Modern policing has passed through various developmental stages that can be explained by typologies – this is one.
By Dr. Philip L. Reichel
Professor Emeritus of Sociology
University of Northern Colorado
Introduction
Accounts of the developmental history of American policing have tended to concentrate on happenings in the urban North. While the literature is replete with accounts of the growth of law enforcement in places like Boston (Lane, 1967; Savage, 1865), Chicago (Flinn, 1975), Detroit (Schneider, 1980) and New York City (Richardson, 1970), there has been minimal attention paid to police development outside the North. It seems unlikely that other regions of the country simply mimicked that development regardless of their own peculiar social, economic, political, and geographical aspects. In fact, Samuel Walker (1980) has briefly noted that eighteenth and nineteenth century Southern cities had developed elaborate police patrol systems in an effort to control the slave population. Walker even suggested these slave patrols were precursors to the police (1980: 59). As a forerunner to the police, it would seem that slave patrols should have become a well researched example in our attempt to better understand the development of American law enforcement. However, the regionalism of many existing histories has meant that criminal justicians and practitioners are often unaware of the existence of, and the role played by, Southern slave patrols. This means our knowledge of the history of policing is incomplete and regionally biased. This article responds to that problem by focusing attention on the development of law enforcement in the Southern slave states (i.e., Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia) during the colonial and antebellum years. The particular question to be answered is: were Southern slave patrols precursors to modern policing?
Answering the research question requires clarification of the term precursor. The concept of a precursor to police implies there are stages of development preceding the point at which a modern police force is
achieved. Several authors have looked at specific factors which influenced the development of police organizations in particular cities. Fewer have tried to make generalizations about police growth across the
society. The latter group, which includes Bacon (1939), Lundman (1980) and Monkkonen (1981), draw on
case studies of certain cities to hypothesize a developmental sequence explaining modernization of police in America. Lundman (1980), however, presents his ideas with the help of a typology of police systems.1
The advantage of a historical typology is that it allows conceptualization of a developmental sequence and can therefore be most helpful in determining whether or not slave patrols can be viewed as a part of that sequence.
The Stages of Police Development
Lundman (1980) has suggested three types or systems of policing: informal, transitional, and modern. Informal policing is characterized by community members sharing responsibility for maintaining order. Such a system was typical of societies with little division of labor and a great deal of homogeneity. There existed among the people, a “collective conscience” which allowed them willingly to participate in the identification and apprehension of rule violators. As society grew, people had wider-ranging jobs and interests. Agreement as to what was right and wrong became less complete and informal police systems became less effective. Society’s response was the development of transitional policing which served as a bridge between the informal and modern types. In that capacity, the transitional systems included aspects of the informal networks but also anticipated modern policing in terms of offices and procedures.
Identification of the point at which a police department becomes modern has not been agreed upon. Bacon, for example, cited six factors to be met: 1) city-wide jurisdiction; 2) twenty-four-hour responsibility; 3) a single organization in charge of the greater part of formal enforcement; 4) a paid personnel on a salary basis; 5) a personnel occupied solely with police duties, and 6) general rather than specific functions (1939: 6). At the other extreme is Monkkonen’s (1981) suggestion that the decisive movement to a modern police department occurs when the police adopt a uniform. Lundman follows Bacon but identifies only four distinctive characteristics of modern policing (1980: 17). First, there are persons recognized as having full-time police responsibilities. Also, there is 2) continuity in office as well as 3) continuity in procedure. Finally, for a system to be considered modern it must have 4) accountability to a central governmental authority.
Those four characteristics incorporate most of Bacon’s suggestions but ignore Monkkonen’s. Walker,
however, found the use of uniforms as a starting point for modern policing to be “utter nonsense” (1982: 216), since the development process was not the same in every city and the new agencies varied so much in size and strength.2 Instead, Lundman’s characteristics seem appropriately chosen for present needs to identify the modern police type.
Existing histories of law enforcement provide significant information about informal (e.g. constables, day and night watches) and modern (e.g. London, New York City, Boston) types, but tend to ignore examples of what Lundman might call transitional. The implication is that modern policing was the result of simple formalization of informal systems. This article offers Southern slave patrols as an example of policing which went beyond informal but was not yet modern. Because few people are aware of them, the patrols will be described before being linked to transitional police types.
A Description of Southern Slave Patrols
A number of variables influence the development of formal mechanisms of social control. Lundman’s review of the literature (1980: 24) identified four important factors: 1) an actual or perceived increase in crime; 2) public riots; 3) public intoxication; and 4) a need to control the “dangerous classes.” Bacon (1939) in a comprehensive yet infrequently cited work, took a somewhat different approach. He identified three factors of social change influencing development of modern police departments: 1) increased economic specialization; 2) formation and increasing stratification of classes; and 3) increase in population size. As a result of these social changes Bacon argues there comes “an increase in fraud, in public disorders, and in legislation limiting personal freedom” which pre-existing forms of maintaining order (e.g. family, church, neighborhood) are unable to handle (1939: 782). Variations in enforcement procedures then occur which are “pointed at specific groups, economic specialists, and certain times, places, and objects” until eventually there is a “tendency for specialists to become unified and organized” (Bacon, 1939: 782–783).
