An Appeal in Favor of that Class of Americans Called Africans/Chapter 2
CHAPTER II.
COMPARATIVE VIEW OF SLAVERY, IN DIFFERENT AGES AND NATIONS.
E'en from my tongue some heart-felt truths may fall;
And outraged Nature claims the care of all.
These wrongs in any place would force a tear;
But call for stronger, deeper feeling here."
O, sons of freedom! equalize your laws—
Be all consistent—plead the negro's cause—
Then all the nations in your code may see.
That, black or white, Americans are free."
Between ancient and modern slavery there is this remarkable distinction—the former originated in motives of humanity; the latter is dictated solely by avarice. The ancients made slaves of captives taken in war, as an amelioration of the original custom of indiscriminate slaughter; the moderns attack defenceless people, without any provocation, and steal them, for the express purpose of making them slaves.
Modern slavery, indeed, in all its particulars, is more odious than the ancient; and it is worthy of remark that the condition of slaves has always been worse just in proportion to the freedom enjoyed by their masters. In Greece, none were so proud of liberty as the Spartans; and they were a proverb among the neighboring States for their severity to slaves. The slave code of the Roman republic was rigid and tyrannical in the extreme; and cruelties became so common and excessive, that the emperors, in the latter days of Roman power, were obliged to enact laws to restrain them. In the modern world, England and America are the most conspicuous for enlightened views of freedom, and bold vindication of the equal rights of man; yet in these two countries slave laws have been framed as bad as they were in Pagan, iron-hearted Rome; and the customs are in some respects more oppressive;—modern slavery unquestionably wears its very worst aspect in the Colonies of England and the United States of North America. I hardly know how to decide their respective claims. My countrymen are fond of preëminence, and I am afraid they deserve it here—especially if we throw into the scale their loud boasts of superiority over all the rest of the world in civil and religious freedom. The slave codes of the United States and of the British West Indies were originally almost precisely the same; but their laws have been growing milder and milder, while ours have increased in severity. The British have the advantage of us in this respect—they long ago dared to describe the monster as it is; and they are now grappling with it, with the overwhelming strength of a great nation's concentrated energies.—The Dutch, those sturdy old friends of liberty, and the French, who have been stark mad for freedom, rank next for the severity of their slave laws and customs. The Spanish and Portuguese are milder than either.
I will give a brief view of some of our own laws on this subject; for the correctness of which, I refer the reader to Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws of the United States of America. In the first place, we will inquire upon what ground the negro slaves in this country are claimed as property. Most of them are the descendants of persons kidnapped on the coast of Africa, and brought here while we were British Colonies; and as the slave trade was openly sanctioned more than twenty years after our acknowledged independence, in 1783, and as the traffic is still carried on by smugglers, there are, no doubt, thousands of slaves, now living in the United States, who were actually stolen from Africa.[1]
A provincial law of Maryland enacted that any white woman who married a negro slave should serve his master during her husband's lifetime, and that all their children should be slaves. This law was not repealed until the end of eighteen years, and it then continued in full force with regard to those who had contracted such marriages in the intermediate time; therefore the descendants of white women so situated may be slaves unto the present day. The doctrine of the common law is that the offspring shall follow the condition of the father; but slave law (with the above temporary exception) reverses the common law, and provides that children shall follow the condition of the mother. Hence mulattoes and their descendants are held in perpetual bondage, though the father is a free white man. "Any person whose maternal ancestor, even in the remotest degree of distance, can be shown to have been a negro, Indian, mulatto, or a mestizo, not free at the time this law was introduced, although the paternal ancestor at each successive generation may have been a white free man, is declared to be the subject of perpetual slavery." Even the code of Jamaica, is on this head, more liberal than ours; by an express law, slavery ceases at the fourth degree of distance from a negro ancestor: and in the other British West Indies, the established custom is such, that quadroons or mestizoes (as they call the second and third degrees) are rarely seen in a state of slavery. Here, neither law nor public opinion favors the mulatto descendants of free white men. This furnishes a convenient game to the slave-holder—it enables him to fill his purse by means of his own vices;—the right to sell one half of his children provides a fortune for the remainder. Had the maxim of the common law been allowed,—i. e. that the offspring follows the condition of the father,—the mulattoes, almost without exception, would have been free, and thus the prodigious and alarming increase of our slave population might have been prevented. The great augmentation of the servile class in the Southern States compared with the West India colonies, has been thought to indicate a much milder form of slavery; but there are other causes, which tend to produce the result. There are much fewer white men in the British West Indies than in our slave States; hence the increase of the mulatto population is less rapid. Here, the descendants of a colored mother never become free; in the West Indies, they cease to be slaves in the fourth generation, at farthest; and their posterity increase the free colored class, instead of adding countless links to the chain of bondage.
The manufacture of sugar is extremely toilsome, and when driven hard, occasions a great waste of negro life; this circumstance, together with the tropical climate of the West Indies, furnish additional reasons for the disproportionate increase of slaves between those islands and our own country, where a comparatively small quantity of sugar is cultivated.
It may excite surprise, that Indians and their offspring are comprised in the doom of perpetual slavery; yet not only is incidental mention of them as slaves to be met with in the laws of most of the States of our confederacy, but in one, at least, direct legislation may be cited to sanction their enslavement. In Virginia, an act was passed, in 1679, declaring that "for the better encouragement of soldiers, whatever Indian prisoners were taken in a war, in which the colony was then engaged, should be free purchase to the soldiers taking them": and in 1682, it was decreed that "all servants brought into Virginia, by sea or land, not being Christians, whether negroes, Moors, mulattoes, or Indians, (except Turks and Moors in amity with Great Britain) and all Indians, which should thereafter be sold by neighboring Indians, or any other trafficking with us, as slaves, should be slaves to all intents and purposes." These laws ceased in 1691; but the descendants of all Indians sold in the intermediate time are now among slaves.
In order to show the true aspect of slavery among us, I will state distinct propositions, each supported by the evidence of actually existing laws.
1. Slavery is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants, to the latest posterity.
2. The labor of the slave is compulsory and uncompensated; while the kind of labor, the amount of toil, and the time allowed for rest, are dictated solely by the master. No bargain is made, no wages given. A pure despotism governs the human brute; and even his covering and provender, both as to quantity and quality, depend entirely on the master's discretion.
3. The slave being considered a personal chattel, may be sold, or pledged, or leased, at the will of his master. He may be exchanged for marketable commodities, or taken in execution for the debts, or taxes, either of a living, or a deceased master. Sold at auction, "either individually, or in lots, to suit the purchaser," he may remain with his family, or be separated from them forever.
4. Slaves can make no contracts, and have no legal right to any property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings, and the legacies of friends belong, in point of law, to their masters.
5. Neither a slave, or free colored person can be a witness against any white or free man, in a court of justice, however atrocious may have been the crimes they have seen him commit: but they may give testimony against a fellow-slave, or free colored man, even in cases affecting life.
6. The slave may be punished at his master's discretion—without trial—without any means of legal redress,—whether his offence be real, or imaginary; and the master can transfer the same despotic power to any person, or persons, he may choose to appoint.
7. The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under any circumstances: his only safety consists in the fact that his owner may bring suit, and recover, the price of his body, in case his life is taken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor.
8. Slaves cannot redeem themselves, or obtain a change of masters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such a change necessary for their personal safety.
9. The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations.
10. The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the master is willing to enfranchise them.
11. The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious instruction and consolation.
12. The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of the lowest ignorance.
13. There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right. What is a trifling fault in the white man, is considered highly criminal in the slave; the same offences which cost a white man a few dollars only, are punished in the negro with death.
14. The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color.
Proposition 1.—Slavery hereditary and perpetual.
In Maryland the following act was passed in 1715, and is still in force: "All negroes and other slaves, already imported, or hereafter to be imported into this province, and all children now born, or hereafter to be born, of such negroes and slaves, shall be slaves during their natural lives." The law of South Carolina is, "All negroes, Indians, (free Indians in amity with this government, and negroes, mulattoes, and mestizoes, who are now free, excepted,) mulattoes or mestizoes, who now are, or shall hereafter be in this province, and all their issue born, or to be born, shall be and remain forever hereafter absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of the mother." Laws similar exist in Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In consequence of these laws, people so nearly white as not to be distinguished from Europeans, may be, and have been, legally claimed as slaves.
Prop. 2.—Labor compulsory and uncompensated, &c.
