that Janna, at the time living at
Mrs Bergh's house, was not a slave19.
- This case once again shows
how easy it was - at that time and in that particular
context - to ignore legality and to seize other
people's lives without any kind of ripercussion,
especially when these people were outsiders and could
not even speak Dutch.
- Janna's case is a clear
example of one of the obstacles which individuals
newly brought into the Cape Colony had to face, - the
issue of the language being one of the most important
and immediate means of expression between human
beings. This was the most evident problem that alien
slaves had. The language barrier made it more
difficult to adapt to the new environment, and it was
a particularly difficult issue in the context of the
Cape Colony, where all the slaves had been imported -
from the very beginning of its history - from many
different countries. Thus, slaves had to learn their
masters' language if they wanted to be able to
communicate.
-
-
- 9.
Lucy
-
- Lucy was a servant of a
passenger of an English ship and was brought to the
Cape Colony from Madras around 1790, and left there
when he left the Colony. She told her story to the
Guardian who reported that she was
-
- a servant to
Mr Johnson one of the passengers who, quitting
the Colony left her with the widow of one
captain Smit who was afterwards married to one
Klaas Peters. That on the deceased of
[the] said Mrs Peters she remained in
the service of the widower until the year 1823
when she and a number of her children were sold
at a public sale to said P.M.
Brink20.
-
- This report carries on saying
that Lucy's sister, Prempie, was in the ship with her
but she continued the trip to England with Mr Johnson.
Lucy saw her sister again
-
- a few years
after her [Prempie] going out to Bombay
as servant of an English lady who lodged at the
House of Mrs Call de Lille now Mrs Matthiessen
on which occasion Prempie told Mr de Lille that
Lucy was her sister and had arrived here [in
the Cape Colony] as aforesaid, and she
therefore begs that Mrs Matthiessen may be
called upon respecting the circumstance in order
to prove her having been brought here from
Madras - there being no slavery at that place in
the year 1790 or several years previous. She
also begs that Mrs Maasdorp may be examined
relative to the place of her birth and the
manner in which she came into the service of Mr
Smit - and whether she was included as a slave
in the Inventory made of her Estate at her
decease.
-
- Prempie, apparently free,
tried to help her unfortunate sister. In 1790, she
continued the journey to England with Mr Johnson as
his servant. This fact made the difference between
their destinies, since Prempie remained a servant,
whereas her sister was enslaved at the Cape.
- In the copy of the inventory
of his sister's property sent to the Guardian by Mr
Maasdorp there is no mention of Lucy or other
slaves21.
The Guardian asked him why Lucy was not included in
his sister, Mrs Peter's, inventory when she died. He
replied that he could not recollect in which way his
sister possessed Lucy because at that time he was very
young and he did not know why her name was not on the
list, but he thought that Lucy occasionally spoke to
him about her freedom. Mr Klaas Peters added some more
information to this case through two letters stating
that the girl became his property through his marriage
with Jacoba Christina Maasdorp, that the inventory was
made only for specific chattels and not for the whole
property, that Lucy had never spoken to him about her
freedom and that "Lucy was given to his said deceased
wife by a lady who lodged at her house, but whose name
is unknown to him"22.
- Apparently these words ended
the case, for nothing new intervened to save Lucy from
her situation, as far as the Slave Office was
concerned.
-
-
- 10. Deceived
Women
-
- The next three complaints are
more detailed, a fact that renders them ideal as
complete examples of the issue of these deceived
women. Deceived because they were brought to the
Colony without being aware of where they were going
to, because they fell into the hands of unscrupulous
men, and in most of the cases they were too young to
realise what was happening to them. They were left
there with the false promise of being taken home but
eventually, after they had been enslaved at the Cape,
they did not have the means to go back to their
countries. Moreover by the time they went to complain,
these women, torn from the affection of their families
for such a long time, had made a life for themselves
at the Cape and integrated into that specific context,
although they still wanted to be free and regretted
their misfortune. The extraneousness they felt when
abandoned later faded away and converted into the
search for freedom.
-
-
- 11. Marie on
behalf of Betje and Grietje
-
- Case nr. 52 of the 18th
January 1827 was made by a grandmother, Marie, on
behalf of her nieces Betje and Grietje, both detained
as slaves respectively in the districts of Somerset
and Swellendam23.