Given the scholarly works identifying such numerous and intertwined variables affecting the development of police agencies, it is potentially misleading to concentrate on just one of those factors. However, historical accounts of social control techniques in the South seem to suggest that a concern with class stratification (Lundman’s fourth factor and Bacon’s second) played a primary role in the development of formal systems of control in that region. Although the conflicts presented by immigrants and the poor have been shown to be important in the development of police in London, New York, and Boston (Lundman, 1980: 29), the conflicts presented by slaves have received very little attention. Bacon compared slaves to Southern whites and found the folkways and mores of the two castes were so different that “continual and obvious force was required if society were to be maintained” (1939: 772). The continual and obvious force developed by the South to control its version of the “dangerous classes” was the slave patrol. Before discussing those patrols it is necessary to understand why the slaves constituted a threat.3
Slaves as a “Dangerous Class”
The portrayal of slaves as docile, happy, and generally content with their bondage has been successfully
challenged in recent decades. We can today express amazement that slaveowners could have been unaware of their slaves’ unhappiness, yet some whites were continually surprised that slaves resisted their status. Such an attitude was not found only among Southern slaveowners. In a 1731 advertisement for a fugitive slave, a New England master was dismayed that this slave had run away “without the least provocation” (quoted in Foner, 1975: 264). Whether provoked in the eyes of slaveholders or not, slaves did resist their bondage. That resistance generally took one of three forms: running away, criminal acts and conspiracies or revolts. Any of those actions constituted a danger to whites.
The number of slaves who ran away is difficult to determine (Foner, 1975: 264). However, it was certainly
one of the greatest problems of slave government (Paterson, 1968: 20). Resistance by running away was easier for younger, English-speaking, skilled slaves, but records indicate slaves of all ages and abilities had
attempted escape in this manner (Foner, 1975: 260). Criminal acts by slaves have also been linked to resistance. Foner (1975: 265–268) notes instances of theft, robbery, crop destruction, arson and poison as being typical. Georgia legislation in 1770 which provided the death penalty for slaves found guilty of even attempting to poison whites was said to be necessary because “the detestable crime of poisoning hath frequently been committed by slaves.” A 1761 issue of the Charleston Gazette complained “the Negroes have again begun the hellish practice of poisoning” (both quoted in Foner, 1975: 267).
Possibly the most fear-invoking resistance however, were the slave conspiracies and revolts: Such action occurred as early as 1657, but the largest slave uprising in colonial America took place on September 9, 1739 near the Stono River several miles from Charleston. Forty Negroes and twenty whites were killed and
the resulting uproar had important impact on slave regulations. For example, South Carolina patrol legislation in 1740, noted:
Foreasmuch as many late horrible and barbarous massacres have been actually committed and many more designed, on the white inhabitants of this Province, by negro slaves, who are generally prone to such cruel practices, which makes it highly necessary that constant patrols should be established.
Cooper, 1938b: 568
Neighboring Georgians were also concerned with the actuality and potential for slave revolts. The
preamble of their 1757 law establishing and regulating slave patrols argues:
it is absolutely necessary for the Security of his Majesty’s Subjects in this Province, that Patrols should be established under proper Regulations in the settled parts thereof, for the better keeping of Negroes and other Slaves in Order and prevention of any Cabals, Insurrections or other Irregularities amongst them.
Candler, 1910: 225
Each of the three areas of resistance aided in slaves being perceived as a dangerous class. There was, however, another variable with overriding influence. Unlike the other three factors, this aspect was less direct and less visible. That latent variable was the number of slaves in the total population of several colonies. While an interest in knowing the continuous whereabouts of slaves was present throughout the colonies, slave control by formal means (e.g., specialized legislation and forces) was more often found in those areas where slaves approached, or in fact were, the numerical majority. Table 1 provides population percentages for some of the Southern colonies/states. When considering the sheer number of persons to be controlled it is not surprising that whites often felt vulnerable.
The Organization and Operation of Slave Patrols4
Consistent with the earliest enforcement techniques identified in English and American history, the first
means of controlling slaves was informal in nature. In 1686 a South Carolina statute said anyone could apprehend, chastise and send home any slave found off his/her plantation without authorization. In 1690 such action was made everyone’s duty or be fined forty shillings (Henry, 1968: 31). Enforcement of slavery by the average citizen was not to be taken lightly. A 1705 act in Virginia made it legal “for any person or persons whatsoever, to kill or destroy such slaves (i.e. runaways)…without accusation or impeachment of any crime for the same” (quoted in Foner, 1975: 195). Eventually, however, such informal means became inadequate. As the social changes suggested by Bacon (1939) took place and the fear of slaves as a dangerous class heightened, special enforcement officers developed and provided a transition to modern police with general enforcement powers.
In their earliest stages, slave patrols were part of the colonial militias. Royal charters empowered governors to defend colonies and that defense took the form of a militia for coast and frontier defense (Osgood, 1957). All able-bodied males between 16 and 60 were to be enrolled in the militia and had to provide their own weapons and equipment (Osgood, 1957; Shy, 1980; Simmons, 1976). Although the militias were regionally diverse and constantly changing (Shy, 1980), Anderson’s (1984) comments about the Massachusetts Bay Colony militia notes an important distinction that was reflected in other colonies. At the beginning of the 18th century, Massachusetts’ militia was defined not so much as an army but “as an all-purpose military infrastructure” (Anderson, 1984: 27) from which volunteers were drawn for the provincial armies. This concept of the militia as a pool from which persons could be drawn for special duties was the basis for colonial slave patrols.