In most of the slave States the law is silent on this subject; but that it is the established custom is proved by laws restraining the excessive abuse of this power, in some of the States. Thus in one State there is a fine of ten shillings, in another of two dollars, for making slaves labor on Sunday, unless it be in works of absolute necessity, or the necessary occasions of the family. There is likewise a law which provides that "any master, who withholds proper sustenance, or clothing, from his slaves, or overworks them, so as to injure their health, shall upon sufficient information [here lies the rub] being laid before the grand jury, be by said jury presented; whereupon upon it shall be the duty of the attorney, or solicitor general, to prosecute said owners, who, on conviction shall be sentenced to pay a fine, or be imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court."
The negro act of South Carolina contains the following language: "Whereas many owners of slaves, and others, who have the care, management, and overseeing of slaves, do confine them so closely to hard labor, that they have not sufficient time for natural rest; be it therefore enacted, that if any owner of slaves, or others having the care, &c., shall put such slaves to labor more than fifteen hours in twentyfour, from the twentyfifth of March to the twentyfifth of September; or more than fourteen hours in twentyfour hours from the twentyfifth of September to the twentyfifth of March, any such person shall forfeit a sum of money not exceeding twenty pounds, nor under five pounds, current money, for every time, he, she, or they, shall offend therein, at the discretion of the justice before whom complaint shall be made."
In Louisiana it is enacted, that "the slaves shall be allowed half an hour for breakfast, during the whole year; from the first of May to the first of November they shall be allowed two hours for dinner; and from the first of November to the first of May, one hour and a half for dinner: provided, however, that the owners, who will themselves take the trouble of having the meals of their slaves prepared, be, and they are hereby authorized to abridge, by half an hour a day, the time fixed for their rest."
All these laws, apparently for the protection of the slave, are rendered perfectly null and void, by the fact, that the testimony of a negro or mulatto is never taken against a white man. If a slave be found toiling in the field on the Sabbath, who can prove that his master commanded him to do it?
The law of Louisiana stipulates that a slave shall have one linen shirt,[2] and a pair of pantaloons for the summer, and one linen shirt and a woollen great coat and pantaloons for the winter; and for food, one pint of salt and a barrel of Indian corn, rice, or beans, every month. In North Carolina, the law decides that a quart of corn per day is sufficient. But, if the slave does not receive this poor allowance, who can prove the fact. The withholding of proper sustenance is absolutely incapable of proof, unless the evidence of the sufferer himself be allowed; and the law, as if determined to obstruct the administration of justice, permits the master to exculpate himself by an oath that the charges against him are false. Clothing may, indeed, be ascertained by inspection; but who is likely to involve himself in quarrels with a white master because a poor negro receives a few rags less than the law provides? I apprehend that a person notorious for such gratuitous acts of kindness, would have little peace or safety, in any slave-holding country.
If a negro be compelled to toil night and day, (as it is said they sometimes are,[3] at the season of sugar-making) who is to prove that he works more than his fourteen or fifteen hours? No slave can be a witness for himself, or for his fellow-slaves; and should a white man happen to know the fact, there are ninetynine chances out of a hundred, that he will deem it prudent to be silent. And here I would remark that even in the island of Jamaica, where the laws have given a most shocking license to cruelty,—even in Jamaica, the slave is compelled to work but ten hours in the day, beside having many holidays allowed him. In Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, the convicts condemned to hard labor in the penitentiaries, are required by law to toil only from eight to ten hours a day, according to the season of the year; yet the law providing that the innocent slave should labor but fourteen or fifteen hours a day, professes to have been made as a merciful amelioration of his lot!—In Rome, the slaves had a yearly festival called the Saturnalia, during which they were released from toil, changed places with their masters, and indulged in unbounded merriment; at first it lasted but one day; but its duration afterwards extended to two, three, four, and five days in succession. We have no Saturnalia here—unless we choose thus to designate a coffle of slaves, on the fourth of July, rattling their chains to the sound of a violin, and carrying the banner of freedom in hands loaded with irons.
In Georgia, "The inferior courts of the several counties on receiving information on oath of any infirm slave or slaves, being in a suffering condition, from the neglect of the owner or owners, can make particular inquiries into the situation of such slaves, and render such relief as they think proper. And the said courts may sue for and recover from the owner of such slaves the amount appropriated for their relief." The information must, in the first place, be given by a white man upon oath; and of whom must the "particular inquiries" be made? Not of the slave, nor of his companions,—for their evidence goes for nothing: and would a master, capable of starving an aged slave, be likely to confess the whole truth about it? The judges of the inferior courts, if, from defect of evidence, or any other cause, they are unable to prove that relief was absolutely needed, must pay all the expenses from their own private purses. Are there many, think you, so desperately enamored of justice, as to take all this trouble, and incur all this risk, for a starving slave?
Prop. 3.—Slaves considered personal chattels, liable to be sold, pledged, &c.
The advertisements in the Southern papers furnish a continued proof of this; it is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the details of evidence.[4] The power to separate mothers and children, husbands and wives, is exercised only in the British West Indies, and the republic of the United States!
In Louisiana there is indeed a humane provision in this respect: "If at a public sale of slaves, there happen to be some who are disabled through old age or otherwise, and who have children, such slaves shall not be sold but with such of his or of her children, whom he or she may think proper to go with." But though parents cannot be sold apart from their children, without their consent, yet the master may keep the parents and sell the children, if he chooses; in which case the separation is of course equally painful.—"By the Code Noir, of Louis the Fourteenth, husbands and wives, parents and children are not allowed to be sold separately. If sales contrary to this regulation are made by process of law, under seizure for debts, such sales are declared void; but if such sales are made voluntarily on the part of the owner, a wiser remedy is given—the wife, or husband, children, or parent retained by the seller may be claimed by the purchaser, without any additional price; and thus the separated family may be re-united again. The most solemn agreement between the parties contrary to this rule has been adjudged void." In the Spanish, Portuguese and French colonies, plantation slaves are considered real estate, attached to the soil they cultivate, and of course not liable to be torn from their homes whenever the master chooses to sell them; neither can they be seized or sold by their master's creditors.
The following quotation shows how the citizens of this country bear comparison with men called savages. A recent traveller in East Florida says: "Another trait in the character of the Seminole Indians, is their great indulgence to their slaves. The greatest pressure of hunger or thirst never occasions them to impose onerous labors on the negroes, or to dispose of them, though tempted by high offers, if the latter are unwilling to be sold."
Prop. 4.—Slaves can have no legal claim to any property.
The civil code of Louisiana declares: "All that a slave possesses belongs to his master—he possesses nothing of his own, except his peculium, that is to say, the sum of money or movable estate, which his master chooses he should possess."—"Slaves are incapable of inheriting or transmitting property."—"Slaves cannot dispose of, or receive, by donation, unless they have been enfranchised conformably to law, or are expressly enfranchised by the act, by which the donation is made to them."
In South Carolina "it is not lawful for any slave to buy, sell, trade, &c. without a license from his owner; nor shall any slave be allowed to keep any boat or canoe, for his own benefit, or raise any horses, cattle, sheep or hogs, under pain of forfeiting all the goods, boats, canoes, horses, &c. &c., and it shall be lawful for any person to seize and take away from any slave all such goods, boats, &c. and to deliver the same into the hands of the nearest justice of the peace; and if the said justice be satisfied that such seizure has been made according to law, he shall order the goods to be sold at public outcry; one half of the moneys arising from the sale to go to the State, and the other half to him or them that sue for the same." In North Carolina there is a similar law; but half the proceeds of the sale goes to the county poor, and half to the informer.
In Georgia, a fine of thirty dollars a week is imposed upon any master who allows his slave to hire himself out for his own benefit. In Virginia, if a master permit his slave to hire himself out, he is subject to a fine, from ten to twenty dollars; and it is lawful for any person, and the duty of the Sheriff, to apprehend the slave. In Maryland, the master, by a similar offence, except during twenty days at harvest time, incurs a penalty of twenty dollars per month.
In Mississippi, if a master allow his slave to cultivate cotton for his own use, he incurs a fine of fifty dollars; and if he license his slave to trade on his own account, he forfeits fifty dollars for each and every offence. Any person trading with a slave forfeits four times the value of the article purchased; and if unable to pay, he receives thirtynine lashes, and pays the cost.
Among the Romans, the Grecians, and the ancient Germans, slaves were permitted to acquire and enjoy property of considerable value, as their own. This property was called the slave's peculium; and "the many anxious provisions of the Imperial Code on the subject plainly show the general extent and importance of such acquisitions."—" The Roman slave was also empowered by law to enter into commercial and other contracts, by which the master was bound, to the extent of the value of the slave's peculium.''—"The Grecian slaves had also their peculium; and were rich enough to make periodical presents to their masters, as well as often to purchase their freedom."