- Marie, born in Ceylon,
arrived at the Cape as a free woman. A certain captain
Stoll, with whom she had had a child, left her at the
Cape promising to fetch her on his return. She was
left with one Mr Nicholaas van As who, two years after
her arrival, moved to Swellendam because of his job
and took her with him. Marie lived with him for many
years until his son Hendrik decided to sell her
publicly, profiting from his father's mental illness.
It is not clear whether the old van As considered
Marie a slave or not. She stated that she did the same
work other slaves did, but without being provided with
food or clothing, which were given to her by her
husband. There is no proof of her having been sold to
him by captain Stoll as a slave, she only said in her
complaint that "she was left in charge of Mr Nicholaas
van As".
- Caatje, Marie and captain
Stoll's daughter, who also went to testify on behalf
of her children maintained in a state of slavery, was
defined as a free woman at the beginning of her
deposition: "Caatje a freewoman attended at this
office"24.
Her deed of manumission was produced when she was six
or seven years of age because Nicholaas van As knew
that his son was threatening to sell her. This is the
reason why Hendrik destroyed it, although Caatje had
already been freed. She could not save her children
from being sold by an Agent of the Orphan Chamber in
Swellendam on account of the van As
estate.
- In 1815 this case had already
been brought to the attention of the Court of Justice
which decided that the "complainants were not entitled
to their freedom", a sentence confirmed one year later
by the Court of Appeals. According to the Courts there
was insufficient proof to allow them to liberate
Marie, Betje and Grietje25.
- This then was another
unsuccessful case for three women who could not assert
their right to freedom, but at least tried to redeem
themselves. The Ameliorative legislation improved the
quality of their existences and decreased their
masters' power over them. For the first time slaves
became aware of their condition and could legally
react when they thought their masters went too far
with punishments or did not respect their duties
(Mason: 1991, 103-128 and 1-37; Dooling: 1992, 75-94
and in Worden and Crais (eds.): 1994,
26-43).
-
-
- 12.
Mina
-
- Mina arrived at the Cape from
Batavia where she was hired as a servant by a
watchmaker named Mr Wever and his mistress, a native
of Batavia, Bientong26.
She was supposed to follow them to Holland to take
care of their children and, once there, go back to her
country. Unfortunately for her some unforeseen events
occurred and Mr Wever and his family remained at the
Cape and Mina with them. They also had a slave girl,
Samira, from Batavia.
- For the first year they
lodged at Mrs Kilian's who tried to buy Mina as a
slave. Wever refused saying that the girl was a free
person and offered to sell her the slave Samira. The
watchmaker later rented a place where they lived for
the following two years.
- At this point of the story Mr
Wever sold Mina and when she complained, he answered
that there being no written agreement between them, he
could dispose of her as he pleased. She was first sold
to one Mr Rorich and then to Mr Wilhelm, her master at
the time of the complaint. Mina told the Guardian that
being unacquainted with the legislation she had not
gone to complain at the time.
- This version of the story was
also given by Bientong, the mistress whom the
watchmaker sold as he was in need of
money27.
She was born in Batavia and went to the Cape Colony
with Wever with whom she decided to leave her country.
They had two children still alive, a girl born in
Batavia and a boy born at the Cape. They planned to go
to Holland, Wever's country of origin, but at that
time a war broke out, an event that prevented them
from going there. Therefore they prolonged their stay
at the Cape. The Dutchman became poor and sold his
mistress, his son and his servant Mina privately,
whereas the slave was sold by public sale; the
daughter had a better treatment, since she was sent to
Bengal.
- Bientong clearly stated that
Mina was a servant and thus a free person. When asked
by the Guardian why she maintained that Mina was a
free girl whilst Samira was a slave, she stated that
it was "because Mina was engaged to accompany us to
Holland as a free servant, & Samira was bought by
my Husband at Batavia as a slave". There is no doubt
that Mina should have been free, but the point is
another one: at that time a man with financial
difficulties abused other human being's individual
right to be free and disposed of their lives as he
pleased. He took advantage of their ignorance and the
weaker position of his son and of two foreigners, a
servant and his own partner. Both women admitted in
their respective complaints and testimony that they
were, at the time, unaware of their right to complain.