Militias were active at different levels throughout the colonies. New York and South Carolina militias were
required to be particularly active. New York was menaced by the Dutch and French-Iroquois conflicts while South Carolina had to be defended against the Indians, Spanish, and pirates. By the middle of the Eighteenth century the colonies were being less threatened by external forces and attention was being turned to internal problems. As early as 1721 South Carolina began shifting militia duty away from external defense to internal security. In that year, the entire militia was made available for the surveillance of slaves (Osgood, 1974). The early South Carolina militia law had enrolled both Whites and Blacks, and in the Yamassee war of 1715 some four hundred Negroes helped six hundred white men defeat the Indians (Shy, 1980). Eventually, however, South Carolinians did not dare to arm Negroes. With the majority of the population being black (see Table 1) and the increasing danger of slave revolts, the South Carolina militia essentially became a “local anti-slave police force and (was) rarely permitted to participate in military operations outside its boundaries” (Simmons, 1976: 127).
Despite their link to militia, slave patrols were a separate entity. Each slave state had codes of laws for the regulation of slavery. These slave codes authorized and outlined the duties of the slave patrols. Some towns had their own patrols, but they were more frequent in the rural areas. The presence of constables and a more equal distribution of whites and blacks made the need for the town patrols less immediate. In the rural areas, however, the slaves were more easily able to participate in “dangerous” acts. It is not surprising that the slave patrols came to be viewed as “rural police” (cf. Henry, 1968: 42). South Carolina Governor Bull described the role of the patrols in 1740 by writing:
The interior quiet of the Province is provided for the small Patrols, drawn every two months from each company, who do duty by riding along the roads and among the Negro Houses in small districts in every Parish once a week, or as occasion requires.
quoted in Wood, 1974: 276 note 23
Documentation of slave patrols is found for nearly all the Southern colonies and states5 but South Carolina seems to have been the oldest, most elaborate, and best documented. That is not surprising given the importance of the militia in South Carolina and the presence of large numbers of Blacks. Georgia’s developed somewhat later and exemplifies patrols in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The history and development of slave patrol legislation in South Carolina and Georgia provides a historical review from colonial through antebellum times.
In 1704 the colony of Carolina6 presented what appears to be the South’s first patrol act. The patrol was
linked to the militia yet separate from it since patrol duty was an excuse from militia duty. Under this act,
militia captains were to select ten men from their companies to form these special patrols. The captain was to
muster all the men under his command, and with them ride from plantation to plantation, and into any plantation, within the limits or precincts, as the General shall think fitt and take up all slaves which they shall meet without their master’s plantation which have not a permit or ticket from their masters, and the same punish.
Cooper, 1837: 255
That initial act seemed particularly concerned with runaway slaves, while an act in 1721 suggests an
increased concern with uprisings. The act ordered the patrols to try to “prevent all caballings amongst negroes, by dispersing of them when drumming or playing, and to search all negro houses for arms or other offensive weapons” (McCord, 1841: 640). In addition to that concern the new act also responded to complaints that militia duty was being shirked by the choicest men who were doing patrol duty instead of militia duty (Bacon, 1939; Henry, 1968; McCord, 1841; Wood, 1974). As a result, the separate patrols were merged with the colonial militia and patrol duty was simply rotated among different members of the militia. From 1721 to 1734 there really were no specific slave patrols in South Carolina. The duty of supervising slaves was simply a militia duty.
In 1734 the Provincial Assembly set up a regular patrol once again separate from the militia (Cooper
1838a, p. 395). “Beat companies” of five men (Captain and four regular militia men) received compensation (captains $50 and privates $25 per year) for patrol duty and exemption from other militia duty. There was one patrol for each of 33 districts in the colony. Patrols obeyed orders from and were appointed by district commissioners and were given elaborate search and seizure powers as well as the right to administer up to twenty lashes (Cooper 1838a: 395–397).7
Since provincial acts usually expired after three years, South Carolina’s 1734 Act was revised in 1737 and again in 1740. Under the 1737 revision, the paid recruits were replaced with volunteers who were
encouraged to enlist by being excused from militia and other public duty for one year and were allowed to elect their own captain (Cooper 1838b; 456–458). The number of men on patrol was increased from five to fifteen and they were to make weekly rounds. Henry (1968: 33) believed these changes were an attempt to dissuade irresponsible persons who had been attracted to patrol duty for the pay.
The 1740 revision seems to be the first legislation specifically including women plantation owners as
answerable for patrol service (Cooper 1838b; 569–570). The plantation owners (male or female) could, however, procure any white person between 16 and 60 to ride patrol for them. In addition, the 1740 act said patrol duty was not to be required in townships where white inhabitants were in far superior numbers to the Negroes (Cooper 1838b; 571). Such an exemption certainly highlights the role of patrols as being to control what was perceived as a dangerous class.
At this point we turn to the Georgia slave patrols as an example of one that developed after South Carolina set a precedent. Georgia was settled late (1733) compared to the other colonies and despite her proximity to South Carolina she did not make immediate use of slaves. In fact while slaves were illegally imported in the mid 1740s, they were not legally allowed until 1750. Within seven years Georgians felt a need for control of the slaves. Her first patrol act (1757) provided for militia captains to pick up to seven patrollers from a list of all plantation owners (women and men) and all male white persons in the patrol district (Candler 1910:225–235). The patrollers or their substitutes were to ride patrol at least once every two weeks and examine each plantation in their district at least once every month. The patrols were to seek out potential runaways, weapons, ammunition, or stolen goods.
