master pretended to have no property in his slave's manumitted friend, never paid taxes for her, and often spoke of her as a free negro. But, from some motive or other, he afterward claimed Sally as his slave, on the ground that no slave could make any purchase on his own account, or possess anything which did not legally belong to his master. It is an honor to Chief Justice Rutledge that his charge was given in a spirit better than the laws. He concluded by saying, "If the wench chose to appropriate the savings of her extra labor to the purchase of this girl, in order to set her free, will a jury of the country say, No? I trust not. I hope they are too upright and humane, to do such manifest violence to such an extraordinary act of benevolence." By the prompt decision of the jury, Sally was declared free.[1]
In speaking of the character of negroes, it ought not to be omitted that many of them were brave and faithful soldiers during our Revolution. Some are now receiving pensions for their services. At New Orleans, likewise, the conduct of the colored troops was deserving of the highest praise.
It is common to speak of the negroes as a very unfeeling race; and no doubt the charge has considerable truth when applied to those in a state of bondage: for slavery blunts the feelings, as well as stupifies the intellect. The poor negro is considered as having no right in his wife and children. They may be suddenly torn from him to be sold in a distant market; but he cannot prevent the wrong. He may see them exposed to every species of insult and indignity; but the law, which stretches forth her broad shield to guard the white man's rights, excludes the negro from her protection. They may be tied to the whipping post and die under moderate punishment; but he dares not complain. If he murmur, there is the tormenting lash; if he resist, it is death.—And the injustice extends even beyond the grave; for the story of the slave is told by his oppressor, and the manly spirit which the poor creature shows, when stung
- ↑ Stroud says of the above, "This is an isolated case, of pretty early date; it deserves to be noticed because it is in opposition to the spirit of the laws, and to later decisions of the courts."