Apparently it was not complicated to deal with the
sale of free individuals, Mr Wever had only to sell
them privately and - as far as can be seen from the
documents of this case - there were no consequences
until Mina took her revenge through the only way she
knew: the Guardian of Slaves.
- Major Rogers was concerned
with Mina's grievance and asked twice for the
intervention of the Court of Justice in the matter, in
order to find Wever's residence to prosecute or, at
least to interrogate him on the ground of having sold
free individuals as slaves illegally28.
-
-
- 13.
Marietje
-
- The last case is more complex
and might seem to be controversial due to the fact
that one of the witnesses referred to an episode that
implied that the complainant was sold as a slave, but
it is not clear when and by whom this was done.
Moreover they are written declarations thus the
Guardian was unable to question the complainant and
her two witnesses.
- In the year 1795 a captain
van Wymeren arrived at the Cape with Marietje, a girl
from Bengal29.
When he had to proceed to his next destination, he
left the girl in the care of his mother-in-law. On her
death Marietje went to live with a niece of the
captain unlike the other slaves belonging to Mrs
Zeeeman, who were sold according to the usual
praxis.
- He returned around 1804 and
being ill and in need of treatment, he remained in the
Colony for a while. After he recovered, he suggested
that Marietje go to Holland with a gentleman. When she
refused he left her "under the Guardianship of Mrs
Nothling who was to take care of her till she attains
the age of maturity when she was to do as she
pleased". A few months after the captain had left, Mrs
Nothling (under whose name Marietje was registered)
told her that she had bought her from the captain
himself. The women could have lied, but Marietje
seemed to have passively accepted her version of the
story, unable to assert her freedom.
- The two written declarations
authenticated by a notary give two different accounts
of Marietje's situation30.
In the first, dated 18th December 1820, the master at
arms and sailmaker Dirk Jansen reported that he looked
after the captain when he was ill and that he was
given "a bag containing silver money and two letters
to Mrs Simons the mother of his wife in order thereby
to obtain the freedom of said Marietje". But Mrs
Simons was already dead, so Jansen returned the bag
and the letters to the captain who, before leaving
again told Jansen that Marietje was eventually
free31.
- From these words it would
appear that van Wymeren had sold the girl the first
time he returned to the Colony and that when he came
back again he wanted to manumit her. There could be
another interpretation of the Captain's words;
Marietje could have been dishonestly sold by the woman
she was entrusted to, Mrs Nothling, so van Wymeren
wanted to ransom her and give her back her
life.
- The discrepancy between
Marietje's complaint and Jansen's written statement is
apparent. Accordingly to the first she had been sold
neither to Mrs Simons nor to Mrs Nothling, they just
had to look after her, nevertheless at a certain stage
the latter told her that she had bought her from the
captain as a slave. According to Jansen's written
statement Marietje was in fact sold to the captain's
mother-in-law Mrs Simons.
- The second written statement
was made by a freeblack woman named Selvia who was a
'daily' with the captain while he was in the Colony
and who told her how he brought Marietje "from Bengal
as a free child" and that once in her presence a
gentleman asked the captain whether he could purchase
the girl, to whom he replied "no she is not for sale,
but I will place her with Mrs Nothling till she
attaines the years of discretion & can gain her
own livelihood, at which period Mrs Nothling must
leave her at liberty"32.
Selvia also asked to buy her for 600 Rixdollars, a
price that van Wymeren refused answering: "Why shall I
sell such an innocent child I have money enough. I
have neither wife and I took her from her parents as
my own child".
- On the 12th January 1829
Marietje went to the Guardian of Slaves' office to
know whether he had progressed in her case, obtaining
the answer that her evidence was insufficient to
proceed with further investigations, but that the
Guardian would have contacted her mistress to know why
she had registered her in 1816.
-
-
- 14. Uncertain
Cases
-
- What was certainly remarkable
concerning all six cases mentioned above and the other
four that also concerned imported women who were
already bought as slaves or sent to the Cape Colony as
presents, is that as outsiders they were unconsciously
part of the broader issue of the process of
creolization. These women remained in the Colony for
different reasons and became part of the Cape slave
population that at the turn of the nineteenth century
was reproducing itself and increasing in number, but
that still necessitated imports in order to satisfy
the demand for labour33.