The 1757 Act was continued in 1760 (Candler 1910: 462) for a period of five years. The 1765 continuation (Cobb 1851: 965) increased the number of patrollers to a maximum of ten, but left the duties and structure of the patrol as it was created in 1757. In the 1768 revision (Candler 1911: 75) the possession and use of weapons by slaves was tightened and a fine was set for selling alcohol to slaves. More interesting was the order relevant to Savannah only which gave patrollers the power to apprehend and take into custody (until the next morning) any disorderly white person (Candler 1911: 81). Should such a person be in a “Tippling House Tavern or Punch House” rather than on the streets the patrol bad to call a lawful constable to their assistance before they could enter the “bar.” Such power was extended in 1778 when patrols were obliged to “take up all white persons who cannot give a satisfactory account of themselves and carry them before a Justice of the Peace to be dealt with as is directed by the Vagrant Act” (Candler, 1911: 119).
Minor changes occurred between 1778 and 1830 (e.g. females were exempted from patrol duty in 1824)
but the first major structural change did not take place until 1830. In that year Georgia patrols finally began moving away from a direct militia link when Justices of the Peace were authorized and required to appoint and organize patrols (Cobb, 1851: 1003). In 1854 Justices of the Interior Courts were to annually appoint three “patrol commissioners” for each militia district (Rutherford, 1854: 101). Those commissioners were to make up the patrol list and appoint one person at least 25 years old and of good moral character to be Captain.
The absence of significant changes in Georgia patrol legislation over the years suggests the South
Carolina experiences had provided an experimental stage for Georgia and possibly other slave states. Differences certainly existed, but Foner’s general description of slave patrols seems accurate for the majority of colonies and states; patrols had full power and authority to enter any plantation and break open Negro houses or other places when slaves were suspected of keeping arms; to punish runaways or slaves found outside of their masters’ plantations without a pass; to whip any slave who should affront or abuse them in the execution of their duties; and to apprehend and take any slave suspected of stealing or other criminal offense, and bring him to the nearest magistrate (1975: 206).
The Slaves’ Response to the Patrols
The slave patrols were both feared and resented by the slaves.8 Some went so far as to suggest it was “the worse thing yet about slavery” (quoted in Blassingame, 1977:156). Former slave Lewis Clarke was most eloquent in expressing his disgust:
(The patrols are) the offscouring of all things; the refuse,…the ears and tails of slavery;…the tooth and tongues of serpents. They are the very fool’s cap of baboons,…the wallet and satchel of polecats, the scum of stagnant pools, the exuvial, the worn-out skins of slaveholders. (T)hey are the meanest, and lowest, and worst of all creation. Like starved wharf rats, they are out nights, creeping into slave cabins, to see if they have an old bone there; they drive out husbands from their own beds, and then take their places.
Clarke, 1846: 114
Despite the harshness and immediacy of punishment as well as the likelihood of discovery, slaves continued with the same behavior that brought about slave patrols in the first place. In fact, they added activities of specific irritation to the patrollers (or, as they were variously known, padaroe, padarole, or patteroller). Preventive measures like warning systems, playing ignorant and innocent when caught and learning when to expect a patrol were typically used. More assertive measures included building trap doors for escape from their cabins, tying ropes across roads to trip approaching horses, and fighting their way out of meeting places (Genovese, 1972: 618–619; Rose, 1976: 249–289). As have victims in other terrifying situations, the slaves occasionally resorted to humor as a source of strength. One version of a popular song makes that point:
Run, nigger, run; de patter-roller catch you;
Goodman, 1969: 83
Run, nigger, run, its almost day.
Run, nigger, run; de patter-roller catch you;
Run, nigger, run, and try to get far away.
De nigger run, he run his best;
Stuck his hand in a hornet’s nest.
Jumped de fence and run through de pastor;
Marsa run, but nigger run faster.
In an ironic sense the resistance by slaves should have been completely understandable to American patriots. Patrols were allowed search powers that the colonists later found so objectionable in the hands of British authorities (Foner, 1975: 221). Add to that the accompanying lack of freedoms to move, assemble, and bear arms, and the slave resistance seems perfectly appropriate.
Problems with the Slave Patrols
In addition to the difficulties presented by the slaves themselves, the patrols throughout the South experienced a variety of other problems. Many of these were similar to problems confronting colonial militia: training was infrequent; the elites often avoided duty; and those that did serve were often irresponsible (Anderson, 1984; Osgood, 1957; Shy, 1980; Simmons, 1976). In addition, the patrols had some unique concerns.
One of the first problems was the presence of free Blacks. Understandably, slaves caught by patrollers
would try to pass themselves off as free persons. The problem was particularly bad in some of the cities
where many free Blacks existed. In 1810, for example, the Charleston census showed 1,783 free Negroes
(Henry, 1968: 50). Special acts eventually allowed the patrol to whip even free Negroes away from their home or employer’s business unless they produced “free papers.” In all but one of the slave states a Black person was presumed to be a slave unless she or he could prove differently. The sole exception to this procedure was Louisiana where “persons of color are presumed to be free” (Louisiana supreme court quoted in Foner, 1983:106) until proven otherwise.