"The Helots of Sparta were so far from being destitute of property, or of legal powers necessary to its acquisition, that they were farmers of the lands of their masters, at low fixed rents, which the proprietor could not raise without dishonor."
"In our own day, the Polish slaves, prior to any recent alleviations of their lot, were not only allowed to hold property, but endowed with it by their lords."—"In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, the money and effects, which a slave acquires, by his labor at times set apart for his own use, or by any other honest means, are legally his own, and cannot be seized by the master."—"In Africa, slaves may acquire extensive property, which their sable masters cannot take away. In New Calabar, there is a man named Amachree, who has more influence and wealth than all the rest of the community, though he himself is a purchased slave, brought from the Braspan country; he has offered the price of a hundred slaves for his freedom; but according to the laws of the country he cannot obtain it, though his master, who is a poor and obscure individual, would gladly let him have it."
Among the Jews, a servant, or slave, often filled the highest offices of honor and profit, connected with the family. Indeed slavery among this ancient people was in its mildest, patriarchal form; and the same character is now stamped upon the domestic slavery of Africa. St Paul says, "The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, [the Hebrew word translated servant means slave] though he be lord of all." Gal. iv. 1. Again: "A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren." Proverbs, xvii. 2. The wealthy patriarch Abraham, before the birth of Isaac, designed to make his head servant, Eleazer of Damascus, his heir.
Prop. 5.—No colored man can be evidence against a white man, &c.
This is an almost universal rule of slave law. The advocates of slavery seem to regard it as a necessary consequence of the system, which neither admits of concealment, nor needs it. "In one or two of our states this rule is founded upon usage; in others it is sanctioned by express legislation."
So long as this rule is acted upon, it is very plain, that all regulations made for the protection of the slave are perfectly useless;—however grievous his wrongs, they cannot be proved. The master is merely obliged to take the precaution not to starve, or mangle, or murder his negroes, in the presence of a white man. No matter if five hundred colored people be present, they cannot testify to the fact. Blackstone remarks, that "rights would be declared vain, and in vain directed to be observed, if there were no method of recovering and asserting those rights, when wrongfully withheld, or invaded."
Stephens says: "It seems to result from the brief and general accounts which we have of the law of the Spanish and Portuguese settlements, though I find it nowhere expressly noticed, that slaves there are not, in all cases at least, incompetent witnesses. But even in the French Windward Islands, the evidence of negro slaves was admitted against all free persons, the master only excepted; and that in criminal as well as in civil cases, where the testimony of white people could not be found to establish the facts in dispute. The Code Noir merely allowed a slave's testimony to be heard by the judge, as a suggestion which might throw light on other evidence, without amounting of itself to any degree of legal proof. But the Sovereign Council of Martinique, humbly represented to his majesty that great inconveniences might result from the execution of this law, by the impunity of many crimes, which could not he proved otherwise than by the testimony of slaves; and they prayed that such evidence might be received in all cases in which there should not be sufficient proof by free witnesses. In consequence of this, the article in question was varied so far as to admit the testimony of slaves, when white witnesses were wanting, except against their masters."
Prop. 6.—The master has absolute power to punish a slave, &c.
Stroud says, "There was a time in many, if not in all the slave holding districts of our country, when the murder of a slave was followed by a pecuniary fine only. In one State, the change of the law in this respect has been very recent. At the present date (1827) I am happy to say the wilful, malicious, deliberate murder of a slave, by whomsoever perpetrated, is declared to be punishable with death in every State. The evil is not that the laws sanction crime, but that they do not punish it. And this arises chiefly, if not solely, from the exclusion of the testimony, on the trial of a white person, of all those who are not white."
"The conflicting influences of humanity and prejudice are strangely contrasted in the law of North Carolina on this subject. An act passed in 1798, runs thus: 'Whereas by another act of assembly, passed in the year 1774, the killing of a slave, however wanton, cruel, and deliberate, is only punishable in the first instance by imprisonment, and paying the value thereof to the owner, which distinction of criminality between the murder of a white person and one who is equally a human creature, but merely of a different complexion, is disgraceful to humanity, and degrading in the highest degree to the laws and principles of a free Christian, and enlightened country, be it enacted, &c. that if any person shall hereafter be guilty of wilfully and maliciously killing a slave, such offenders shall, upon the first conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of murder, and shall suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a free man; Provided always, this act shall not extend to the person killing a slave outlawed by virtue of any act of assembly of this state, or to any slave in the act of resistance[5] to his lawful owner or master, or to any slave DYING under MODERATE CORRECTION.'"
In the laws of Tennessee and Georgia, there is a similar proviso. Where could such a monstrous anomaly be found, save in a code of slave laws? Die of moderate punishment!! Truly, this is an unveiling of consciences!
"To set the matter in its proper light, it may be added that a proclamation of outlawry[6] against a slave is authorized, whenever he runs away from his master, conceals himself in some obscure retreat, and to sustain life, kills a hog, or some animal of the cattle kind!
"A pecuniary mulct was the only restraint upon the wilful murder of a slave, from the year 1740 to 1821, a period of more than eighty years. I find in the case of The State vs. M' Gee, 1 Bay's Reports, 164. it is said incidentally by Messrs Pinckney and Ford, counsel for the State, that the frequency of the offence was owing to the nature of the punishment. This was said in the public court-house by men of great respectability; nevertheless, thirty years elapsed before a change of the law was effected. So far as I have been able to learn, the following section has disgraced the statute-book of South Carolina from the year 1740 to the present hour: 'In case any person shall wilfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye, cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any slave of any limb, or member, or shall inflict any other cruel punishment,—[otherwise than by whipping, or beating with a horsewhip, cowskin, switch, or small stick, or by putting irons on, or confining, or imprisoning such slave,]—every such person shall for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money.' Here is direct legislation to sanction beating without limit, with horsewhip or cowskin,—the application of irons to the human body,—and perpetual incarceration in a dungeon, according to the will of the master; and the mutilation of limbs is paid by a trifling penalty!
"The revised code of Louisiana declares: 'The slave is entirely subject to the will of the master, who may correct and chastise him, though not with unusual rigor, nor so as to maim or mutilate him, or to expose him to the danger of loss of life, or to cause his death.'" Who shall decide what punishment is unusual?
In Missouri, if a slave refuses to obey his or her master, mistress, overseer, or employer, in any lawful commands, such slaves may be committed to the county jail there to remain as long as his owner pleases.
In some of the States there are indeed restraining laws; but they are completely ineffectual from the difficulty of obtaining the evidence of white men.
"The same despotic power can be exerted by the attorney, manager, driver, or any other person who is, for the time being, placed over the slave by order of the owner, or his delegates. The following is the language of the Louisiana code; and it represents the established customs of all the slave holding States: 'The condition of a slave being merely a passive one, his subordination to his master, and to all who represent him, is not susceptible of any modification, or restriction, [except in what can incite the slave to the commission of crime] in such manner, that he owes to his master, and to all his family a respect without bounds, and an absolute obedience; and he is consequently to execute all the orders, which he receives from his said master, or from them.'"
What chance of mercy the slave has from the generality of overseers, may be conjectured from the following testimony given by a distinguished Virginian: Mr Wirt, in his "Life of Patrick Henry," speaking of the different classes in Virginia, says: "Last and lowest, a feculum of beings called overseers—the most abject, degraded unprincipled race—always cap in hand to the Dons who employed them, and furnishing materials for the exercise of their pride, insolence, and spirit of domination."
The Gentoo code, the most ancient in the world, allowed a wife, a son, a pupil, a younger brother, or a slave to be whipped with a lash, or bamboo twig, in such a manner as not to occasion any dangerous hurt; and whoever transgressed the rule, suffered the punishment of a thief. In this case, the slave and other members of the family were equally protected.
The Mosaic law was as follows: "If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his man servant's tooth, or his maid servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." Exodus, xxi. 26, 27.
Prop. 7.—The slave never allowed to resist a white man.
