• Thrice Condemned: Enslaved Women, Violence, and the Practice of Leniency in Antebellum Virginia Courts
• Tamika Y. Nunley (bio)

During the Christmas holidays of 1856, Prince William County local G. A. Hutchison stumbled upon a fire that was consuming the home of George E. Green. As Hutchison approached the burning house, he discovered to his horror what was described as the “charred spine & pelvis of an adult.” Hutchison proceeded down the path from the house to the barn, where he found traces of blood smeared along the road and on the slats that lined the gate. Evidence of blood, broken gates, and a split latch gave indication that a struggle had occurred before the fire. A blood-stained hatchet that survived the fire confirmed suspicions of a “scuffle.” An enslaved woman named Nelly, along with her children, Betsy and James, and her grandchildren, Elias and Ellen, were jailed and charged with the murder of their owner, George E. Green. The court identified Nelly as the ringleader.¹

This article examines the homicides of white Virginians and the enslaved women held responsible for their deaths. The cases included in this study focus on murder and attempted murder as a primary form of enslaved women’s resistance. From the perspective of the enslaved, the legal and personal meanings of resistance served as moments of retribution that contested the years of wrongs inflicted on their lives, minds, and [End Page 5] bodies—their own articulations of justice, even as the law categorized these actions as crimes. In some instances, enslaved women accused of murder avoided the death penalty and, instead, received a commuted sentence. Deemed the most egregious of crimes, murder cases reveal the gendered contours of leniency in cases involving enslaved women.

The cases highlight what nineteenth-century jurists referred to as acts of “leniency” or “mercy” in their deliberations over sentencing. Historian Philip J. Schwarz has definitively characterized the experiences of enslaved people accused of crimes as “twice condemned” by southern law and slavery, but here, I show how in criminal cases enslaved women were thrice condemned when gender is taken into consideration, even with the prospect of clemency.² More specifically, trial records, governors’ papers, and local newspapers reveal the multilayered contexts in which courts, locals, and the news accounted for the gendered contexts of enslaved women’s lives and applied racialized gender stereotypes either to strengthen or to undermine the case for condemnation. Murder trials involving enslaved women and white Virginians illuminate competing ideas about the relationship of gender, paternalism, and leniency and, more specifically, about the contradictions built into the meaning and the administration of justice in antebellum Virginia. Indeed, these cases underscore that enslaved women employed their own understandings of justice after years of gendered exploitation and violence.

Before the emergence of scholarship about slave resistance, enslaved women were largely regarded as the least likely to engage in the most visible forms of resistance, despite the general knowledge of these incidents among antebellum Virginians. The cases analyzed in this article show not only that gender did not presuppose violent responses toward white southerners but also that ideas about gender, race, age, and sex influenced local opinion and the possibilities for a commuted sentence. Reports of bondpeople on trial for murder fortified white fears of alleged and actual violent retaliation. As Schwarz argues, slave laws, local customs, and the grievances of slaveholders changed over time as a result of the actions of the enslaved. Furthermore, he demonstrates that resistance not only exposed the volatility of slavery but also inspired initiatives to reorient and adjust laws to counteract the actions of the enslaved.³ In instances that led to trial, Ariela J. Gross observes, the [End Page 6] paradox of “double character” or slaves’ “double identity” as human and “property” became increasingly apparent, causing southerners to contend with the contradictions of slave law.⁴ Malick W. Ghachem refers to this contradiction as “the slave’s two bodies,” or the tension between the legal fiction of human property and personhood that pervades the liberal themes of southern law.⁵ In the cases that are the focus of this article, however, the racial, gendered, and sexual conditions of...

• 三次遭到谴责：弗吉尼亚州战前法庭上的奴役妇女，暴力行为和宽大处理
• 塔米卡·纳里（Tamika Y.Nunley）（生物）

d uring的Ç的hristmas假期1856，P rince W¯¯威廉·县当地GA GA Hutchison偶然发现一场大火，烧毁了George E. Green的房屋。当Hutchison接近燃烧的房屋时，他惊骇地发现了所谓的“成年人的烧焦的脊柱和骨盆”。Hutchison沿着从房子到谷仓的小径前进，在那儿他发现了沿道路和大门两旁的板条上沾满鲜血的痕迹。鲜血，闸门破裂和闩锁裂开的迹象表明，在大火之前发生了挣扎。在大火中幸存的血迹斑斑的斧头证实了人们对“混战”的怀疑。一名名叫Nelly的被奴役妇女以及她的孩子Betsy和James，以及她的孙子Elias和Ellen被判入狱，并被指控谋杀了其所有者George E. Green。法院认定Nelly为头目。^1个

本文研究了白人弗吉尼亚人的杀人案和对自己的死亡负有责任的被奴役妇女。本研究中涉及的案件集中于谋杀和未遂谋杀，这是被奴役妇女抵抗的主要形式。从被奴役的角度来看，性的法律和个人的含义担任报应的时刻，有争议的岁月造成对他们的生活，心中冤屈，和[尾页5]机构，自己的正义的关节，甚至法律将这些行为归类为犯罪。在某些情况下，被控谋杀的被奴役妇女避免了死刑，而是被减刑。被认为是最严重的罪行，谋杀案揭示了在奴役妇女案件中的宽大处理。

这些案件突显了19世纪法学家在对量刑进行的审议中所说的“宽大”或“仁慈”行为。历史学家菲利普·施瓦兹（Philip J. Schwarz）明确地将被控犯罪的被奴役者的经历定性为南方法律和奴隶制的“两次定罪”，但在这里，我展示了在刑事案件中，考虑到性别，被奴役的妇女被三次定罪，即使宽容的前景。^2个更具体地说，审判记录，州长论文和当地报纸揭示了多层的背景，在这些背景下，法院，当地人和新闻解释了被奴役妇女生活的性别背景，并应用了种族化的性别陈规定型观念，以加强或破坏定罪案件。 。涉及被奴役的妇女和弗吉尼亚白种人的谋杀案审判阐明了关于性别，家长制和宽大处理关系的竞争性观点，更具体地说，是关于弗吉尼亚战前意义和司法内在的内在矛盾。的确，这些案件强调，在经历了多年的性别剥削和暴力之后，奴役妇女运用了自己对正义的理解。

在有关奴隶抵抗的学术研究出现之前，尽管弗吉尼亚州战前人们普遍了解这些事件，但被奴役的妇女在很大程度上被认为是从事最明显形式的抵抗的可能性最小。本文分析的案例不仅表明性别不以暴力对待南方白人为前提，而且有关性别，种族，年龄和性别的观念影响了当地舆论和减刑的可能性。邦德人因谋杀而受到审判的报道强化了白人对所谓的和实际的暴力报复的恐惧。正如施瓦茨（Schwarz）所说，由于奴隶制的行为，奴隶法律，当地习俗和奴隶主的不满随着时间而改变。此外，³在实例中，导致试验中，Ariela J.格罗斯观察到的，在[尾页6] “双字”或从站的‘双同一性’的悖论人力和‘属性’变得越来越明显，引起南方人与矛盾抗衡奴隶法。⁴ Malick W. Ghachem将此矛盾称为“奴隶的两个身体”，或者说是人类法律小说与人格之间的张力弥漫着南方法律的自由主题。⁵但是，在本文重点关注的情况下，...的种族，性别和性状况...