Simon Verdier’s Principal (1835)

Simon Verdier was a French Huguenot who immigrated to South Carolina and settled in Colleton County in the early 1800s. A rice planter and avid gambler, Verdier was one of the richest plantation owners in the South, having amassed a total of six plantations, various other properties extending from Georgia to Florida, and nearly 400 slaves.1N. Louise Bailey, ed., Biographical Directory of the South Carolina Senate, 1776-1985, vol. 3. (1986); William Kauffman Scarborough, Masters of the Big House: Elite Slaveholders of the Mid-Nineteenth-Century South. (2003).

The Case of William Tann

In 1833, Verdier stood surety for William Tann, an overseer of a nearby plantation accused of fatally shooting a slave. Tann, a mixed-race man with a fair complexion, was confined for over a year while the court ascertained whether he “was entitled to be tried as a White or a colored Man.”2Simon Verdier, Petition and Supporting Papers, South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Series S165015, Year 1834, Item 36. Shortly after the court ultimately decided to try him as a colored man, Tann fled  to Georgia, thus forfeiting Verdier’s $500 bond. Verdier was ordered to appear in Charleston to answer for the forfeiture.

Verdier did not retain a lawyer and planned to appear personally to defend against the forfeiture, but he thought better of it during “that period of Charleston being sickly.” Verdier therefore suffered a default judgment. On his own initiative, Verdier managed to track Tann to Georgia and recapture him. By December, 1834, Verdier could confirm to John D. Edwards, his friend in the South Carolina Assembly, that Tann had been returned to the Charleston jail and was awaiting execution.

Tann’s case became a kind of cause célèbre in abolitionist literature.3See William Jay, An Inquiry into the Character and Tendency of the American Colonization and Anti-Slavery Scoieties 21-22 (1837); Charles Elliott, Sinfulness of American Slavery 34-35 (1857). Because Tann was ultimately adjudged black, he was disentitled to a jury trial and his execution was summarily ordered by a one-judge court. Antislavery advocates publicized Tann’s case to condemn the so-called “one-drop” rule, which rendered anyone of mixed race (one drop of negro blood) liable to summary court process.4See Daniel J. Sharfstein, Crossing the Color Line: Racial Migration and the One-Drop Rule, 1600–1860, 91 Minn. L. Rev. 592, 636–40 (2007).

Verdier’s Petition

Verdier asked that his forfeiture be remitted, writing “Justice has not suffered altho retarded.” Presuming “the State do not want money + flesh to be worse than Shylock,” Verdier requested a legislative resolution to “remit the amount of judgment retained” against him and to “authorize the Clerk of Charleston… to enter satisfaction on the same.”

The petition bounced around committees in the Assembly until two years later, on December 13, 1836, when the South Carolina Legislature adopted a resolution directing the Attorney General to “enter satisfaction on the judgment against Simon Verdier.”5Acts and Resolutions of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina 119–20 (1837). On December 17th, the resolution was approved by the senate.

What We Can Learn

Although Verdier left no personal records that we know of, his petition can show us several common practices in the early law of bail. For instance:

Standing surety was a matter of burnishing one’s reputation. There’s no evidence Verdier and Tann were close friends, and they certainly were not kin. One was a burgeoning plantation owner and the other a mixed-race overseer of a neighboring estate. Standing surety for Tann was likely a way for Verdier to show his largesse and extend his network of people who depended on him one step down on the social latter. Standing surety, that is, was as much about Verdier burnishing his own reputation in the community than it was attesting to Tann’s.

Pretrial incarceration could be quite lengthy. Even though Tann was eventually bailed, his detention before Verdier came along lasted “about 18 months.” Court terms tended to be short and spaced throughout the year. If needed evidence—one Tann’s heritage, for instance—did not arrive in time for one session, the case would be held over to the next, pretrial detention lasting all the while.

Bail was not paid upfront—and often not at all. Had Verdier’s property been seized or payment otherwise made to the court, a satisfaction would have been recorded in the case in Charleston. We can tell nothing had yet been seized or paid because the legislature ordered a satisfaction to be entered on the record (without payment), not the return of Verdier’s property or money. It is clear that Verdier did not pay anything when we pledged the $500 bond, nor did he surrender any property for two years after the bail was forfeited while he petitioned the legislature. And thanks to the satisfaction granted upon his successful petition, Verdier never had to pay anything despite Tann’s forfeiture.

References

  • 1
    N. Louise Bailey, ed., Biographical Directory of the South Carolina Senate, 1776-1985, vol. 3. (1986); William Kauffman Scarborough, Masters of the Big House: Elite Slaveholders of the Mid-Nineteenth-Century South. (2003).
  • 2
    Simon Verdier, Petition and Supporting Papers, South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Series S165015, Year 1834, Item 36.
  • 3
    See William Jay, An Inquiry into the Character and Tendency of the American Colonization and Anti-Slavery Scoieties 21-22 (1837); Charles Elliott, Sinfulness of American Slavery 34-35 (1857).
  • 4
    See Daniel J. Sharfstein, Crossing the Color Line: Racial Migration and the One-Drop Rule, 1600–1860, 91 Minn. L. Rev. 592, 636–40 (2007).
  • 5
    Acts and Resolutions of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina 119–20 (1837).