“Contradictions in Talk”: Free People of Color, Law, and the Politics of Reputation in the Antebellum Southern Courtroom

In 1829, William Hayden, a free black barber, petitioned the court in Natchez, Mississippi asking to remain in the state.  His reputation for “honesty,” “fidelity,” and “obedience to the laws of the state” made him an ideal candidate for remaining in Natchez.  He owned property and ran a successful business, yet he was in constant danger “of being driven from his home.”  He claimed that he could produce “testimonials of his good character and honesty . . . sobriety and good conduct.”  Calling upon his reputation as a sober, industrious, and honest businessman served as an effective defensive legal strategy.  Hayden’s reputation protected him from “ruin” and shielded him from restrictive legislation in a social order where the nearly unlimited power of white slaveholders might run roughshod over his “prospects.”

This paper uses local court records in antebellum Mississippi and Louisiana to explore how free African Americans used the politics of reputation to protect themselves and advance their positions.  Free people of color participated in the politics of reputation as a means to survive in a slaveholders’ regime.  In particular, for free blacks, cultivating a good name served as both offensive and defensive strategies:  a good reputation could protect them from criminal charges and restrictive laws, and it also allowed them legal privileges usually associated with whites.  By highlighting their reputations as obedient, deferential, and well-behaved members of the community and showing that they remembered their place, free people of color shielded themselves from attack.  They also could use their good reputations to sue others in court, protect their property, and improve their situations. For those with limited legal rights and little official standing in the southern social order, leveraging reputation represented an important weapon in the “small politics” of their communities.