The commissioners' slave hire end-game

"Of course the slaves Mrs. Adams saw were not yearly hires from St. Mary's and Charles Counties. That was the old system. Shortly after ending that system, the commissioners realized they had gone too far and began hiring slaves on a piecemeal basis, for short terms and in small numbers compared to the old system."

Quote from Slave Labor in the Capital, pages 155-156

In my book I focus on the systematic use of slave labor as playing an essential role in the building of the White House and Capitol which began in the summer of 1792 and ended by 1800. After clearing trees, moving and raising building stones and roofs were the slaves' essential service and they did that without causing much complaint and at little cost to the commissioners. After all the stone was raised on both the Capitol and White House, far fewer slaves were hired so that I think it fair to say that there work was no longer as essential. The 12 slaves Abigail Adams saw clearing rubbish in November 1800 were neither essential nor part of the slave hire system that entailed housing, feeding and providing medical care for slaves that the commissioners ended by 1800.

That said, the letter below suggests that the commissioners certainly did not share my view of the matter in the summer of 1800. In it they roundly condemn a master who "clandestinely" took away "a negro man" he had hired out to the commissioners on January 1.

As anyone who reads my book will see, I am skeptical of the posturing of the commissioners. Taken at face value the letter suggests that the commissioners kept an eye on the hired slaves. That is not likely. They had fired Elisha Williams who had hired slaves since 1792 and there is no evidence that the commissioners stooped to do what Williams had done for them. At his time the commissioners had lost control over much of the work to Secretary of the Navy Stoddert. Threatening to sue a man who had retrieved his slave was something still in their power and a way to show their importance.

The master was not in some far off plantation, but one of their contractors, a carter. His removing his slave could have been the upshot over a dispute over payment. But other than a receipt for his work which I share in another post, I have found out little about him save that the commissioners' did pay him for several months of slave hire in 1800, not for a whole year, and according to the 1800 census he may not have been counted as owning a slave when the census was taken. I say "may not" because while there was no Prather counted, Zephk Frather was marked as having no slave. Perhaps he sold his slave. Perhaps because the slave was hired out, Frather/Prather didn't claim ownership and avoided a tax on the slave.

The only other letter I found from the commissioners to a master who removed his slave, two slaves in that case, was markedly different. They were amenable as long as the master replaced the slaves. I share that letter in another post.

The commissioners in that earlier letter were more sure of themselves in part because they had so many slaves working for them and doing good work. In the letter to Prather, they were venting their spleen as they were losing control of the project and control over free workers who found Secretary Stoddert more sympathetic to their needs. Losing a hired slave when they had so few enraged them. Those large crews of slaves had been their way to check the demands of free workers.