Other problems centered on the apparently careless enforcement of the patrol laws in some districts. When all was quiet and orderly the patrol seemed to be lulled into inactivity (Henry, 1968: 39). But there
seemed always to be individuals having problems with slaves and those persons often complained about the lax enforcement of patrol laws. Flanders (1967: 30) cites several examples from exasperated Georgians who complained that slaves were not being properly controlled. In 1770 South Carolina Governor Bull noted that “though human prudence has provided these Statutory Laws, yet, through human frailty, they are neglected in these times of general tranquility” (quoted in Wood, 1974: 276 note 23). Fifty years later the situation had not improved much as then Governor Geddes suggested in his annual message:
The patrol duty which is so intimately connected with the good order and police of the state, is still so greatly neglected in several of our parishes and districts, that serious inconveniences have been felt…
quoted in Henry,1968: 38
Even when the patrols were active they did not avoid criticism. Genovese (1972: 618) quotes a Georgia
planter who complained: “Our patrol laws are seldom enforced, and even where there is mock observance of them, it is by a parcel of boys or idle men, the height of whose ambition is to ‘ketch a nigger’.” Earlier it was noted that South Carolina in 1721 modified its patrol law because the “choices and best men” (planters) were avoiding militia duty by doing patrol duty. As Bacon (1939: 581) notes, service by such men was something of a rarity in police work anyway. However, it must have been a rarity in other slave states as well since the more typical opinion of the patrollers was that expressed above by the Georgia planter. As with militia duty in general, the elite members of the districts often were able to avoid patrol duty by either paying a fine or finding a substitute.
Where the “ketch a nigger” mentality existed, the patrols were often accused of inappropriate behavior. Complaints existed about patrollers drinking too much liquor before or during duty (Bacon, 1939: 587; Rose, 1976: 276; Wood, 1974: 276), and both South Carolina (Cooper, 1838b; 573) and Georgia (Candler, 1910:233–234) had provisions for lining any person found drunk while on patrol duty.
More serious complaints (possibly linked to the drinking) concerned the harshness of punishment administered by some patrols. Ex-slave Ida Henry offered an example:
De patrollers wouldn’t allow de slaves to hold night services, and one night dey caught me mother out praying. Dey stripped her naked and tied her hands together and wid a rope tied to de handcuffs and threw one end of de rope over a limb and tied de other end to de pummel of a saddle on a horse. As me mother weighed ‘bout 200, dey pulled her up so dat her toes could barely touch de ground and whipped her. Dat same night she ran away and stayed over a day and returned.
quoted in Foner 1983, p. 103
Masters as well as slaves often protested the actions of the patrol—on which the owners had successfully
avoided serving (Genovese, 1972; 618). The slaves were, after all, an expensive piece of property which owners did not want damaged. Attempts to preserve orderly behavior of the patrollers took the form of a fine for misbehavior and occasionally reimbursement for damages (Henry, 1968: 37, 40). However, patrollers were allowed a rather free hand and many unlawful acts were accepted in attempts to uphold the patrol system. Henry saw this as the greatest evil of the system since “it gave unscrupulous persons unfair advantages and appears not to have encouraged the enforcement of the law by the better class” (1968: 40).
This review of the slave patrols shows them to have operated as a specialized enforcement arm. Although
often linked to the militia, they had an autonomy and unique function which demands they be viewed as something more than an informal police type yet certainly not an example of a modern police organization. To identify the historical role and place of slave patrols we will turn to the concept of transitional police types.
Informal and Formal Transitions
By definition a transitional police type must share characteristics of both informal and modern systems.
Drawing from his four characteristics of a modern type, Lundman says transitional systems differ from modern ones by: 1) reliance upon other than full-time police officers; 2) frequent elimination and replacement (i.e. absence of continuity in office and in procedure); and 3) absence of accountability to a central governmental authority (1980: 19–20). When slave patrols are placed against these criteria they can be shown to have enough in common to warrant consideration as a transitional police type. First, like
informal systems, the slave patrols relied on the private citizen to carry out the duties. However, unlike the
constable, watchman and sheriff, the patrollers had only policing duties rather than accompanying
expectations of fire watch and/or tax collection. The identification of patrollers as “police” was much closer to a social status as we know it today. For example, when South Carolina planter Samuel Porcher was elected a militia captain he described himself as being “a sort of chief of police in the parish” (J. K. Williams, 1959: 65). Slave patrols relied upon private citizens for performance of duties, yet those patrollers came closer to being fulltime police officers than had citizens under informal systems.
As noted earlier, slave patrols were not always active and even when they were they did not always
follow expected procedure. The periodic lapses and frequent replacement of patrols is expected under Lundman’s idea of a transitional type. Since the patrols operated under procedures set down in the Slave
Codes they did approximate continuity in procedure. However, the South Carolina chronology of patrol legislation suggests those procedures changed as often as every three years.
