“Heartsore”: The Melancholy Archive of Cape Colony Slavery

Clearly, they had been sold again, this time by Hancke. In May 1818, Van der Wat registered a boy named Baro who was described as about two-and-three-quarter years old. The name Drusilia appeared beneath the entry for Baro (spelled Barro in the Register of Slaves for George).¹ The registry date for Sila is the same as Baro’s, and her age is given as about thirty years. Four months after arriving at Van der Wat’s farm, Sila gave birth to another child, Pieter, who was immediately registered by Van der Wat as his property. Another four months later, Van der Wat sold Carolina and Camies to one H. Stroebel.² In one set of documents, they are said to be seven and three, respectively, at the time of the sale.³ In the legal proceedings surrounding Sila, the sale receives hardly any attention. Had it occurred after March 18, 1823, however, it would have been in direct contradiction of a government proclamation that prohibited children under the age of ten from being sold away from their mother.

Details of the lives of Sila and those children who remained with her are largely absent. What is known comes from the very act of Sila killing of Baro, namely that she and he were subjected to violent beatings, one of which involved a blow to her head that resulted in the loss of hearing in one ear. According to the court records, matters became critical on December 24, 1822, when Sila was ordered by her mistress to clean some linen.⁴ She sent Baro to pick lemons for the removal of stains from the linen. On his return to “the wash place,” where Sila awaited him, he complained of pain resulting from another beating by Van der Wat. The sentencing document sets out what she allegedly said happened next:

. . . she thereupon rubbed the child with fat which she had scraped from her bread for the purpose, — [and] while she was so employed the child fell asleep, [and she] through heartsore and grief, cut the child’s throat with a knife which she had with her. (CJ 817:242)

After this, Sila placed Baro’s body under a bush before running from the Van der Wat farm to the neighboring farm of Witte Drift, owned by the Field Cornet. In the presence of another man, Carl Schaffen, she confessed her deed, breaking down and weeping as she did so. Van Huisteen and Schaffen would both testify to this weeping and to her claim that she had been driven to kill Baro because of the violence of the beatings from her master and mistress.

Three days later, on December 28, 1822, the District Surgeon, Sommerville, was summoned to examine Sila, presumably while she was in the custody of the Field Cornet but definitely in response to her complaint “of ill usage,” (CJ 817:244). Sommerville detailed the many bruises on her body, measuring them and comparing them—above her left eye, across the upper parts of her body, her arms, her thighs, and her legs. He stated that he found bruises of a “livid color” on the “upper eyelid of the left eye,” (CJ 817:245). Another bruise measured three by two inches “in an oblique direction upon the middle and back parts of the right arm.” Another measured “about four inches by two” upon the left shoulder. Another, measuring about three inches, was found a “little above the inner hamstring of the right leg,” (CJ 817:246). Other marks include a “small” scab on Sila’s left elbow and “several indurated tumors with a various state of the veins upon the back part of the legs.” Sommerville concluded that these bruises appeared to be the result of a flogging by her mistress. He also recorded that Sila had complained to him that Van der Wat flogged her with leather straps used for yoking oxen (CJ 817:245).

At her trial in March 1823, Sila’s defense called upon another slave on Van der Wat’s farm to corroborate her story of ill treatment. Sila reportedly said that this slave, Jephta, had been so badly treated that he ran away after being flogged by Van der Wat. She gave details—that the beating resulted from failing to find two oxen and that Jephta had been missing for two months, during which she had taken Baro’s life. He was found by the time she went to trial.

Jephta’s testimony refuted Sila’s claim. He accused her of being a drunk. Although he admitted he had run away, he denied ever being flogged, even when he returned to the farm. He went so far as to say that his master and mistress had never treated him badly. On the contrary, he and the other slaves on the farm were well treated. The fact that he was obliged to return to Van der Wat’s farm after his testimony—and that this might have had some bearing upon his claims—went unchallenged.

1. SO 6/57, Register of Slaves, George T-Z 1816-35, p. 9. There is a penciled comment that was clearly added some time later: “Murder on 24th December 1822, Vide Memorial [illegible].” There is also a reference to 18 July 1835 and Robben Island, suggesting that the register had been kept to date, tracking Sila’s movements. The sale of “problematic” slaves was a form of punishment that also acted as a warning to other slaves. Shell finds that such sales were usually out of the country, via passing ships that plied the old Dutch East India trade routes or sailed to the Americas (Shell 97). However, the sale of slaves “upcountry” in the Cape was also common (Shell 97-98). See also Theal, Records, “Cape Proclamation, 18 March 1823, by His Excellency General the Right Honourable Lord Charles Henry Somerset,” xxxiv, 309. [↩]
2. SO 3/22. [↩]
3. GH 49/25 1827.  [↩]
4. Case No. 26 in Courts of Justice Criminal Proceedings (CJ), vol. 817, pp. 224-257. See p. 243. [↩]