It is enacted in Georgia, "If any slave shall presume to strike any white man, such slave, upon trial and conviction before the justice, shall for the first offence, suffer such punishment as the said justice thinks fit, not extending to life or limb; and for the second offence, death." It is the same in South Carolina, excepting that death is there the punishment of the third offence.—However wanton and dangerous the attack upon the slave may be, he must submit; there is only one proviso—he may be excused for striking in defence of his master, overseer, &c. and of their property. In Maryland, a colored man, even if he be free, may have his ears cropped for striking a white man. In Kentucky, it is enacted that "if any negro, mulatto, or Indian, bond or free, shall at any time lift his or her hand, in opposition to any person not colored, they shall, the offence being proved before a justice of the peace, receive thirty lashes on his or her bare back, well laid on." There is a ridiculous gravity in the following section of a law in Louisiana: "Free people of color ought never to insult or strike white people, nor presume to conceive themselves equal to the whites; but on the contrary, they ought to yield to them on every occasion, and never speak or answer them but with respect, under the penalty of imprisonment, according to the nature of the offence."
Such laws are a positive inducement to violent and vicious white men to oppress and injure people of color. In this point of view, a negro becomes the slave of every white man in the community. The brutal drunkard, or the ferocious madman, can beat, rob, and mangle him with perfect impunity. Dr Torrey, in his "Portraiture of Domestic Slavery," relates an affecting anecdote, which happened near Washington. A free negro walking along the road, was set upon by two intoxicated ruffians on horseback, who, without any provocation, began to torture him for amusement. One of them tied him to the tail of his horse, and thus dragged him along, while the other followed, applying the lash. The poor fellow died by the road-side, in consequence of this treatment.
The owner may prosecute when a slave is rendered unfit for labor, by personal violence; and in the Reports of these cases many painful facts come to light which would otherwise have remained forever unknown. See Judicial Reports.
Prop. 8.—Slaves cannot redeem themselves or change masters.
Stroud says, "as to the right of redemption, this proposition holds good in all the slave-holding States; and is equally true as it respects the right to compel a change of masters, except in Louisiana. According to the new civil code of that State, the latter privilege may sometimes, perhaps, be obtained by the slave. But the master must first be convicted of cruelty—a task so formidable that it can hardly be ranked among possibilities; and secondly it is optional with the judge, whether or not, to make the decree in favor of the slave."
If a slave should not obtain a decree in his favor what has he to expect from a master exasperated against him, for making the attempt?
At Athens, so deservedly admired for the mildness of her slave laws, the door of freedom was opened widely. The abused slaves might fly to the Temple of Theseus, whence no one had a right to take them, except for the purpose of publicly investigating their wrongs. If their complaints were well founded, they were either enfranchised, or delivered to more merciful hands.
In the Roman Empire, from the time of Adrian and the Antonines, slaves were protected by the laws, and undue severity being proved, they received freedom or a different master.
By the Code Noir of the French islands, a slave cruelly treated is forfeited to the crown; and the court, which judges the offence, has power to confer freedom on the sufferer. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, a slave on complaint of ill-usage obtains public protection; he may be manumitted, or change his master.
Prop. 9.—Slave unprotected in his domestic relations.
In proof of this it is only necessary to repeat that the slave and his wife, and his daughters, are considered as the property of their owners, and compelled to yield implicit obedience—that he is allowed to give no evidence—that he must not resist any white man, under any circumstances, which do not interfere with his master's interest—and finally, that public opinion ridicules the slave's claim to any exclusive right in his own wife and children.
In Athens, the female slave could demand protection from the magistrates; and if her complaints of insulting treatment were well founded, she could be sold to another master, who, in his turn, forfeited his claim by improper conduct.
Prop. 10.—The laws obstruct emancipation.
In nearly all slave-holding States, a slave emancipated by his master's will, may be seized and sold to satisfy any debt. In Louisiana, fraud of creditors is by law considered as proved, if it can be made to appear that the master, at the moment of executing the deed of enfranchisement, had not sufficient property to pay all his debts; and if after payment of debts, there be not personal estate enough to satisfy the widow's claim to one third, his slaves, though declared to be free by his last will, are nevertheless liable to be sold for the widow's portion.—In South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, a valid emancipation can only be gained by authority of the Legislature, expressly granted. A slave owner cannot manumit his slaves without the formal consent of the Legislature. "In Georgia, any attempt to free a slave in any other manner than the prescribed form, is punished by a fine of two hundred dollars for each offence; and the slave or slaves are still, to all intents and purposes, in a state of slavery." A new act was passed in that State in 1818, by which any person, who endeavors to enfranchise a slave by will, testament, contract, or stipulation, or who contrives indirectly to confer freedom by allowing his slaves to enjoy the profit of their labor and skill, incurs a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars; and the slaves who have been the object of such benevolence, are ordered to be seized and sold at public outcry.
In North Carolina, "no slave is allowed to be set free, except for meritorious services, to be adjudged of and allowed by the county court, and license first had and obtained thereupon;" and any slave manumitted contrary to this regulation may be seized, put in jail, and sold to the highest bidder. In Mississippi all the above obstacles to emancipation are combined in one act.
In Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia, and Maryland, greater facilities are afforded to emancipation. An instrument in writing, signed by two witnesses, or acknowledged by the owner of the slave in open court, is sufficient; the court reserving the power to demand security for the maintenance of aged or infirm slaves. By the Virginia laws, an emancipated negro, more than twentyone years old, is liable to be again reduced to slavery, if he remain in the State more than twelve months after his manumission.
In Louisiana, a slave cannot be emancipated, unless he is thirty years old and has behaved well at least four years preceding his freedom; except a slave who has saved the life of his master, his master's wife, or one of his children. It is necessary to make known to the judge the intention of conferring freedom, who may authorize it, after it has been advertised at the door of the court house forty days, without exciting any opposition.
Stephens in his history of West India slavery, supposes that the colonial codes of England are the only ones expressly framed to obstruct emancipation. He is mistaken;—the American republics share that distinction with their mother country. There are plenty of better things in England to imitate.
According to the Mosaic law, a Hebrew could not retain his brother, whom he might buy as a servant, more than six years, against his consent, and in the seventh year he went out free for nothing. If he came by himself, he went out by himself; if he were married when he came, his wife went with him. Exodus, xxi. Deut. xv. Jeremiah, xxxiv. Besides this, Hebrew slaves were, without exception, restored to freedom by the Jubilee.—"Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land, and unto all the inhabitants thereof." Leviticus, xxv. 10.
At Athens, if the slave possessed property enough to buy his freedom, the law compelled the master to grant it, whenever the money was offered.
The severe laws of Rome discouraged manumission; but it was a very common thing for slaves to pay for freedom out of their peculium; and public opinion made it dishonorable to retain them in bondage under such circumstances. "According to Cicero, sober and industrious slaves, who became such by captivity in war, seldom remained in servitude above six years."
"In Turkey, the right of redemption is expressly regulated by the Koran. The master is commanded to give to all his slaves, that behave themselves faithfully, a writing, fixing beforehand the price at which they may be redeemed; and which he is bound to accept, when tendered by them, or on their behalf."
"In Brazil, a slave who can pay the value of his servitude, (the fair price of which may be settled by the magistrate,) has a right to demand his freedom. And the case frequently happens; for the slaves have one day in the week, and in some places two days, exclusively of Sundays and other festivals, which the industrious employ in providing a fund for their redemption."
"In the Spanish colonies, the law is still more liberal. The civil magistrates are empowered to decide upon the just price of a slave, and when the negro is able to offer this sum, his master is compelled to grant his freedom. He may even redeem himself progressively. For instance, by paying a sixth part of his appreciation, he may redeem for his own use one day in the week; by employing this industriously, he will soon be enabled to buy another day; by pursuing the same laudable course, the remainder of his time may be redeemed with continually accelerated progress, till he becomes entitled to entire manumission."
Prop. 11.—Operation of the laws interferes with religious privileges.
No places of public worship are prepared for the negro; and churches are so scarce in the slave holding States, compared with the number of white inhabitants, that it is not to be supposed great numbers of them follow their masters to such places; and if they did, what could their rude, and merely sensual minds comprehend of a discourse addressed to educated men? In Georgia, there is a law which forbids any congregation or company of negroes to assemble themselves contrary to the act regulating patrols. Every justice of the peace may go in person, or send a constable, to disperse any assembly or meeting of slaves, which may disturb the peace, endanger the safety, &c., and every slave taken at such meetings may, by order of the justice, without trial, receive on the bare back twentyfive stripes with whip, switch, or cowskin. In South Carolina, an act forbids the police officers to break into any place of religious meeting before nine o'clock, provided a majority of the assembly are white persons; but if the quorum of white people should happen to be wanting, every slave would be liable to twentyfive lashes of the cowskin.