The final criterion against which slave patrols might be judged is accountability to a control governmental authority. Lundman says such accountability is absent in a transitional system (1980: 20). It is at this
point that slave patrols as a transitional police type might be challenged. The consistent link between slave patrols and militia units makes it difficult to argue against accountability to a central government authority. Even when the link to militia was not direct, there was a central authority controlling patrols. From 1734 to 1737 South Carolina patrols were appointed by district commissioners and obeyed orders of the governor, military commander-in-chief, and district commissioners (Bacon, 1939: 585; Wood, 1974: 275). In 1753, North Carolina justices of county courts could appoint three free-holders as “searchers” who took an oath to disarm slaves9 (Patterson, 1968: 13). In 1802 the patrols were placed entirely under the jurisdiction of the country courts which in 1837 were authorized to appoint a patrol committee to ensure the patrol functioned (Johnson, 1937: 516–517). Tennessee, a part of North Carolina from 1693–1790, also used the “searchers” as authorized by the 1753 act. In 1806, ten years after statehood, Tennessee developed an elaborate patrol system wherein town commissioners appointed patrols for incorporated and unincorporated towns (Patterson, 1968: 38). Louisiana patrols (originally set up in 1807
by Territorial legislation) went through a period of confusion between 1813 and 1821 when both the militia and parish judges had authority over patrols. Finally, in 1821 parish governmental bodies were given complete authority over the slave patrols (J.G. Taylor, 1963: 170; E.R. Williams, 1972: 400). Slave patrols had first been introduced in Arkansas in 1825 and were apparently appointed by the county courts until 1853. After then appointments were made by the justice of the peace (O.W. Taylor, 1958: 31, 209) as was true in Georgia beginning in 1830 (Cobb, 1851: 1003). In 1831 the incorporated towns in Mississippi were authorized to control their own patrol system and in 1833 boards of county police (i.e. county boards of supervisors) could appoint patrol leaders (Sydnor, 1933: 78). The Missouri General Assembly first established patrols in 1825 then in 1837 the county courts were given powers to appoint
township patrols to serve for one year (Trexler, 1969:182–183).
That review of patrol accountability in eight states suggests that slave patrols often came under the same
governmental authority as formal police organizations. Or, as Sydnor pointed out in reference to the Mississippi changes: “the system was decentralized and made subject to the local units of civil government” (1933: 78). An argument can be made that the basis for a non-militia government authorized force to undertake police duties was implemented as early as 1734 when South Carolina patrols were appointed by district commissioners or in 1802 when North Carolina placed patrols under the jurisdiction of the county courts. What then does that mean for the placement of slave patrols as an example of a transitional police type? If the various governmental bodies mentioned above are accepted as being examples of “centralized governmental authority,” it means two positions are possible. First,
slave patrols must not be an example of a transitional type. This position is rejected on the basis of information provided here which shows the patrols to have been a legitimate entity with specialized law enforcement duties and powers.
The other possible position is that “absence of accountability to a centralized governmental authority”
is not a necessary feature of transitional policing. This seems more reasonable given the information presented here. Since there has not been any specific example of a transitional police force offered to this
point,10 Lundman’s characteristics are only hypothetical. As other examples of transitional police types are put forward we will have a firmer base for determining how they differ from modern police.
Conclusion
As early as 1704 and continuing through the antebellum period, Southern slave states used local patrols with specific responsibility for regulating the activity of slaves. Those slave patrols were comprised of citizens who did patrol duty as their civic obligation, for pay, rewards, or for exemption from other duties. The patrollers had a defined area which they were to ride in attempts to discover runaway slaves, stolen property, weapons, or to forestall insurrections. Unlike the watchmen, constables, and sheriffs who had some non-policing duties, the slave patrols operated solely for the enforcement of colonial and state laws. The existence of these patrols leads to two conclusions about the development of American law enforcement. First, the law enforcement nature of slave patrol activities meant there were important events occurring in the rural South prior to and concurrently with events in the urban North which are more typically cited in examples of the evolution of policing in the United States. Because of that, it is undesirable to restrict attention to just the North when trying to understand and appreciate the growth of American law enforcement. Second, rather than simply being a formalization of previously informal activities, modern policing seems to have passed through developmental stages which can be explained by such typologies as that offered by Lundman who described informal, transitional, and modern types of policing.
While those conclusions are important, focusing attention on slave patrols and the South is desirable for
reasons which go quite beyond a need to avoid regional bias in historical accounts or to describe a form of policing which is neither informal nor modern. For example, what implication does this analysis have on the usefulness of typologies in historical research? Further, how might typologies and the accompanying description of those types assist in generating a theory to explain the development of law enforcement?
If typologies are helpful as a historiographic technique, is Lundman’s the best available or possible? Based on the usefulness of the typology for describing slave patrols and placing them in a specific historical
context, it seems to this author that typologies are an excellent way to go beyond descriptive accounts and move toward the development of theoretical explanations. As greater use is made of typologies to conceptualize the development of American law enforcement, it seems likely that existing formulations will be modified. For example, slave patrols seem to exemplify what Lundman called the transitional police type except in terms of Lundman’s proposed absence of accountability to a centralized governmental authority. Recall, however, that Bacon also suggested a developmental sequence (without specifying or naming “types”) for police which described modern police as having general rather than specific functions (Bacon, 1939: 6). Combining the work of Lundman and Bacon, we might suggest that precursors to modern police are not necessarily without accountability to a centralized governmental authority, but do have specialized rather than general enforcement powers. In this manner, the characteristics of policing which precede the modern stage might be: 1) frequent elimination and replacement of the police type (Lundman); 2) reliance upon persons other than full-time police officers (Lundman); and 3) enforcement powers which are specialized rather than general (Bacon).
In addition to providing organized conceptualization, typologies also provide a basis for theoretical development. For example, there does not as yet appear to be an identifiable Northern precursor, like slave patrols, between the constable/watch and modern stages. Is that because the North skipped that stage, compressed it to such an extent we cannot find an example of its occurrence, or passed through the transitional stage but researchers have not described the activities in terms of a typology? While each of those questions is interesting, the first seems to have particularly intriguing implications for if it is correct it means there may not be a general evolutionary history for policing. For example, are modern police agencies necessarily preceded by a developmental stage comprised of a specialized police force? Is the progression in the developmental history of law enforcement agencies one of generalized structure with general functions, to a specific structure with specific functions, and finally a specific structure with general functions?
