Moral Dilemmas in Celia, A Slave by Melton McLaurin

1197 Words3 Pages

Melton McLaurin’s book Celia, A Slave is the account of the trial, conviction, and execution of a female slave for the murder of her “master” Robert Newsom in 1855. The author uses evidence compiled through studying documents from Callaway County, Missouri and the surrounding area during the middle of the Nineteenth Century. Although much of what can be determine about this event is merely speculation, McLaurin proposes arguments for the different motives that contribute to the way in which many of the events unfold. Now throughout the book the “main characters”, being Celia, her lawyer Jameson, and the judge William Hall, are all faced with moral decisions that affect the lives of two different people.
The first of the main characters that are introduced are Celia’s master, Robert Newsom. Mr. Newsom was a wealthy landowner in Callaway County. In 1850, after the death of his wife, Robert Newsom purchased a fourteen year old slave girl from nearby Audrain County. Now as far as McLaurin can tell Newsom purchased Celia for no other reason than a sexual chattel. The night that Newsom purchased Celia it was “on his return to Callaway County, Newsom raped Celia, and by that act at once established and defined the nature of the relationship…” (McLaurin 24). From the time that Newsom first acquires Celia, he begins to rape her on a regular basis. Although it was generally accepted as being morally wrong for a slave master to sexually abuse a slave, Robert Newsom seems to view her as his property, to do with as he pleased rather than as a human being. McLaurin states that “…Celia’s rape by her new master would have been a psychologically devastating experience, one which would have had a profound effect upon her” (25). Even though the “u...

... middle of paper ...

...son to Celia’s case. Hall’s decision of Jameson was fair even though McLaurin wrote “…Jameson might not be among the body’s keenest intellects or its most diligent student of the legislative process” (84), now it could be said that Hall knew this about Jameson beforehand, but chose Jameson anyway to give the trial some validity. Once the trial started Hall began to sandbag the defense’s arguments by not allowing “any reference to supposed threats on Celia’s life…” (McLaurin 106) and even while the jury was deliberating Hall “came down squarely on the prosecution… and he delivered to the jury every instruction requested by the prosecution” (McLaurin 110). Hall clearly never had any intention of giving Celia a fair trial just the appearance of one, which would benefit him during his reelection and possible stop the war that was brewing between Missouri and Kansas.

Open Document