These, and various similar regulations, are obviously made to prevent insurrections; but it is plain that they must materially interfere with the slave's opportunities for religious instruction. The fact is, there are inconveniences attending a general diffusion of Christianity in a slave holding State—light must follow its path, and that light would reveal the surrounding darkness,—slaves might begin to think whether slavery could be reconciled with religious precepts,—and then the system is quite too republican—it teaches that all men are children of the same Heavenly Father, who careth alike for all.
The West India planters boldly and openly declared, that slavery and Christianity could not exist together; in their minds the immediate inference was, that Christianity must be put down; and very consistently they began to fine and imprison Methodist missionaries, burn chapels,[7] &c.
In Rome, the introduction of "Christianity abolished slavery; the idea of exclusive property in our fellow men was too obviously at variance with its holy precepts; and its professors, in the sincerity of their hearts, made a formal surrender of such claims. In various ancient instruments of emancipation, the masters begin by declaring, that, 'for the love of God and Jesus Christ, for the easing of their consciences, and the safety of their souls,' they set their bondmen free."
"It is remarkable that the ancient inhabitants of Great Britain used to sell their countrymen, and even their own children, to the Irish. The port of Bristol, afterwards so famous for the African slave trade, was then equally distinguished as a market for the same commodity, though of a different color. But when Ireland, in the year 1172, was afflicted with public calamities, the clergy and people of that generous nation began to reproach themselves with the unchristian practice of holding their fellow men in slavery. Their English bondmen though fully paid for, were, by an unanimous resolution of the Armagh Assembly, set at liberty. Their repentance dictated present restitution to the injured. More than six hundred years afterward, when Mr Wilberforce made his first motion for the abolition of the slave trade, he was supported by every Irish member of the House of Commons." May God bless thee, warm hearted, generous old Ireland!
In the English and Dutch colonies, baptism was generally supposed to confer freedom on the slave; and for this reason, masters were reluctant to have them baptised. They got over this difficulty, however, and married self-interest to conscience, by making a law that "no slave should become free by being a Christian." This is a striking proof how closely Christianity and liberty are associated together.
A French planter of St Domingo, in a book which he published concerning that colony, admits that it is desirable to have negroes know enough of religion to make them friends to humanity, and grateful to their Creator; but he considers it very wrong to load their weak minds with a belief in supernatural dogmas, such as a belief in a future state. He says, "such knowledge is apt to render them intractable, averse to labor, and induces them to commit suicide on themselves and their children, of which the colony, the state, and commerce have equal need.
Our slave holders, in general, seem desirous to have the slave just religious enough to know that insurrections and murder are contrary to the maxims of Christianity; but it is very difficult to have them learn just so much as this, without learning more. In Georgia, I have been told, that a very general prejudice prevails against white missionaries. To avoid this danger, old domestic slaves, who are better informed than the plantation slaves, are employed to hear sermons and repeat them to their brethren; and their repetitions are said to be strange samples of pulpit eloquence. One of these old negroes, as the story goes, told his hearers that the Bible said slaves ought to get their freedom; and if they could not do it in any other way, they must murder their masters. The slaves had never been allowed to learn to read, and of course they could not dispute that such a doctrine was actually in the Scriptures. Thus do unjust and absurd laws "return to plague the inventor."
Prop. 12.—Whole power of the laws exerted to keep negroes in ignorance.
South Carolina made the first law upon this subject. While yet a province, she laid a penalty of one hundred pounds upon any person who taught a slave to write, or allowed him to be taught to write.[8] In Virginia, any school for teaching reading and writing, either to slaves, or free people of color, is considered an unlawful assembly, and may accordingly be dispersed, and punishment administered upon each pupil not exceeding twenty lashes.
In South Carolina, the law is the same.
The city of Savannah, in Georgia, a few years ago, passed an ordinance, by which "any person that teaches a person of color, slave or free, to read or write, or causes such persons to be so taught, is subjected to a fine of thirty dollars for each offence; and every person of color who shall teach reading or writing, is subject to a fine of thirty dollars, or to be imprisoned ten days and whipped thirtynine lashes."
From these facts it is evident that legislative power prevents a master from giving liberty and instruction to his slave, even when such a course would be willingly pursued by a benevolent individual. The laws allow almost unlimited power to do mischief; but the power to do good is effectually restrained.
Prop. 13.—There is a monstrous inequality of law and right.
In a civilized country, one would expect that if any disproportion existed in the laws, it would be in favor of the ignorant and defenceless; but the reverse is lamentably the case here. Obedience to the laws is the price freemen pay for the protection of the laws;—but the same legislatures which absolutely sanction the negro's wrongs, and, to say the least, make very inadequate provisions for his safety, claim the right to punish him with inordinate severity.
"In Kentucky, white men are condemned to death for four crimes only; slaves meet a similar punishment for eleven crimes. In South Carolina, white persons suffer death for twentyseven crimes; slaves incur a similar fate for thirtysix crimes. In Georgia, whites are punished capitally for three crimes only; slaves for at least nine.
Stroud says there are seventyone crimes in the slave States, for which negroes are punished with death, and for each and every one of these crimes the white man suffers nothing worse than imprisonment in the penitentiary.
"Trial by jury is utterly denied to the slave, even in criminal accusations which may affect his life, in South Carolina, Virginia, and Louisiana, instead of a jury, is substituted a tribunal composed of two justices of the peace and from three to five free-holders, (i. e. slave-holders.) In Virginia it is composed of five justices merely. What chance has an ignorant slave before a tribunal chosen by his accuser, suddenly convoked, and consisting of but five persons?"
If a slave is found out of the limits of the town in which he lives, or beyond the plantation on which he is usually employed, without a written permission from his master, or the company of some white person, any body may inflict twenty lashes upon him; and if the slave resist such punishment, he may be lawfully killed.
If a slave visit another plantation without leave in writing from his master, the owner of the plantation may give him ten lashes.
More than seven slaves walking or standing together in the road, without a white man, may receive twenty lashes each from any person.
Any slave, or Indian, who takes away, or lets loose a boat, from any place where it is fastened, receives thirtynine lashes for the first offence; and, according to some laws, one ear is cut off for the second offence.
For carrying gun, powder, shot, a club, or any weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive, thirtynine lashes by order of a justice; and in some States, twenty lashes from the nearest constable, without a conviction by the justice.
For selling any article, without a specific ticket from his master, ten lashes by the captain of the patrollers,[9] or thirtynine by order of a magistrate. The same punishment for being at any assembly deemed unlawful.
For travelling by himself from his master's land to any other place, unless by the most accustomed road, forty lashes; the same for travelling in the night without a pass; the same for being found in another negro's kitchen, or quarters; and every negro found in company with such vagrant, receives twenty lashes.
For hunting with dogs, even in the woods of his master, thirty lashes.
For running away and lurking in swamps, a negro may be lawfully killed by any person. If a slave happen to die of moderate correction, it is likewise justifiable homicide.
For endeavoring to entice another slave to run away, if provisions are prepared, the slave is punished with death; and any negro aiding or abetting suffers death.
Thirtynine stripes for harboring a runaway slave one hour.
For disobeying orders, imprisonment, as long as the master chooses.
For riding on horseback, without written permission, or for keeping a dog, twentyfive lashes.
For rambling, riding, or going abroad in the night, or riding horses in the day without leave, a slave may be whipped, cropped, or branded on the cheek with the letter R, or otherwise punished, not extending to life, or so as to unfit him for labor.
For beating the Patuxent river, to catch fish, ten lashes; for placing a seine across Transquakin, and Chickwiccimo creeks, thirtynine lashes by order of a justice.
For advising the murder of a person, one hundred lashes may be given.
A runaway slave may be put into jail, and the jailer must forthwith send a letter by mail, to the man whom the negro says is his owner. If an answer does not arrive at the proper time, the jailer must inflict twentyfive lashes, well laid on, and interrogate anew. If the slave's second statement be not corroborated by the letter from the owner, twentyfive lashes are again administered.—The act very coolly concludes thus: "and so on, for the space of six months, it shall be the duty of the jailer to interrogate and whip as aforesaid."
The letter may miscarry—the owner may reside at a great distance from the Post-Office, and thus long delays may occur—the ignorant slave may not know his master's christian name—the jailer may not spell it aright; but no matter—"it is the jailer's duty to interrogate and whip, as aforesaid."