These constant 'inputs' implied that new outsiders
were continuously introduced into the mixed ethnic
context of the already, but not yet completely,
creolized slave population of the Cape Colony;
therefore they were perceived as being part of it, but
they were not. Their destiny was that of being slaves
in a foreign country and that of being forced to adapt
to a new environment, circumstances that led them to
partake in the slave population's occupations as such,
but that also allowed them not to forget, as
outsiders, their own customs and
habits34.
- As far as the 'uncertain'
cases are concerned, it has already been said that it
is not clear from the complaints and testimonies
whether complainants were effectively slaves before
they came to the Cape Colony - having been enslaved in
their countries of origin . or whether they were
merely presents for Europeans residing in the
Colony.
- Cases number 11 and 50 can be
analysed together, since the complainants were sisters
and mentioned as witnesses the same persons, although
they went to complain separately and after a lapse of
time of five months from each other. Their complaints
differ also in length and accuracy35.
- Case number 97 has to be
considered on its own because of the difference
between the complainant's and her mistress' version of
the facts; moreover from a letter sent by one of the
witnesses it seemed clear that Dela was a present, a
status that is not easily definable36.
- 15. Samila
and Caatije
-
- Samila, Caatje, their sister
Amarlita and their mother Catharina, after their
arrival at the Cape Colony in April 1787 aboard a
Dutch East India Company vessel from Ceylon, were
immediately sent to a compatriot, Mr C.H.
Matthezer37.
Caatje, in her written statement, declared that in the
ship there were several slaves en route to Holland,
all travelling with their masters's permission, but
that she herself, her mother and sisters did not have
one. She also mentioned Article nr.93 of the Statutes
of Batavia, which forbade the importation into the
Cape Colony of "any slave from any of the Dutch
settlements in East India", though apparently this was
never implemented in practice. These were basically
her arguments for her claim to freedom.
- Both Samila and Caatje called
as witnesses three persons who had been in the same
ship with them: Onverwagt and Adolph, two freeman, and
Spadille a slave of Egbertus Bergh of Cape
Town.
- The first man had been a
slave of captain Pylhard at the time he arrived, but
he did not know Catharina and her daughters from
Ceylon nor anything about their status
there38.
- Adolph, having known the
women from Ceylon, gave a more complete and precise
account39.
He said that the women were all free there and they
came to the Cape "to Mr. Marthese who was formerly her
[Adolph was testifying on behalf of Caatje]
Master in order to go back with him to Ceylon. Mr
Marthese had gone to Holland and then returned back as
far as the Cape from whence he sent an order that
Catharina and her daughters should come to
him"40.
- Adolph's words sounded
contradictory, for he said that Caatje and her mother
and sisters were free in Ceylon, but he also stated
that Mr Matthezer was Catharina's former master. Was
Catharina an ex slave in Ceylon or did Adolph use an
inappropriate word?
- Through the Guardian's
questions it is possible to clarify the doubt. He
asked Adolph: "Was it usual in Ceylon when a slave was
made free to have what is called a free paper or deed
of manumission?". Adolph answered: "Yes and Catharina
had such which was burnt when the house of Mr
Matthezer was destroyed by Fire". When asked if he had
seen this paper he said: "I have seen a paper which
Catharina told me was her free paper and also a
certificate of her baptism". The Guardian went on to
ask: "Was it usual for Slaves to be baptized at Ceylon
at that time?" " Yes it was, and I was present in
Ceylon when Catharina & her children were
baptized".
- Here Adolph introduced a
significant and debated issue in the Cape context,
that of whether baptized slaves should be
free.
- According to the 1770
Statutes of India, the baptism of slaves meant that
masters could not sell them and had to emancipate them
"in the event of their departure from this country or
at their death, or to give them away or bequeath them
to others under the same obligation, or upon their
departure from India to transfer them to such as may
be willing to take them on the same conditions" (Mc
Theal: 1892-1919, 131-132 art. 9th).
- At the Cape the issue had
remained open since, notwithstanding repeated attempts
to resolve it, authorities did not take any kind of
decision. Slave owners generally believed that through
baptism slaves gained civil status and could no longer
be sold and that after baptism slaves were to be
regarded respectfully rather than as mere chattels. As
Shell has pointed out, "baptism at the Cape became a
right of racial descent", because it "was seen not
only as a signifier of spiritual salvation, but also
as a primary symbol of the civic incorporation or
exclusion of slaves and people of non Christian
descent" (Shell: 1994, 336-337 and
338-346).
