Overseers

Contract between planter Ebenezer Davis and Booker Flippin

So, in doing a little research early Saturday morning on Ancestry.com, I found my way to the 1860 Census and took a look at Townships 2 and 3 (1 and 2 W). These areas include most of the planters I have been studying--Hull, Minor, Clayton, and Crump, as well as Matthews. I noticed that one of the wealthiest planters in Township 2, Alexander Clayton, employed the services of R.A. Phlippin as "farm manager." (Nowhere in the census for these two townships did I see the word overseer.) I also noted that another planter, Andrew Jackson, also in Township 2, employed a Thomas Phlippin in the same capacity, and I am aware that yet another planter, not located in either of these two townships, employed in 1860 a Booker Flippin.

It would appear to be the case then that the Flippin or Phlippin family specialized in farm management. What might this mean? Does it mean that they were professionals? That they used a system that ultimately resulted in large crops? That the Flippins/Phlippins were much sought after because of this? Or, to the contrary, does it mean that they were fierce and kept the slave population in order by threat of the lash?

Perhaps there are hints that might suggest an answer. The image above, a contract between Ebenezer Davis and  Booker Flippin, contains the language: "to treat the slaves as kindly as their conduct will allow." There is in the language of the document, which also contains instructions on how to care for the slaves (instructions including the overseer's duty to see that the slaves keep good hygiene), is paternalistic in character. This quality is in agreement with what Eugene Genovese wrote of both the master/slave relationship and the complicated relationship between overseers and the slave community that they worked. In the contract, Davis seems to be creating some latitude for both slave and overseer. At one end of possibility is "care." At the other end, the whip. In any case, the document at once indicates slave agency; they are to some extent in charge of their own conduct and therefore will suffer consequences of it. On the other hand, they are treated like children who cannot take care of their own hygiene without assistance. Above all, the contract would seem to exonerate Davis himself of treatment that is not kind, by providing him an alibi of sorts or a cushion. If things do not go according to the contract, he can place the blame on the overseer, on the slaves, or both. Little fault would seem to fall to him. What's more, by employing a language of care, i.e. "treat the slaves kindly," he may maintain his role as uninvolved patriarch. In short, his hands are clean and he may maintain the stature of Southern gentleman. The overseer was then scapegoat, and perhaps he remains so today.

Upon whom was the title of Southern gentleman bestowed? Those who had money enough to create this sort of distance between themselves and the ugly realities of slavery. And yet, slave narratives suggest that blacks could often see through the guise of the Southern gentleman and lady. Regularly, former slaves refer to their masters and mistresses as mean, a description that would seem to suggest that when they were not treated kindly they knew who ultimately was to blame.