The last authorized edition of the laws of Maryland, comprises the following: "If any slave be convicted of any petit treason, or murder, or wilfully burning of dwelling houses, it may be lawful for the justices to give judgment against such slave to have the right hand cut off, to be hanged in the usual manner, the head severed from the body, the body divided into four quarters, and the head and quarters set up in the most public places of the county," &c.
The laws of Tennessee and Missouri are comparatively mild; yet in Missouri it is death to prepare or administer medicine without the master's consent, unless it can be proved that there was no evil intention. The law in Virginia is similar; it requires proof that there was no evil intention, and that the medicine produced no bad consequences.
To estimate fully the cruel injustice of these laws, it must be remembered that the poor slave is without religious instruction, unable to read, too ignorant to comprehend legislation, and holding so little communication with any person better informed than himself, that the chance is, he does not even know the existence of half the laws by which he suffers. This is worthy of Nero, who caused his edicts to be placed so high that they could not be read, and then beheaded his subjects for disobeying them.
Prop. 14.—The laws operate oppressively on free colored people.
Free people of color, like the slaves, are excluded by law from all means of obtaining the common elements of education.
The free colored man may at any time be taken up on suspicion, and be condemned and imprisoned as a runaway slave, unless he can prove the contrary; and be it remembered, none but white evidence, or written documents, avail him. The common law supposes a man to be innocent, until he is proved guilty; but slave law turns this upside down. Every colored man is presumed to be a slave, till it can be proved otherwise; this rule prevails in all the slave States, except North Carolina, where it is confined to negroes. Stephens supposes this harsh doctrine to be peculiar to the British Colonial Code; but in this he is again mistaken—the American republics share the honor with England.
A law passed in December, 1822, in South Carolina, provides that any free colored persons coming into port on board of any vessel shall be seized and imprisoned during the stay of the vessel; and when she is ready to depart, the captain shall take such free negroes and pay the expenses of their arrest and imprisonment; and in case of refusing so to do, he shall be indicted and fined not less than one thousand dollars, and imprisoned not less than two months; and such free negroes shall be sold for slaves. The Circuit Court of the United States, adjudged the law unconstitutional and void. Yet nearly two years after this decision, four colored English seamen were taken out of the brig Marmion. England made a formal complaint to our Government. Mr Wirt the Attorney General gave the opinion that the law was unconstitutional. This, as well as the above mentioned decision, excited strong indignation in South Carolina. Notwithstanding the decision, the law still remains in force, and other States have followed the example of South Carolina, though with a more cautious observance of appearances.
In South Carolina, if any free negro harbor, conceal, or entertain, any runaway slave, or a slave charged with any criminal matter, he forfeits ten pounds for the first day, and twenty shillings for every succeeding day. In case of inability to pay, the free negro is sold at auction, and if any overplus remain, after the fines and attendant expenses are paid, it is put into the hands of the public treasurer.
The free negro may entertain a slave without knowing that he has done anything wrong; but his declaration to that effect is of no avail. Where every effort is made to prevent colored people from obtaining any money, they are of course often unable to pay the penalties imposed.
If any omission is made in the forms of emancipation established by law, any person whatsoever may seize the negro so manumitted, and appropriate him to their own use.
If a free colored person remain in Virginia twelve months after his manumission, he can be sold by the overseers of the poor for the benefit of the literary fund!
In Georgia, a free colored man, except a regular articled seaman, is fined one hundred dollars for coming into the State; and if he cannot pay it, may be sold at public outcry. This act has been changed to one of increased severity. A free colored person cannot be a witness against a white man. They may therefore be robbed, assaulted, kidnapped and carried off with impunity; and even the legislatures of the old slave States adopt it as a maxim that it is very desirable to get rid of them. It is of no avail to declare themselves free; the law presumes them to be slaves, unless they can prove to the contrary. In many instances written documents of freedom have been wrested from free colored people and destroyed by kidnappers. A lucrative internal slave trade furnishes constant temptation to the commission of such crimes; and the new States of Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, and the territories of Arkansas, and the Floridas, are not likely to be glutted for years to come.
In Philadelphia, though remote from a slave market, it has been ascertained that more than thirty free persons of color, were stolen and carried off within two years. Stroud says: "Five of these have been restored to their friends, by the interposition of humane gentlemen, though not without great expense and difficulty. The others are still in bondage; and if rescued at all, it must be by sending white witnesses a journey of more than a thousand miles."
I know the names of four colored citizens of Massachusetts, who went to Georgia on board a vessel, were seized under the laws of that State, and sold as slaves. They have sent the most earnest exhortations to their families and friends to do something for their relief; but the attendant expenses require more money than the friends of negroes are apt to have, and the poor fellows as yet remain unassisted.
A New York paper, November, 1829, contains the following caution:
"Beware of kidnappers!—It is well understood that there is at present in this city, a gang of kidnappers, busily engaged in their vocation of stealing colored children for the Southern market! It is believed that three or four have been stolen within as many days. A little negro boy came to this city from the country three or four days ago. Some strange white persons were very friendly to him, and yesterday morning he was mightily pleased that they had given him some new clothes. And the persons pretending thus to befriend him, entirely secured his confidence. This day he cannot be found.—Nor can he be traced since seen with one of his new friends yesterday. There are suspicions of a foul nature, connected with some who serve the police in subordinate capacities. It is hinted that there may be those in some authority, not altogether ignorant of these diabolical practices. Let the public be on their guard! It is still fresh in the memories of all, that a cargo, or rather drove, of negroes was made up from this city and Philadelphia, about the time that the emancipation of all the negroes in this State took place under our present constitution, and were taken through Virginia, the Carolinas, and Tennessee, and disposed of in the state of Mississippi. Some of those who were taken from Philadelphia were persons of intelligence, and after they had been driven through the country in chains, and disposed of by sale on the Mississippi, wrote back to their friends, and were rescued from bondage. The persons who were guilty of this abominable transaction are known, and now reside in North Carolina; they may, very probably, be engaged in similar enterprises at the present time—at least there is reason to believe that the system of kidnapping free persons of color from the Northern cities has been carried on more extensively than the public are generally aware of."
This, and other evils of the system, admit of no radical cure but the utter extinction of slavery. To enact laws prohibiting the slave traffic, and at the same time tempt avarice by the allurements of an insatiable market, is irreconcilable and absurd.
To my great surprise, I find that the free States of Ohio and Indiana disgrace themselves by admitting the same maxim of law, which prevents any black or mulatto from being witness against a white man!
It is naturally supposed that free negroes will sympathize with their enslaved brethren, and that, notwithstanding all exertions to the contrary, they will become a little more intelligent; this excites a peculiar jealousy and hatred in the white population, of which it is impossible to enumerate all the hardships. Even in the laws, slaves are always mentioned before free people of color; so desirous are they to degrade the latter class below the level of the former. To complete the wrong, this unhappy class are despised in consequence of the very evils we ourselves have induced—for as slavery inevitably makes its victims servile and vicious, and as none but negroes are allowed to be slaves, we, from our very childhood, associate everything that is degraded with the mere color; though in fact the object of our contempt may be both exemplary and intelligent. In this way the Africans are doubly the victims of our injustice; and thus does prejudice "make the meat it feeds on."
I have repeatedly said that our slave laws are continually increasing in severity: as a proof of this I will give a brief view of some of the most striking, which have been passed since Stroud published his compendium of slave laws, in 1827. In the first class are contained those enactments directly oppressive to people of color; in the second are those which injure them indirectly, by the penalties or disabilities imposed upon the whites, who instruct, assist, or employ them, or endeavor, in any way, to influence public opinion in their favor.
Class First.—The Legislature of Virginia passed a law in 1831, by which any free colored person who undertakes to preach, or conduct any religious meeting, by day or night, may be whipped not exceeding thirtynine lashes, at the discretion of any justice of the peace; and anybody may apprehend any such free colored person without a warrant. The same penalty, adjudged and executed in the same way, falls upon any slave, or free colored person, who attends such preaching; and any slave who listens to any white preacher, in the night time, receives the same punishment. The same law prevails in Georgia, and Mississippi. A master may permit a slave to preach on his plantation, to none but his slaves.
There is a naïveté in the following preamble to a law passed by North Carolina, in 1831, which would be amusing, if the subject were not too serious for mirth: "Whereas teaching slaves to read and write has a tendency to excite dissatisfaction in their minds, and to produce insurrection and rebellion," therefore it is enacted that teaching a slave to read or write, or giving or selling to a slave any book, or pamphlet, shall be punished with thirtynine lashes, if the offender be a free black, or with imprisonment at the discretion of the court; if a slave, the offence is punishable with thirtynine lashes, on his or her bare back, on conviction before a justice of the peace.