- In other words, masters could
not conceive of slaves having the same status as
themselves, so they identified the term 'white' with
christened and civilised, and 'slave' with heathen
(Shell: 1994, 336-337 and 338-346). By the beginning
of the nineteenth century, slave baptism was practised
at the Cape by a small - almost irrelevant -
percentage of slave owners, whereas at the end of the
century the view changed: slaves were christened only
if they inherited or if masters wanted to legitimise
them.
- A plausible explanation could
be that Catharina had been a slave of Mr Matthezer
when he was still living in Ceylon, but that he had
freed her before leaving, as Adolph believed her to be
a free woman in Ceylon. If she was free it is
difficult to understand how Matthezer could 'order'
her and her daughters to go to the Cape Colony. And
why then, were they registered as slaves?
- Spadille was the captain's
servant in the Hof ter Linde and was told by
the captain himself that the women were passengers on
board, whereas once arrived at Mr Matthezer's place
"they worked in the house as slave girls usually
do"41.
He was not acquainted with them in Ceylon, so he did
not know why they were going to the Cape, but he was
sure that they were not treated as slaves before their
arrival.
- Another slave, Marje, stated
that she knew the four women from Ceylon where they
were free people and where they had been baptised, and
that she did not know why they had left, but that she
was in the same ship with them and they were
passengers there42.
- To sum up: Catharina was once
a slave in Ceylon belonging to Mr Matthezer who,
shortly before leaving, baptised and freed her.
Apparently she was a free person until she went to the
Cape Colony with her three daughters, when Mr
Matthezer 'ordered' them to do so. On board of the
ship they were treated as passengers, but then they
worked for him as slave girls 'usually
do'.
- What Catharina did not know
was that the widow of the late Egbertus van der Veld
bequeathed her and her children to Mr Matthezer in her
will, dated Ceylon 4th May 1777, and that based on
that he could claim them as his property. Therefore
these women had already been freed in Ceylon, but were
re-enslaved at the Cape on the basis of a will left
when they were still slaves. Was this a legally
acceptable situation? Were Catharina and her daughters
entitled to their freedom or could they be subjugated
again?
- The Guardian of Slaves wrote
to the Court of Justice to explain the case and to ask
for further investigations. As a matter of fact he did
not believe that the copy of the will was "strictly
authentic"43.
He therefore requested the Court to send a letter
addressed to the Government of Ceylon asking for an
"attested copy of the last will of Christina Breda who
was the widow of Egbert van der Veld" which should
also have been registered at the Orphan Chamber in
Ceylon44.
Moreover the Guardian Rogers having found out that the
women were not in the list of Passengers of the ship
Hof ter Linde, which undoubtedly brought them
to the Cape, requested further investigation on this
matter as well.
-
-
- 16.
Dela
-
- On 9th October 1827 Dela went
to claim her right to freedom on the basis of her
mother Rampie who arrived at the Cape as a free
person45.
Rampie was born in Bengal and sent when still a child
as a present for Mrs Kotzé by one captain
Palmer in order to return a favour, which consisted of
having left a child of his in the care of Mrs
Kotzé (then Melander) while he was
away.
- Dela in her complaint
referred to something that her mother used to say to
her children: "She [Rampie] has often told me
that if she chose to make complaint she and all her
children would be free, but that she had not the means
of paying the expenses & would therefore not take
any steps"46.
In fact, Rampie never complained. On the contrary,
after having been with Mrs de Melander, she was sold
to Mr M. Melk who was her present master and her
children inevitably followed her fate.
- Witnesses for Dela's case
reported the same episode that happened at a dinner at
Mrs de Melander's house where they were all
invited47.
An adopted daughter of the hostess struck a little
Mozambican slave boy who was not behaving himself and
the girl was scolded by her mother who then added that
she could only treat and punish him that way but not
Dela's children who were not to be treated as slaves.
She went to fetch captain Palmer's letter in order to
prove it - dated Bengal 14th December 1786 - in which
was stated: "Mrs van Danhelman brings a box and a
small tub of pickle and will also take the child from
you to send to me - likewise a little slave for Mrs
Koetzer or Mrs de Melander"48.