As an example of how this type of inquiry can fit with theoretical developments, we should note recent
work by Robinson and Scaglion (1987). Those authors present four interdependent propositions which state:
- The origin of the specialized police function depends upon the division of society into dominant and subordinate classes with antagonistic interests;
- Specialized police agencies are generally characteristic only of societies politically organized as states;
- In a period of transition, the crucial factor in delineating the modern specialized police function is an ongoing attempt at conversion of the social control (policing) mechanism from an integral part of the community structure to an agent of an emerging dominant class; and
- The police institution is created by the emerging dominant class as an instrument for the preservation of its control over restricted access to basic resources, over the political apparatus governing this access, and over the labor force necessary to provide the surplus upon which the dominant class lives (Robinson and Scaglion, 1987: 109).
The development of law enforcement structures in the antebellum South would seem to support each of
the propositions. Slave patrols were created only because of a master-slave social structure (proposition
1), existing as colonies became increasingly politically organized as states (proposition 2), and elites were able to convince community members to “police” the slaves (proposition 3), because control of those slaves was necessary to solidify elite positioning (proposition 4).
In order to respond with authority to these questions and implications, it will be necessary to continue research on the history of law enforcement. Detailed study of slave patrols in specific colonies and states is necessary as are research endeavors which assess the applicability of various typologies in different jurisdictions. Hopefully this initial effort will serve to both inform criminal justicians and practitioners about an important but little-known aspect of American police history as well as encourage research on non-Northern developments in the history of law enforcement. It has been argued here that most histories of the development of police have portrayed a regional bias suggesting that evolution was essentially Northern and urban in nature. In addition, existing information has covered the initial organizational stages of policing and the formation of modern police departments, but we are
left with the impression that little activity of historical importance occurred between those first developments and the eventually modern department. Lundman has called that middle stage “transitional” policing and it is that concept which has been used here to: 1) debunk the portrayal of American law enforcement history as restricted to the urban North, and 2) provide an example of a form of policing more advanced than the constable/watch type but one which was not yet modern.
Appendix
Endnotes
- Lundman’s typology of police systems is not to be confused with other typologies (e.g., Wilson’s 1968 policing styles) which differentiate contemporary as opposed to the historical types Lundman addresses.
- Monkkonen’s reasons for using uniforms as the starting date can be found in his book (1981: 39–45, 53) and in an article (1982: 577).
- Some may find the explanation of slaves as a danger to be an exercise in the obvious, but Walker’s (1982) comments provide a guiding principle. He suggests that “constructing a thesis around presumed existence of a dangerous class is…a sloppy bit of historical writing” unless we are told who composed the group, where they stood in the social structure and in what respect they are a danger (Walker, 1982: 215). While the “who” (slaves) and “where” (at the very bottom) questions have been addressed above and countless other places, the “what” question is less understood.
- Information about slave patrols is found primarily in the writings of historians as they describe aspects of the slaves’ life in the South. Data for this article were gathered from those secondary sources but also, for South Carolina and Georgia, from some primary accounts including colonial records, Eighteenth and Nineteenth century statutes and writings by former slaves.
- See Resc. (1976) for Alabama; O.W. Taylor (1958) for Arkansas; Flanders (1967) for Georgia; Coleman (1940) and McDougle (1970) for Kentucky; Bacon (1939), J.G. Taylor (1963) and Williams (1972) for Louisiana; Sydnor (1933) for Mississippi; Trexler (1969) for Missouri; Johnson (1937) for North Carolina; Patterson (1968) and Mooney (1971) for Tennessee; and Ballagh (1968) and Stewart (1976) for Virginia.
- In 1712 the northern two-thirds of Carolina was divided into two parts (North Carolina and South Carolina) while the southern one third remained unsettled until 1733 when Oglethorpe founded Georgia.
- The right to administer a punishment to slaves was given to patrols in other colonies and states as well. Patrols in North Carolina could administer fifteen lashes (Johnson, 1937: 516) as could those in Tennessee (Patterson, 1968: 39) and Mississippi (Sydnor, 1933: 78) while Georgia (Candler, 1910: 232) and Arkansas (O.W. Taylor, 1958: 210) followed South Carolina in allowing twenty lashes.
- Rawick (1972: 61–65) provides interesting recollections of patrols by ex-slaves in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.
- This oath read: “I, A.B., do swear that I will, as searcher for guns, swords and other weapons among the slaves of my district, faithfully, and as privately as I can, discharge the trust reposed in me, as the law directs, to the best of my power. So help me God” (Quoted in Patterson, 1968: 13 note 23).
- Lundman (1980: 20) only notes Fielding’s Bow Street Runners, Colquhoun’s River Police and mid-Nineteenth century Denver, as possible examples of transitional police.
Bibliography
- Anderson, F. (1984) A People’s Army: Massachusetts Soldiers and Society in the Seven Years’ War. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.
- Bacon, S. (1939) The Early Development of American Municipal Police: A Study of the Evolution of Formal Controls in a Changing Society. Unpublished dissertation, Yale University. University Microfilms No. 66–06844.