In Georgia, any slave, or free person of color, is for a similar offence, fined or whipped, or fined and whipped at the discretion of the court.
In Louisiana, twelve months' imprisonment is the penalty for teaching a slave to read or write.
For publishing, or circulating, in the state of North Carolina, any pamphlet or paper having an evident tendency to excite slaves, or free persons of color, to insurrection or resistance, imprisonment not less than one year, and standing in the pillory, and whipping, at the discretion of the court for the first offence; and death for the second. The same offence punished with death in Georgia, without any reservation. In Mississippi, the same as in Georgia. In Louisiana, the same offence punished either with imprisonment for life, or death, at the discretion of the court. In Virginia, the first offence of this sort is punished with thirtynine lashes, the second with death.
With regard to publications having a tendency to promote discontent among slaves, their masters are so very jealous, that it would be difficult to find any book, that would not come under their condemnation. The Bible, and the Declaration of Independence are certainly unsafe. The preamble to the North Carolina law declares, that the Alphabet has a tendency to excite dissatisfaction; I suppose it is because freedom may be spelt out of it. A store keeper in South Carolina was nearly ruined by having unconsciously imported certain printed handkerchiefs, which his neighbors deemed seditious. A friend of mine asked, "Did the handkerchiefs contain texts from scripture? or quotations from the Constitution of the United States?"
Emancipated slaves must quit North Carolina in ninety days after their enfranchisement, on pain of being sold for life. Free persons of color who shall migrate into that State, may be seized and sold as runaway slaves; and if they migrate out of the State for more than ninety days, they can never return under the same penalty.
This extraordinary use of the word migrate furnishes a new battering ram against the free colored class, which is everywhere so odious to slave owners. A visit to relations in another State may be called migrating; being taken up and detained by kidnappers, over ninety days, may be called migrating;—for where neither the evidence of the sufferer nor any of his own color is allowed, it will evidently amount to this.
In South Carolina, if a free negro cross the line of the State, he can never return.
In 1831, Mississippi passed a law to expel all colored persons under sixty and over sixteen years of age from the State, within ninety days, unless they could prove good characters, and obtain from the court a certificate of the same, for which they paid three dollars; these certificates might be revoked at the discretion of the county courts. If such persons do not quit the State within the time specified, or if they return to it, they may be sold for a term not exceeding five years.
In Tennessee, slaves are not allowed to be emancipated unless they leave the State forthwith. Any free colored person emigrating into this State, is fined from ten to fifty dollars, and hard labor in the penitentiary from one to two years.
North Carolina has made a law subjecting any vessel with free colored persons on board to thirty days' quarantine; as if freedom were as bad as the cholera! Any person of color coming on shore from such vessels is seized and imprisoned, till the vessel departs; and the captain is fined five hundred dollars; and if he refuse to take the colored seaman away, and pay all the expenses of his imprisonment, he is fined five hundred more. If the sailor do not depart within ten days after his captain's refusal, he must be whipped thirtynine lashes; and all colored persons, bond or free, who communicate with him, receive the same.
In Georgia, there is a similar enactment. The prohibition is, in both States, confined to merchant vessels, (it would be imprudent to meddle with vessels of war;) and any colored person communicating with such seamen is whipped not exceeding thirty lashes. If the captain refuse to carry away seamen thus detained, and pay the expenses of their imprisonment, he shall be fined five hundred dollars, and also imprisoned, not exceeding three months.
These State laws are a direct violation of the Laws of Nations, and our treaties; and may involve the United States in a foreign war.
Colored seamen are often employed in Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English vessels. These nations are bound to know the United States Laws; but can they be expected to know the enactments of particular States and cities? and if they know them, are they bound to observe them, if they interfere with the established rules of nations? When Mr Wirt pronounced these laws unconstitutional, great excitement was produced in South Carolina. The Governor of that State in his Message to the Legislature implied that separation from the Union was the only remedy, if the laws of the Southern States could not be enforced. They seem to require unconditional submission abroad as well as at home.
The endeavor to prevent insurrections in this way, is as wise as to attempt to extinguish fire with spirits of wine. The short-sighted policy defeats itself. A free colored sailor was lately imprisoned with seven slaves: Here was a fine opportunity to sow the seeds of sedition in their minds!
The upholders of slavery will in vain contend with the liberal spirit of the age; it is too strong for them.—They may as well try to bottle up the sunshine for their own exclusive use, as to attempt to keep knowledge and freedom to themselves. We all know that such an experiment would result in bottling up darkness for themselves, while exactly the same amount of sunshine remained abroad for the use of their neighbors.
In North Carolina, free negroes are whipped, fined, and imprisoned at the discretion of the court, for intermarrying with slaves.
In Georgia, free colored persons when unable to pay any fine, may be sold for a space of time not exceeding five years. This limitation does not probably avail much; if sold to another master before the five years expired, they would never be likely to be free again.
Several other laws have been passed in Georgia, prohibiting slaves from living apart from their master, either to labor for other persons, or to sell refreshments, or to carry on any trade or business although with their master's consent. Any person of color, bond or free, is forbidden to occupy any tenement except a kitchen or an outhouse, under penalty of from twenty to fifty lashes. Some of these laws are applicable only to particular cities, towns, or counties; others to several counties.
Sundry general laws of a penal nature have been made more penal; and the number of offences, for which a colored person may suffer death, is increased.
A law passed in Tennessee, in 1831, provides that negroes for conspiracy to rebel, shall be punished with whipping, imprisonment and pillory, at the discretion of the court; it has this curious proviso—"Householders may serve as jurors, if slave-holders cannot be had!"[10] The Southern courts need to have a great deal of discretion, since so much is trusted to it.
Class Second.—In Virginia, white persons who teach any colored person to read or write, are fined not exceeding fifty dollars; for teaching slaves for pay, from ten to twenty dollars for each offence.
In Georgia, a similar offence is fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, and imprisoned at the discretion of the court. Knowledge seems to be peculiarly pokerish in Georgia.
In North Carolina, if a white person teach a slave to read or write, or give or sell him any book, &c., he is fined from one to two hundred dollars.
In Louisiana, any white person, who teaches a slave to read or write, is imprisoned one year. And if any person shall use any language from the bar, bench, stage, pulpit, or any other place,—or hold any conversation having a tendency to promote discontent among free colored people, or insubordination among slaves, he may be imprisoned at hard labor, not less than three, nor more than twentyone years; or he may suffer death—at the discretion of the court.
In Mississippi, a white man, who prints or circulates doctrines, sentiments, advice, or innuendoes, likely to produce discontent among the colored class, is fined from one hundred to a thousand dollars, and imprisoned from three to twelve months.
All the States which have pronounced an anathema against books and alphabets, have likewise forbidden that any colored man shall be employed in a printing office, under the penalty of ten dollars for every offence.
In Mississippi, any white who employs, or receives a free colored person, without a certificate of freedom, written on parchment, forfeits one thousand dollars.
If any master, in that State, allows his slaves to sell any wares or merchandise out of the incorporated towns, he is liable to a fine of from fifty to five hundred dollars.
In Virginia, any person who buys of a slave any article belonging to his master, forfeits from ten to fifty dollars; if the purchase be made on Sunday, ten dollars more are added to the fine for each article.
This enactment is evidently made to prevent a slave from obtaining any money, or holding communication with freemen; a particular proviso is made against Sunday, because the slave has usually more leisure on that day. It is to be remembered that all a slave has belongs to his master.
To carry a slave out of North Carolina, or conceal him with intent to carry him out, is punished with death.
If a runaway slave die in prison, before he or she can be sold, the county pays the sheriff and jailer; formerly these officers depended on the life and marketableness of their prisoners for security; but even this poor motive for kindness is now taken away. If ninetynine out of a hundred die in prison, they will be heard of only in the jailer's bill. I never heard or read of an inquest upon the body of a slave found dead. Under the term "runaway slaves" are included many free colored persons taken up unjustly.
Well might Jefferson say, "I tremble for my country, when I reflect that God is just!"
In travelling over this dreary desert, it is pleasant to arrive at one little oasis: Louisiana has enacted that slaves brought into that State for sale, shall forthwith be set free; but they must be sent out of the State.
It is worthy of remark that England pursues a totally different course with regard to allowing slaves to communicate with free people. Their recent laws are all calculated to make it easy for the slave to obtain a fair hearing from people who have no interest to suppress his complaints. He may go upon any plantation, and communicate with any person; and whoever tries to prevent his going to a magistrate is guilty of a misdemeanor.