Mrs de Melander's daughter stated in her deposition
that Rampie was a present for her deceased mother,
that she (the witness) had never said anything
regarding Rampie's right to freedom and that after her
mother's death Rampie's several children had been
publicly sold. She then went on to complain about
Dela's misconduct, an obviously good reason for her to
think of advertising her and her children for
sale49.
- According to these words, the
discrepancy in the living conditions between a slave
and a 'present' was not so relevant. The only
difference consisted in the fact that they did not
receive the same kind of punishments, because the
'present' was considered as being different by the
master and mistress, but at the end of the day neither
was free and when his/her master or mistress died, the
heirs were forgetful of the individual's real status
and ended up selling him/her as they used to do with
other slaves. The status of 'present' has not been
cleared up yet, but it was likely to be a formal
definition of people who in practice were
slaves.
- Indeed, the Guardian of
slaves believed in Dela's complaint and decided to
request the Court of Justice to intercede in this
case. He wrote asking "to direct that Rampie the
mother of Dela [...]may be summoned before a
commissioner of the Court to give Evidence in this
case and if her evidence should be in favor of Dela's
statement, that a curator may be appointed to advocate
her claim to freedom"50.
- Major Rogers fulfilled his
task carefully forwarding cases number 11, 50 and 97
to the Court of Justice, the highest authority on the
matter, but unfortunately their outcomes are
unknown.
-
-
- 17. An
Attempt
-
- The last case concerning
women who claimed their illegal detention in slavery
is remarkable for its brevity and conciseness, due to
the honesty of the complainant's mother
Julenda51.
- She was a native of Bengal
who had come to the Cape Colony as a child. She told
the Guardian that she was a slave of Mrs Winterbach,
Sanna's mistress as well, that she did not understand
why her daughter should lie about being a slave and
that there were no grounds for her
complaint52.
- Sanna, the complainant,
stated that her mother was, at the time, a free
person. She based her deposition on what her sister
had overheard in 1809. She had heard her mistress
saying to her daughter that she did not have the
transfer for Julenda, to whom the daughter replied not
to worry because she could "have her registered as
your slave and you can state that she is about fifty
years of age"53.
Julenda's words were sufficient for the Guardian to
close the case.
-
-
- 18. The
Guardian of Slaves, Masters and
Witnesses
-
- Whether these slave women
were stating the truth in their complaints or not,
they were all trying to retrieve their lost freedom.
They trusted the Guardian of Slaves who endorsed their
attempts. In the Half Yearly Report at the end of
1827, he expressed his approval on the general utility
of his task54.
On the one hand the Guardian supported them. On the
other hand he endeavoured to prevent them from the
misrepresentation of facts and show them the 'right'
way55.
- Masters were compelled not
only to let their slaves denounce their grievances,
but also testify before the Guardian if requested to
do so. Unfortunately, very few slave owners were
called as witnesses in the cases analysed in this
chapter. Thus it is not possible to generalise about
masters' attitude towards their slaves who went to
complain. They could interpret it as an act of
resistance, something for which slaves would be
punished once back home after the accusation. There
were many cases of slaves who went back to the
Guardian after a few days, to denounce furious
whippings received because they had dared to do such a
thing against them. Masters often felt betrayed by
slaves, but most of all they saw the introduction of
the Guardian as eroding their absolute control over
their slaves. They did not view the new figure of the
Guardian as a mediator able to improve and enhance
slaves lives, but as a person who had stolen their
total control over their chattels and might decide
against their will.
- Nonetheless masters did go
before the Guardian to support their own interests.
Viewing their slaves as their property they were very
unwilling to liberate them and always prompt to
unburden themselves of their responsibilities towards
them.
- The sample of slave or
ex-slave witnesses is larger so it is easier to
understand their views.
- In most cases they were the
main witnesses since they knew the complainants having
shared their experiences and grievances. They were
mostly relatives, members of the same households or
people who had come to the Cape Colony in the same
ship. Their testimonies seem to have been sincere but
not always accurate being based on distant memories.
Nonetheless their role in these stories was
fundamental, because they helped human beings in their
fight to regain their freedom.
|