- Ballagh, J. (1968) A History of Slavery in Virginia. New York: Johnson Reprint Company.
- Blassingame, J.W. (ed.) (1977) Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, Interviews, and Autobiographies. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
- Candler, A. (ed.) (1910) The Colonial Records of the State of Georgia, Vol. 18 Atlanta, GA: Chas. P. Byrd, State Printer.
- ——— (ed.) (1911) The Colonial Records of the State of Georgia, Vol. 19, Part 2. Atlanta, GA: Chas. P. Byrd, State Printer.
- Clarke, L.G. (1846). Narratives of Suffering. Available on Library of American Civilization fiche #12812.
- Cobb, T.R. (1851). A Digest of the Statute Laws of the State of Georgia, Athens, GA: Christy, Kelsea & Burke.
- Coleman, J.W., Jr., (1940) Slavery Times in Kentucky. New York: Johnson Reprint Company.
- Cooper, T. (ed.) (1837) Statutes at Large of South Carolina, Vol. 2, Part 1. Columbia, SC: A.S. Johnston.
- ——— (ed.) (1838a). Statutes at Large of South Carolina, Vol. 3, Part 1. Columbia, SC: A.S. Johnston.
- ——— (ed.) (1838b) Statutes at Large of South Carolina, Vol. 3, Part 2. Columbia, SC: A.S. Johnston.
- Flanders, R.B. (1967) Plantation Slavery in Georgia. Cos Cob, CT: John E. Edwards, Publisher.
- Flinn, J. (1975) History of the Chicago Police from the Settlement of the Community to the Present Time. Mountclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.
- Foner, P.S. (1975) History of Black Americans: From Africa to the Emergence of the Cotton Kingdom. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
- ——— (1983) History of Black Americans: From the Emergence of the Cotton Kingdom to the Eve of the Compromise of 1850. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
- Genovese, E.D. (1972) Roll Jordon, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York: Pantheon.
- Greene, E. and Harrington, V. (1966) American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.
- Henry, H.M. (1968) The Police Control of the Slave in South Carolina. New York: Negro Universities Press.
- Johnson, G.G. (1937) Ante-bellum North Carolina: A Social History. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.
- Lane, R. (1967) Policing the City: Boston 1822–1885. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Lundman, R.J. (1980) Police and Policing: An Introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- McCord, D.J. (ed.) (1841) Statutes at Large of South Carolina, Vol. 9, Part Columbia, SC: A.S. Johnston.
- McDougle, I.E. (1970) Slavery in Kentucky 1792–1865. Westport, CT: Negro Universities Press.
- Monkkonen, E. (1981) Police in Urban America, 1860–1920. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.
- ——— (1982) “From cop history to social history: The significance of the police in American history.” Journal of Social History, 15:575–592.
- Mooney, C.C. (1971) Slavery in Tennessee, Westport, CT: Negro Universities Press.
- Osgood, H.L. (1957) The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, Vol. 1, Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.
- Patterson, C.P. (1968) The Negro in Tennessee, 1790–1865. New York: Negro Universities Press.
- Rawick, G.P. (1972) The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
- Richardson, J. (1970) The New York Police: Colonial Times to 1901. New York: Oxford University.
- Robinson, C. and Scaglion, R. (1987) “The origin and evolution of the police function in society: Notes toward a theory.” Law & Society Review, 21: 109–153.
- Rose, W.L. (ed.) (1976) A Documentary History of Slavery in North America, New York: Oxford University.
- Rutherford, J. (ed.) (1854) Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Georgia, Savannah, GA: Samuel T. Chapman.
- Savage, E.A. (1865) A Chronological History of the Boston Watch and Police, from 1631–1865. Available on Library of American Civilization fiche #13523.
- Schneider, J. (1980) Detroit and the Problem of Order, 1830–1880: A Geography of Crime, Riot, and Policing. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.
- Shy, J.W. (1980) “A new look at colonial militia.” In P. Karsten (ed.). The Military in America. New York: Free Press.
- Simmons, R.C. (1976) The American Colonies. New York: McKay.
- Stewart, A. (1976) “Colonel Alexander’s Slaves Resist the Patrol.” In W.L. Rose (ed.) A Documentary History of Slavery in North America. New York: Oxford University.
- Sydnor, C.S. (1933) Slavery in Mississippi. New York: Appleton-Century Company.
- Taylor, J.G. (1963) Negro Slavery in Louisiana. New York: Negro Universities Press.
- Taylor, O.W. (1958) Negro Slavery in Arkansas. Durham, NC: Duke University.
- Trexler, H.A. (1969) “Slavery in Missouri: 1804–1865.” In H. Trexler, Slavery in the States: Selected Essays. New York: Negro Universities Press.
- Walker, S. (1980) Popular Justice. New York: Oxford.
- ——— (1982) “Counting cops and crime.” Book Review, Reviews in American History. 10: 212.
- Wells, R. (1975) The Population of the British Colonies in America Before 1776: A Survey of Census Data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
- Williams, E.R., Jr. (1972) “Slave patrol ordinances of St. Tammuny Parish, Louisiana, 1835–1838.” Louisiana History. 13: 399–411.
- Williams, J.K. (1959) Vogues in Villainy. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.
- Wood, P.H. (1974) Black Majority: Negroes in Colonial South Carolina. New York: Knopf.
Section 1, Reading 1, from Policing: A Text/Reader, edited by Carol A. Archbold (SAGE Publications, October 17, 2012).