They have abolished all distinction between white and colored witnesses.
The law expressly stipulates the quality and quantity of provisions.
Inquest is held upon the bodies of slaves dying suddenly, or from any suspected violence.
Use of the cart whip prohibited; and no female to be punished except by order of the court.
Only fifteen lashes allowed as a punishment to men for one offence, and in one day; two kinds of punishment never allowed for one offence.
When a slave is punished, two competent witnesses must be present.
The owner is obliged to keep a record of domestic punishments and the causes.
Marriages among slaves are encouraged, and husband and wife are not allowed to be sold separately. Children under sixteen years old cannot be separated from their parents.
Masters illegally punishing their slaves, are subject to fine, imprisonment, and loss of the slave, for the first offence; for the second offence, sequestration of all their slaves.
Free colored representatives are allowed to take their seat in the legislature, and share all the other privileges of British subjects.
Yet these humane laws, so carefully framed in favor of the defenceless, have been found insufficient to protect the slave. Experience proves, what reason clearly points out, that the force of good laws must be weakened by the very nature of this unholy relation. Where there is knowledge and freedom on one side, and ignorance and servitude on the other, evasions and subterfuges will of course be frequent. Hence English philanthropists have universally come to the conclusion that nothing effectual can be done, unless slavery itself be destroyed.
The limits of this work compel me to pass by many enactments in our slave-holding States, which would throw still more light on this dark subject.
I have laid open some of the laws which do actually exist, and are constantly enforced in this free country; and knowing all this, and still more, to be true, I blush and hang my head, whenever I hear any one boast of our "glorious institutions."
The slave-holders insist that their humanity is so great, as to render all their ferocious laws perfectly harmless. Are the laws then made on purpose to urge tender-hearted masters to be so much worse than they really desire to be? The democrats of the South appear to be less scrupulous about the liberties of others, than the Autocrat of the Russias;—for, when Madame de Staël told the Emperor Alexander that his character answered instead of a constitution for his country, he replied, "Then, madam, I am but a lucky accident." How much more emphatically may it be said, that the slave's destiny is a matter of chance! Reader, would you trust the very best man you know, with your time, your interests, your family, and your life, unless the contract were guarded on every side by the strong arm of the law? If a money-loving neighbor could force you to toil, and could gain a certain number of dollars for every hour of your labor, how much rest should you expect to have?
It is utter nonsense to say that generosity of disposition is a protection against tyranny, where all the power is on one side. It may be, and it no doubt is so, in particular instances; but they must be exceptions to the general rule.
We all know that the Southerners have a high sense of what the world calls honor, and that they are brave, hospitable, and generous to people of their own color; but the more we respect their virtues, the more cause is there to lament the demoralizing system, which produces such unhappy effects on all who come within its baneful influence. Most of them may be as kind as can be expected of human nature, endowed with almost unlimited power to do wrong; and some of them may be even more benevolent than the warmest friend of the negro would dare to hope; but while we admit all this, we must not forget that there is in every community a class of men, who will not be any better than the laws compel them to be.
Captain Riley, in his Narrative, says: "Strange as it may seem to the philanthropist, my free and proud spirited countrymen still hold a million and a half[11] of human beings in the most cruel bonds of slavery; who are kept at hard labor, and smarting under the lash of inhuman, mercenary drivers; in many instances enduring the miseries of hunger, thirst, imprisonment, cold, nakedness, and even tortures. This is no picture of the imagination. For the honor of human nature, I wish likenesses were nowhere to be found! I myself have witnessed such scenes in different parts of my own country; and the bare recollection of them now chills my blood with horror."
When the slave owners talk of their gentleness and compassion, they are witnesses in their own favor, and have strong motives for showing the fairest side. But what do the laws themselves imply? Are enactments ever made against exigencies which do not exist? If negroes have never been scalded, burned, mutilated, &c. why are such crimes forbidden by an express law, with the marvellous proviso, except said slave die of "moderate punishment"? If a law sanctioning whipping to any extent, incarceration at the discretion of the master, and the body loaded with irons, is called a restraining law, let me ask what crimes must have been committed, to require prohibition, where so much is allowed? The law, which declares that slaves shall be compelled to labor only fourteen or fifteen hours a day, has the following preamble: "Whereas many owners of slaves, managers, &c. do confine them so closely to hard labor that they have not sufficient time for natural rest," &c. Mr Pinckney, in a public argument, speaking of slaves murdered by severe treatment, says: "The frequency of the crime is no doubt owing to the nature of the punishment." The reader will observe that I carefully refrain from quoting the representations of party spirit, and refer to facts only for evidence.
Where the laws are made by the people, a majority of course approve them; else they would soon be changed. It must therefore in candor be admitted, that the laws of a State speak the prevailing sentiments of the inhabitants.
Judging by this rule, what inference must be drawn from the facts stated above? "At Sparta, the freeman is the freest of all men, and the slave is the greatest of slaves."
Our republic is a perfect Pandora's box to the negro, only there is no hope at the bottom. The wretchedness of his fate is not a little increased by being a constant witness of the unbounded freedom enjoyed by others: the slave's labor must necessarily be like the labor of Sisiphus; and here the torments of Tantalus are added.
Slavery is so inconsistent with free institutions, and the spirit of liberty is so contagious under such institutions, that the system must either be given up, or sustained by laws outrageously severe; hence we find that our slave laws have each year been growing more harsh than those of any other nation.
Shall I be told that all these regulations are necessary for the white man's safety? What then, let me indignantly ask, what must the system be that requires to be supported by such unnatural, such tyrannical means! The very apology pronounces the condemnation of slavery—for it proves that it cannot exist without producing boundless misery to the oppressed, and perpetual terror to the oppressor.
In our fourth of July orations, we are much in the habit of talking about the tyranny of England! and there is no doubt that broad and deep stains do rest upon her history. But there is a vulgar proverb that "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." In judging of national, as well as individual wrong, it is fair to consider the amount of temptation. England has had power, more extensive and permanent than any nation since the decline of Rome: the negroes and the Indians are the only people who have been dependent on our justice and generosity—and how have we treated them?
It is a favorite argument that we are not to blame for slavery, because the British engrafted it upon us, while we were colonies. But did we not take the liberty to change English laws and customs, when they did not suit us? Why not put away this, as well as other evils of much less consequence? It could have been done easily, at the time of our confederation; it can be done now.—Have not other nations been making alterations for the better, on this very subject, since we became independent? Is not England trying with all her might to atone for the wrong she has done? Does not the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of each individual State, make provision for such changes as shall tend to the public good?
The plain truth is, the continuation of this system is a sin; and the sin rests upon us: It has been eloquently said that "by this excuse, we try to throw the blame upon our ancestors, and leave repentance to posterity."
- ↑ In the new slave States, there are a great many negroes, who can speak no other language than some of the numerous African dialects.
- ↑ This shirt is usually made of a coarse kind of bagging.
- ↑ See Western Review, No. 2, on the Agriculture of Louisiana.
- ↑ A white man engaged in a disturbance was accompanied by three or four slaves; his counsel contended that there were not persons enough in the affair to constitute a riot, because the slaves were mere chattels in the eye of the law. It was however decided that when liable to the punishment of the law, they were persons.
- ↑ "It has been judicially determined that it is justifiable to kill a slave, resisting, or offering to resist his master, by force."—Stroud.
- ↑ "The outlawry of a slave is not, I believe, an unusual occurrence. Very recently, a particular account was given of the killing of a black man, not charged with any offence by a person in pursuit of an outlawed slave; owing as it was stated, to the person killed not answering a call made by his pursuers. Whether the call was heard or not, of course could not be ascertained, nor did it appear to have excited any inquiry."—Stroud.
- ↑ The slaves of any one owner may meet together for religious purposes, if authorized by their master, and private chaplains may be hired to preach to them. The domestic slaves, who are entirely employed in the family, no doubt fare much better in this respect, than the plantation slaves; but this, and all other negro privileges, depend entirely upon the slave's luck in the character of his master.
- ↑ Yet it has been said that these laws are entirely owing to the rash efforts of the abolitionists.
- ↑ The patrols are very generally low and dissipated characters, and the cruelties which negroes suffer from them, while in a state of intoxication, are sometimes shocking. The law endows these men with very great power.
- ↑ The Common Law assigns for the trial of a foreigner, six jurors of his own nation, and six native Englishmen.
- ↑ There are now over two millions.